Destiny USA Reaches the Green Bonds Finish Line

ccheatha@wthf.com (Chris Cheatham) — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 12:11:57 GMT

I apologize for the recent hiatus here at Green Building Law Update. If you want to see what I have been up to, check out ClaimKit (www.claimkit.com).

Now, on to green building legal news.

You may recall that in 2011, I published many, many articles on the Destiny USA project. Here's a quick summary of the Destiny USA story:

In 2007, the developer of a large-scale mall project received $228 million from a federal Green Bonds program in exchange for installing green building and renewable energy technologies. The developer recently revealed the many of the green technologies will not be incorporated as promised.

As reported by Rick Moriarty, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) notified the Syracuse Industrial Development Agency on March 17 (2011) that it would be auditing the Green Bonds issued by the Agency to the Destiny USA developer. . . .

If the IRS were to determine that non-compliance occurred, then the Destiny USA project could have lost hundreds of millions of dollars in estimated tax breaks.

One year later, the IRS has come out with a ruling on the Destiny USA's compliance with the Green Bonds program:

The IRS notified the Syracuse Industrial Development Agency Thursday that it has closed its audit of the bonds “with no change to the position that interest received by the beneficial owners of the bonds is excludible from gross income” under federal tax code.

In other words, income received on the bonds will continue to be exempt from federal income taxes.

The ruling also permits the release of $2.3 million that the developer had been required to hold in reserve. If the IRS had found the project out of compliance with the terms of the green bond program, it could have seized the $2.3 million as a penalty.

The IRS ruling fascinates me. By finding the Destiny USA project complied with the Green Bond requirements, the IRS essentially conceded that the Destiny USA project simply had to promise to deliver green technologies in exchange for the Green Bond financing. In a February 2011 letter to the IRS, the Destiny USA developer argued that the legislation simply required a promise to deliver the technology:

On February 21, 2010, Syracuse Post-Dispatch reporter Rick Moriarty published a story that disclosed the contents of a draft letter addressed to the IRS by the Syracuse Industrial Development Agency. In the letter, the Agency and developer first divulge that many of the green building and renewable energy features that were promised as part of the Green Bonds program will not be included in the completed project. The letter blames the economy for changes to the project.

...

The letter then moves to the crux of the compliance argument. The Agency and developer assert that actual installation of renewable energy systems was not required. Instead, the letter claims the developer was only required to make promises related to renewable energy and LEED certification in order to qualify for the bonds. They conclude that the financial benefits of the Green Bonds program and the forfeiture of the Reserve Account do not depend on actual achievement of the green building and renewable energy goals.

I think it's fair to say the Green Bonds legislation was fundamentally flawed. I can't imagine that the legislators would have been satisfied with a simple "promise" to deliver green technology in exchange for hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks.

And so ends the Destiny USA debacle.

Photo Credit: Ben Sheperd

Proposed Decision Adopting Metrics to Measure Smart Grid Deployments

Thu, 22 Mar 2012 01:07:53 GMT

The California Public Utilities Commission released a much awaited proposed decision on March 20th regarding metrics to measure the deployment of the smart grid in the PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E service territories. The consensus metrics can be found in Attachment A to the proposed decision. The consensus consists of 19 metrics that the utilities will report … Continue reading →

The consensus metrics can be found in Attachment A to the proposed decision. The consensus consists of 19 metrics that the utilities will report on as part of their annual reports.

Specifically, the metrics are related to Customer/AMI metrics; plug-in electric vehicle metrics; storage metrics; and grid operations metrics.

The Decision does establish 4 technical groups to address

1) updates or revisions to the metrics adopted herein, if needed;
2) the creation of metrics related to cyber-security;
3) the creation of metrics related to environmental
benefits; and,
4) the creation of broad goals to focus all stakeholders toward a
common vision.

Opening Comments on the proposed decision are due Monday April 9. Reply comments on the proposed decision are due Monday, April 16.

The U.S Supreme Court Decided Today A Significant CWA Case

Wed, 21 Mar 2012 22:44:17 GMT

Today the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously (with two concurring decisions) decided Sackett v. EPA - a case that everyone in the environmental law business has been anxiously awaiting. The issue concerns whether a USEPA unilateral compliance order issued under the Clean Water Act was subject to judicial review. USEPA had issued the Sacketts a compliance order asserting the Sacketts had illegally filled jurisdictional wetlands. The compliance order directed the Sacketts to immediately restore the wetland and subjected them to stiff daily penalties for every day they failed to comply with the order. The USEPA argued their compliance order was not subject to judicial review. (We note the Court did not provide any insight into what is a jurisdictional water subject to regulation. However, the Court did admonish Congress and the USEPA for failing to provide clear direction on the issue.)

The Supreme Court found the compliance order did require due process review - a direction the Court signaled during heated oral arguments. This decision opens a brand new opportunity for persons who receive unilateral orders from EPA. While the decision is based on the Clean Water Act, its implications will be interesting to watch!

US v. John Emerson Tuma - Jury Verdict - Follow-up

james@jamespllc.com (Walter James) — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 22:41:10 GMT

The sentencing is scheduled for July 25, 2012, at 2:30 p.m. More later. As always, feel free to contact me at walter.james@jamespllc.com. WDJiii

The sentencing is scheduled for July 25, 2012, at 2:30 p.m.

More later.

As always, feel free to contact me at walter.james@jamespllc.com.

WDJiii

EPA Loses -- Unanimously -- In Sackett: How Broadly Does It Sweep?

sjaffe@foleyhoag.com (Seth Jaffe) — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 21:54:36 GMT

For once, speculation about oral argument proved solid. The Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling today in Sackett v. EPA means that EPA must allow judicial review of enforcement orders issued pursuant to its authority under the Clean Water Act. The question now is what the true scope of the decision will be. That question really has two parts.

The first is what will happen to CWA enforcement. On that score, I actually largely share Justice Alito’s view:

The Court’s decision provides a modest measure of relief. At least, property owners like petitioners will have the right to challenge the EPA’s jurisdictional determination under the Administrative Procedure Act. But the combination of the uncertain reach of the Clean Water Act and the draconian penalties imposed for the sort of violations alleged in this case still leaves most property owners with little practical alternative but to dance to the EPA’s tune.

Unfortunately, the heavy hand of government regulation only got a little lighter as a result of this decision, and Justice Alito is absolutely correct that uncertainty about jurisdiction does not help land owners. We’re not done with post-Rapanos litigation.

The broader question of course is what happens to EPA’s authority under other statutes. It’s difficult to see how EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act fairs any better than its CWA authority. The language in the CAA is very similar – and it certainly does not contain an explicit statutory preclusion on pre-enforcement review.

CERCLA, on the other hand, likely survives, at least for now. It specifically provides that

No Federal court shall have jurisdiction … to review any order issued under section 9606(a) of this title, in any action except one of the following:

(1) An action under section 9607 of this title to recover response costs or damages or for contribution.

(2) An action to enforce an order issued under section 9606(a) of this title or to recover a penalty for violation of such order.

Analysis of whether the Clean Water Act bars judicial review of enforcement orders seems critical to the Court’s holding. The Court specifically noted that “nothing in the Clean Water Act expressly precludes judicial review under the APA or otherwise.” The italics on “expressly” are Justice Scalia’s, not mine. One might almost conclude that those italics were provided precisely so that GE would not get too excited about renewing its challenge to CERCLA’s order authority.

Turning back to Justice Alito, his concurrence suggests that he would probably be willing to entertain a constitutional challenge. However, given the path of GE’s challenge and the unanimous decision in Sackett grounded squarely in the language of the Clean Water Act, rather than due process, I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that it’s going to be difficult to win a challenge to EPA’s bar on preenforcement review of enforcement orders under CERCLA. Of course, stranger things have happened, so perhaps I shouldn't speculate.

US v. John Emerson Tuma - Jury Verdict

james@jamespllc.com (Walter James) — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 21:52:51 GMT

The jury returned at 4:30 p.m. Guilty on all five counts (conspiracy, obstruction, and three felony CWA counts). More later. As always, feel free to contact me at Walter.james@jamespllc.com. WDJiii

Can You Reduce Carbon and Save on Taxes?

Wed, 21 Mar 2012 21:27:24 GMT

Ernst & Young has conducted a study on the issue of reducing taxes through environmental and sustainability programs--cutting carbon can lead to lower taxes in some instances. The study results...

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

The Sackett Decision and Its Implications for Hydraulic Fracturing

ewaeckerlin@kelleydrye.com (Eric Waeckerlin) — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 20:04:51 GMT

Posted by Eric Waeckerlin

With stunning alacrity, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion [PDF] today in Sackett v. EPA (roughly two months since oral argument), resolutely and unanimously striking down EPA’s position that the Clean Water Act (CWA) does not provide pre-enforcement judicial review of compliance orders. This blog has covered the Sackett

New law regulating Internet Information Service Providers comes into force in China

gjacobs@reedsmith.com (Greg Jacobs) — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 18:41:22 GMT

This post was written by Cynthia O'Donoghue and Zack Dong.

New regulations governing the activities of Internet Information Service Providers (“IISPs”) unveiled
by the Chinese Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (“CMIIT”) in December came into
force on 15 March. The “Several Provisions on Regulation of the Market Order of Internet Information Services” (“Provisions”) aim to enhance the protections available to Internet users in China in areas such as Internet security, data protection and online advertising.

For a more detailed analysis, please click here.

US v. John Emerson Tuma - Day Eight - Closing

james@jamespllc.com (Walter James) — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 18:31:20 GMT

Closing began at 9:30 a.m. today in the case. Each side had one hour. The government reserved ten minutes for rebuttal. Leslie Lehnert argued the case for the government. She set the tone early - the case turned on the...

Closing began at 9:30 a.m. today in the case. Each side had one hour. The government reserved ten minutes for rebuttal.

Leslie Lehnert argued the case for the government. She set the tone early - the case turned on the credibility of the witnesses. She argued that Wayne Mallet, Todd Cage and Cody Tuma had no reason or motive to lie. She also did not dispute what the operations at the facility were supposed to be - that the facility was supposed to be treating waste water. But, she continued, the facility had to discharge millions of gallons of water to keep up with the waste water coming in to the facility. Ms. Lehnert recounted the testimony of the City of Shreveport employees that the facility was discharging when it was not supposed to be discharging. She recounted the testimony of regarding the discharges in August and December 2006. She recounted the testimony of Wayne Mallet, Todd Cage and Cody Tuma regarding discharges to the Red River. She reminded the jury of the testimony of Charles Burns with Republic Contractors that there was no cap on the outfall when the December 2006 line was installed. She questioned why there was a need for the blue pipe extension into the Red River when the facility had no permit to discharge to the Red River. She conceded that monitoring equipment was installed; but recounted the testimony of Wayne Mallet, Todd Cage and Cody Tuma that it was bypassed. The recounted how Wayne Mallet, Todd Cage and Cody Tuma would watch for a white van signaling that the City was approaching.

Ms. Lehnert reminded the jury of Ana-Lab’s testimony that it did not control the discharges to the Red River or the valve that lead to the Red River. She discussed the fused pipe installed in October 2007 for which there was no purpose. She recounted how John Tuma could not tell the jury how long it would take the facility to treat even just one truck load of waste water. She recounted the site visits by Ken AuBuchon and the troubles he encountered. Finally, she reminded the jury that the plant worked so well that the new owners dismantled it.

Jim Boren handled the closing for the defense. He presented what I would describe as a typical defense oriented closing (and we would expect no less). It was a passionate argument that hammered on the credibility of Wayne Mallet, Todd Cage and Cody Tuma: “This is America – we demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” He detailed, once again, that the facility worked. He argued that the government found and caught three people, Wayne Mallet, Todd Cage and Cody Tuma, who were guilty and they blamed John Tuma. He argued that the government ignored Charles Tubbs and the other thirty employees who worked at the plant. He passionately argued that Wayne Mallet, Todd Cage and Cody Tuma were all liars.

Mr. Boren admitted that there was a lot of smoke there, and then asked did John Tuma know? What piece of evidence do you have? He said, you have to believe Wayne Mallet. Mr. Boren argued that John Tuma was not at the facility in December 2006 and was not at the facility during the USEPA visits. Mr. Boren argued that the only way the jury could convict John Tuma was to believe admitted liars, Wayne Mallet, Todd Cage and Cody Tuma. Mr. Boren presented a time line and recounted evidence favorable to the defense that he argued proved discharges could not have occurred. Mr. Boren probed discrepancies in the witnesses’ testimony. He argued that the discrepancies proved that the witnesses were lying.

Mr. Boren argued that if the jury believed Wayne Mallet, Todd Cage and Cody Tuma, then John Tuma was guilty. Then he asked the jury if they were to go out of town for a month, would they trust Wayne Mallet, Todd Cage and/or Cody Tuma with their house, their computer and passwords and credit cards?

Mr. Boren finished by telling the jury that John Tuma is presumed innocent and that the evidence presented was not evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

Ms. Lehnert handled rebuttal for the government. She took words by Jim Boren and turned them around. She argued that the only smoke provided was from the defendant. She recounted Charles Tubbs’ testimony that the treatment system did not work. She also argued that John Tuma had motivation to lie himself, the $5,000,000.00 in subsequent payments for the sale of the facility. She recounted as how Todd Cage has been telling the same story since October 2007. She recounted how Wayne Mallet met with the internal investigation team over a year ago and told his story without benefit of counsel. She asked the jury to weigh the credibility of John Tuma. She argued that based upon the testimonial evidence, the pipes that make no sense and the pipes that did not belong at the facility prove the guilt of the defendant. She asked the Jury to find John Tuma guilty on all five counts.

Judge Stagg then gave the jury a 15 minute break, and upon their return read the jury charge to them. The case was submitted to the jury at 12:30 p.m.

Those handicapping the case expect a verdict before 5:00 p.m. today. We shall see.

It is my opinion that both sides did very well in closing; however, I am of the opinion that Ms. Lehnert did a better job overall detailing all of the evidence. Mr. Boren was somewhat theatrical and I believe lost the jury by beating up on Cody Tuma as much as he did. I do not know how either argument will affect the jury deliberations. I will post again when there is a jury verdict.

More later.

As always, feel free to contact me at walter.james@jamespllc.com.

WDJiii

Stark & Stark Attorney to Present at NYARM's 2012 Conference

Wed, 21 Mar 2012 18:28:23 GMT

David J. Byrne, Co-Chair of Stark & Stark’s Condominium and Co-op Practice Group, will present materials related to new foreclosure laws and decisions as well as how to effectuate foreclosures. Mr. Byrne will also address how shareholders and managing agents can effectively deal with abandoned units in New York.

The presentation is sponsored by NYARM and will be held Wednesday, March 28, 2012, from 11:00 AM - 12:00 PM, at the Ground Floor Library Pavilion of The General Society of Mechanics & Tradesmen, 20 West 44th Street (between 5th and 6th Avenues), New York, New York.

Please contact Margie Russell, Executive Director of NYARM, at 212.216.0654 or mrussell@nyarm.org, to register for this informative event.

European LNG Headlines

Wed, 21 Mar 2012 17:30:03 GMT

Europe Clears Total for Russian LNG (UPI)

FERC Seeks Additional Information from Freeport LNG on Phase II Modification Project

Wed, 21 Mar 2012 17:26:56 GMT

Yesterday, FERC asked Freeport LNG Development, L.P. to provide additional information regarding the company’s planned Phase II Modification Project. According to FERC’s letter, available in the eLibrary under Docket No. CP12-29, the information requested is "necessary for [the Commission staff] to continue preparation of the environmental assessment."

Shell Exec Sees Potential Political Risks of Exporting Cheap American Gas

Wed, 21 Mar 2012 17:22:39 GMT

The Globe and Mail reports that Royal Dutch Shell PLC CFO, Simon Henry, is concerned that exporting low cost American gas to countries that compete economically with the United States could be characterized as exporting American jobs. While Shell is exploring options to take advantage of the low cost supplies, Henry wonders how long exporting gas will remain politically acceptable. Henry adds that Shell's proposed LNG export terminal at Kitimat, British Columbia is on the "front burner," but whether the terminal is actually built will depend on the costs of other projects that Shell is considering.

FERC Nominees Testify Before Senate Committee; Senators Voice Concerns About Increased Gas Exports

Wed, 21 Mar 2012 17:15:40 GMT

Anthony T. Clark and FERC Commissioner John R. Norris, both nominated for FERC Commissioner appointments, testified yesterday before the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. According to a report in Bloomberg BNA [subscription required], both are expected to be confirmed. During the hearing, Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) chided FERC for being too lax in its environmental review of LNG terminal projects and proposed that FERC apply a "finding in the national interest" standard before such projects could be approved. Commissioner Norris responded that he could support such a standard for new LNG terminals but applying the standard to proposals to modify existing terminals for exports would be "a stretch."

On a related issue, LNG Daily [subscription required] reported today that Senators Wyden (D-Ore.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) expressed concerns yesterday about potential rising gas prices that could result from increasing gas exports. Senator Wyden called for a "time-out" on U.S. Department of Energy approval of gas export permits until the domestic energy security, national security and price and environmental impacts of increased gas exports can be assessed.

Renewable Energy Law News - Week of March 19

Wed, 21 Mar 2012 17:08:05 GMT

Photo via Flickr

Vermont House votes to pursue renewable energy

MONTPELIER -- With summer temperatures in Vermont on the first day of spring, House members gave preliminary approval Tuesday to a bill to address climate change.

"We see its evidence everywhere and we see it at an ever increasing rate," Rep. Margaret Cheney said on the House floor while the thermometer reached 75 degrees outside.

The Norwich Democrat described a bill that sets a goal that Vermont get 75 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2032. It calls for a renewable portfolio standard, in which the state’s utilities would be required to get increasing amounts of the power they sell from green sources over the next 20 years.

The measure received preliminary approval on a voice vote. It is up for final House approval Wednesday before moving to the Senate.

Cheney said the bill is not ambitious enough for some environmentalists, but said the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee, of which she is vice chairwoman, tried to balance environmental and economic concerns.

Wisconsin Wind Siting Rules Effective March 16

After years of uncertainty, the Wisconsin legislature allowed statewide wind energy siting rules to go into effect today. The new rules (known as “PSC 128”) require wind turbines to be located at least 1,250 feet from the nearest residence and at a distance 1.1 times the height of the wind turbine from the nearest property line. Cities, villages, towns, and counties are prohibited from enacting an ordinance imposing more restrictive requirements than the statewide rules.

In 2009, the legislature directed the Wisconsin Public Service Commission (“PSC”) to develop rules that limit the restrictions local governments may impose on wind energy projects. The purpose of these rules was to ensure consistent local procedures and regulation of wind energy. On December 27, 2010, the PSC adopted the final wind energy siting rules (Wisc. Admin. Code Ch. PSC 128). But on March 1, 2011, the day the rules were to take effect, the legislature’s Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules voted to suspend PSC 128. This year, the legislature considered a proposal to indefinitely suspend the rules, but adjourned yesterday without taking action. As a result, PSC 128 automatically became effective today.

Dean Jim Chen's Work Cited in NYT: Wickard v. Filburn

Wed, 21 Mar 2012 16:08:53 GMT

The case of 1942 agricultural law case of Wickard v. Filburn is referenced frequently in the news as the Supreme Court prepares to rule on the constitutionally of the federal health care law.

As the New York Times reported yesterday:

If the Obama administration persuades the Supreme Court to uphold its health care overhaul law, it will be in large part thanks to a 70-year-old precedent involving an Ohio farmer named Roscoe C. Filburn.

Mr. Filburn sued to overturn a 1938 federal law that told him how much wheat he could grow on his family farm and made him pay a penalty for every extra bushel.

The 1942 decision against him, Wickard v. Filburn, is the basis for the Supreme Court’s modern understanding of the scope of federal power.

And, while there is some folklore circulating about Mr. Filburn's farming operation, the Times references Dean Jim Chen, our own blogger colleague and creator of Ag Law for his historical account of the decision. Jim published an article, The Story of Wickard v. Filburn: Agriculture, Aggregation, and Commerce in 2008.

The NYT notes that while many seem to assume "that Mr. Filburn was a subsistence farmer. . . in fact he sold milk and eggs to some 75 customers a day, and the wheat he fed to his livestock entered the stream of commerce in that sense," referencing Jim's article.

Just another tribute to the importance of agricultural law.

Upcoming Event: Energy Storage for the Grid: Watchful Waiting or the Perfect Storm?

whholmes@stoel.com (William H. Holmes) — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 01:40:12 GMT

I'll be moderating Energy Storage for the Grid: Watchful Waiting or the Perfect Storm? at the MIT Enterprise Forum Northwest's May 8, 2012 program at Seattle's Museum of History and Industry (MOHAI) , 2700 24th Ave East. The event, which includes a networking reception, will be held from 5:00 to 8:30 pm.

The evening's panelists will be:

Terry Oliver, Chief Technology Innovations Officer, Bonneville Power
Administration
Alexander H. Slocum, Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Chris Wheaton, Chief Operating & Financial Officer, EnerG2
Nathan Adams, Manager of Development and Emerging Technologies, Puget Sound Energy

Among other topics, the panel will address:

The most promising energy storage strategies
How different storage methods could work together with the grid in the Northwest and nationally
How entrepreneurs, the changing energy marketplace, grid operators, and utilities are responding to the call to build the foundation for a clean energy economy

For more information about this event, visit MITEF Northwest's web site.

I hope to see you there! In the meantime, for those who are following energy storage, I'm "tweeting" regularly on that topic as well as Department of Defense renewables procurement at @BillHolmesStoel (#energystorage).

US V. John Emerson Tuma - Day Seven - Afternoon Session Update

james@jamespllc.com (Walter James) — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 01:04:44 GMT

I have just found out that Judge Stagg will allow the lesser included language instruction for the jury. In short, the defense will be able to argue that John Tuma was not actively involved and at worst he was negligent in not discovering the conduct of Cody Tuma, Wayne Mallet and Todd Cage. It could be interesting in the deliberation room.

More later.

As always, feel free to contact me at walter.james@jamespllc.com.

WDJiii

US v. John Emerson Tuma - Day Seven - Afternoon Session

james@jamespllc.com (Walter James) — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 22:01:39 GMT

The morning session was labeled "Day - Eight" - it should have been labeled as "Day - Seven - Morning Session." My apologies for the confusion. The charging conference was somewhat uneventful. Judge Stagg said he wanted a "slimmed down"...

The morning session was labeled "Day - Eight" - it should have been labeled as "Day - Seven - Morning Session." My apologies for the confusion.

The charging conference was somewhat uneventful. Judge Stagg said he wanted a "slimmed down" version. About the only controversy was that the defense wanted a lesser included offense instruction so that the jury would be able to consider negligence. It seems that one of the arguments that the defense will make in closing was the Cody Tuma, Wayne Mallet and Todd Cage may have engaged in the illegal discharges without John Tuma's knowledge and that he was merely negligent for not uncovering it. Judge Stagg is having a telephonic conference at 5:30 p.m. with counsel to determine the issue.

Closing begins at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow morning - each side is allotted and hour. I would expect that the jury will begin deliberations right after lunch.

More later.

As always, feel free to contact me at walter.james@jamespllc.com.

WDJiii

Recent Articles in Environmental Law from LexMonitor

Destiny USA Reaches the Green Bonds Finish Line

Proposed Decision Adopting Metrics to Measure Smart Grid Deployments

The U.S Supreme Court Decided Today A Significant CWA Case

US v. John Emerson Tuma - Jury Verdict - Follow-up

EPA Loses -- Unanimously -- In Sackett: How Broadly Does It Sweep?

US v. John Emerson Tuma - Jury Verdict

Can You Reduce Carbon and Save on Taxes?

The Sackett Decision and Its Implications for Hydraulic Fracturing

New law regulating Internet Information Service Providers comes into force in China

US v. John Emerson Tuma - Day Eight - Closing

Stark & Stark Attorney to Present at NYARM's 2012 Conference

European LNG Headlines

FERC Seeks Additional Information from Freeport LNG on Phase II Modification Project

Shell Exec Sees Potential Political Risks of Exporting Cheap American Gas

FERC Nominees Testify Before Senate Committee; Senators Voice Concerns About Increased Gas Exports

Renewable Energy Law News - Week of March 19

Dean Jim Chen's Work Cited in NYT: Wickard v. Filburn

Upcoming Event: Energy Storage for the Grid: Watchful Waiting or the Perfect Storm?

US V. John Emerson Tuma - Day Seven - Afternoon Session Update

US v. John Emerson Tuma - Day Seven - Afternoon Session