dmInIstrAtIVe AW sectIon IrgInIA s Ar Ad IndeX ... · With its new events and new format, ... redispatch from coal burning plants to combined-cycle ... the application of “best

Administrative Law NewsCONTENTS:

Governor McAuliffe Releases 2014 Virginia Energy Plan ...1

Meera Ahamed

Blowing in the Wind? The Commonwealth’s Efforts to

Bring Offshore Wind Energy to Virginia ...1

Gregory W. Durham

Message from the Chair ...2Kristian M. Dahl

From Smokestacks to the Grid: An Overview of EPA’s Proposed

Rule for Carbon ...3Matthew L. Gooch

Senate Confirms New FERC Commissioner ...4

James G. Ritter

Volume XV, Issue 14 WInter 2015

Governor McAuliffe Releases 2014 Virginia Energy Plan

By Meera Ahamed

Blowing in the Wind? The Commonwealth’s Efforts to Bring Offshore Wind Energy to Virginia

By Gregory W. Durham

the AdmInIstrAtIVe lAW sectIon of the VIrgInIA stAte BAr WWW.VsB.org/sectIons/Ad/IndeX.htm

On October 1, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe released the 2014Virginia Energy Plan, a document that lays out a long-term strategy forthedevelopmentandgrowthoftheVirginiaenergyindustryandonethatincludesenergyefficiencyasatoppriority.1 The2014Planisanupdateto theVirginiaEnergyPlan completed in2007.2 TheCommonwealth’senergypolicyandobjectivestoaddressenergyissuestoadvancethehealth,welfare and safety of residents of the Commonwealth are detailed in theCode of Virginia,3 and call for Virginia to take a broad range of energyactions,including:

• Ensuringtheavailabilityofreliableenergyatcoststhatarereasonable;

The Commonwealth of Virginia, in cooperation with the federalgovernmentandtheprivatesector,iscurrentlypursuingthedevelopmentofanoffshorewindenergygenerationproject(“theWEAProject”)inanareaoffthecoastofVirginiaBeach.OnSeptember4,2013,theDepartmentoftheInterior (“DOI”)heldacompetitive lease saleof the112,800acresofoceanthatwillbethesiteoftheProject(“VirginiaWindEnergyArea”or“WEA”).DominionVirginiaPower(“Dominion”)wontheleasewithabidof$1.6million,andwithitanexclusiverighttodevelopoffshorewindin

— continued on page 4


ABOUT THE EDITOR JamesG.RitterisanassociateintheEnergyandTelecommunicationspracticegroupatChristian&Barton,LLPinRichmond.Hefocusesonregulatorymattersbeforestateandfederaladministrativeentitiesinvolvingelectric,naturalgas,andwaterutilitiesandcable

companies.Healsohasexperienceworkingonbehalfoftelecommunicationsprovidersandlocalgovern-ments inVirginia. Heearnedhis lawdegreefromWashington&LeeUniversitySchoolofLawandhisundergraduatedegreefromtheUniversityofVirginia.

SAVE THE DATEThirty-Third Annual

National Regulatory Conference

May 20-21, 2015

Marshall-Wythe School of Law, College of William & Mary

Williamsburg, Virginia

Virginia State Bar Volume XV, Issue 14

2

The new year is well underway, and so too arethe Administrative Law Section’s plans for a numberof exciting programs. As we have for decades now,our premier activity will be the National RegulatoryConferencetobeheldonMay20th-21stattheCollegeof William & Mary’s Marshall-Wythe School of LawinWilliamsburg.Nowinits33rdyear,theConferencewill featurepanelsonavarietyof legalandregulatorytopics, including the economics of renewable energytechnologies, the future of demand response, theincreasingroleofnaturalgasinelectricgeneration,andtheEnvironmentalProtectionAgency’sproposedCleanPowerPlan. OurableNRCplanningcommittee–chairedthisyear by Ashley Macko – remains hard at work liningup a slate of expert panelists to explore these topicalissuesandgeneratethoughtfulandlivelydebate.Andasalways,theconferencewillofferalegalethicssessionworth two hours of CLE credit, and opportunitiesto socialize with regulators and other members ofthe Section, including a reception hosted by theCommissionersoftheStateCorporationCommission.Itwillcertainlybeafunandinformativetwodays,andremainsaveryeconomicalwaytogetCLEhoursunderyourbelt.(Lastyear,theNRCwasapprovedforover9hoursofVirginiaCLE,includingthe2hoursforethics/professionalismneededinVirginia.)

Speaking of CLEs, last year’s Section Chair SamBrumberghasbegunplansforourannualBrownBagCLElunchmeeting.Thechosentopicislanduseandcondemnation, with a special focus on the eminentdomain rights of utilities, and a ripped-from-the-headlinesbackdropofthenaturalgaspipelineactivitynow taking place in the Commonwealth. The exactdate and location of the meeting will be determinedsoon,sobeonthe lookoutformore information. Asusual,therewillbenochargetoattendtheprogram. Finally,theSectionwillco-sponsorasessionatVSB’s77th Annual Meeting scheduled for June 18th-21st inVirginiaBeach. With itsnew events andnew format,thisshouldalsobeagreatopportunityforlearningandfellowship. As the year moves on, please do not hesitate tocontactmeortheothermembersofourSection’sBoardofGovernorswithanythoughtsorideasyoumayhave.WearealwaysopentosuggestionsabouthowtheSectioncanprovidevaluetoitsmembers,andwewelcomeyourparticipation. Andwe encourage you to contribute tothenewsletter.Ifyou’dliketosubmitanarticle,contactoureditor,JamieRitter([email protected]). Bestwishesfor2015. ~Kris

©2015, The Virginia State Bar, Administrative Law Section. All Rights Reserved

Administrative Law Newsis published by the Virginia State Bar’s Administrative Law Section. Statements, expressions of opinion or comments appearing herein are those of the edi-tors or contributors, and not necessarily those of the Virginia State Bar or the Section. Articles and materials accepted for publication become the property

of the Virginia State Bar’s Administrative Law section and may not be reprinted without the express written permission of the editor.

VIRGINIA STATE BAR ADMINISTRATIVE LAW SECTIONCommittee Chairs 2014-2015

National Regulatory Conference:ASHLEY B. MACKO

[email protected] / 804.371.2066

Annual Meeting CLE Program:CHARLOTTE P. MCAFEE


Brown Bag Speakers Lunch:SAMUEL R. BRUMBERG


Newsletter:JAMES G. RITTER


Message from the Chair

Winter 2015 Administrative Law News

3

From Smokestacks to the Grid: An Overview of EPA’s Proposed Rule for Carbon By Matthew L. Gooch

On June 18, EPA promulgated its long-awaited,and highly controversial, proposed regulations forcarbonemissionsfromexistingstationarysources.1 Itdid so under the authority of section 111(d) of theCleanAirAct,aprovisionrarelyenoughinvokedthattheregulationsarecommonlyreferredtoas“111(d).”EPAhaspreviouslyusedsection111(d)toregulatefourpollutantsfromfivespecificsourcecategories,includingsulfuricacidplants(acidmist)andprimaryaluminumplants(flourides).2 Thisrulewouldextendthe listtoregulatingcarbondioxidefromstationarysources. Acursoryoutlineof theproposed regulationswillbeofferedbelow.Sincethepublication,andevenpriortoit,numerousvoiceshavechallengedEPA’sapproach:forinstance,thattheCleanAirActdoesnotempowerEPAtoregulate“outsidethefenceline.”Someofthoselegalobjectionswillbesummarizedhere.AlsoincludedwillbeabriefdiscussionoftworecentCAAcasesoftheChevron lineage from the Supreme Court’s last term,whichmayoffercluesabout the reviewof the111(d)carbon regulations in light of the objections beingraised.

The Proposed Rule Broadly, the rule requires states—not EGUs—toreduce their carbon emissions.3 States can pass theresponsibility toEGUsordevelop state-runprogramswherethestatebecomestheresponsiblepartyinwholeorinpart(forinstance,byoperatinganenergyefficiencyprogram).4Theregulationswillreducegreenhousegasesfromthepowersectorby30%from2005levels.5Thereductionincarbonemissionswouldofcoursehavetheconcomitant benefit of reducing exposure to ambientPM2.5 and ozone through emission reductions ofprecursorpollutants.6Therewouldalsobeareductionin the direct exposure to PM2.5 and sulfur dioxide,butEPAhasnotofferedmonetizedestimatesforthosebenefits.7 That30%reductioninCO2emissionswillnotbeachieveduniformlyamongthestates.8Rather,eachstate

willhaveitsownuniquelytailoredgoal,andtheoverallreductions will amount to 30%.9 A state’s emission“rate”isroughlypoundsofCO2permegawatt-hourofelectricity.10Burningcoal,forexample,leadstoaratein the neighborhood of 2000 lbs/MWH.11 Burningnaturalgas inanewcombined-cycle (NGCC) facilitycanresultinarateofapproximately900.12Solarandwind,of course,have a rateof zero. Under the rule,EPArequiresVirginia’saveragecarbonemissionratetobe810by2030.13Itrequiresaninterimgoal(meaninganaverageof2020-2030)of884.14Bycontrast,WestVirginia’sfinalgoalisexactlydoubleVirginia’sat1620lbs/MWH.15 That disparity is the basis for a legalchallengetotherule,summarizedbelow. To calculate each state’s emission rate goal, EPAanalyzed how much carbon could be reduced byemploying four “building blocks”: (1) heat rateimprovements of 6% at carbon intensive EGUs, (2)redispatchfromcoalburningplantstocombined-cyclenaturalgasata70%utilization,(3)outlayofrenewableenergy, and (4) reduction in energy use by 1.5%annually from 2020-2029 through energy efficiencymeasures.16 EPA used these four building blocks toset a state’s rate, but a state may achieve complianceusing any combination of these or other measures(for example, market-based trading, construction ofnewNGCCornuclearplants,or carboncapture andstorage).17Again,theratesvarybetweenstatesbecauseEPAuseddataspecifictoeachstate’sEGUsandothercharacteristicsofitsgenerationresources.18 In EPA’s view, the rate assigned to each stateconstitutes the standard of performance that reflectsthe degree of emission limitation achievable throughtheapplicationof“bestsystemofemissionreduction”under section 111(d) of the CAA.19 EPA’s view isthat“thecombinationofallfourbuildingblocksistheBSER.”20EPA,however,wouldstillleavetothestateswhich building blocks, or other measures, to use inachievingtherate.



4

Senate Confirms New FERC Commissioner By James G. Ritter

InDecember,with support from lawmakers inbothparties, the United States Senate confirmed ColetteHonorable as thenewestmember of theFederalEnergyRegulatory Commission. Nominated by PresidentObama in August, Commissioner Honorable fills thevacancyleftbyJohnNorris,whoresignedfromFERClastyear to accept an overseas post with the Department ofAgriculture. Before arriving at FERC, Commissioner HonorableservedforoversevenyearsontheArkansasPublicServiceCommission, including as chairman since 2011. Shealso is a past president of the National Association ofRegulatoryUtilityCommissioners,orNARUC. An attorney by training, Commissioner HonorablebeganhercareerasastafflawyerwiththeArkansasCenterfor Legal Services. She later held a number of rolesin public service, including prosecutor, assistant publicdefender,andlawclerkfortheArkansasCourtofAppeals.

She also served as the chief of staff for former ArkansasGovernor Mike Beebe and former U.S. Senator MarkPryorduringtheirtenuresasthestate’sattorneygeneral. FERC’s biography of Commissioner Honorabledescribes her as “a fair, pragmatic, moderate andhardworkingleaderwhoisabletobuildconsensusacrosspartylinesforcommongoals.”FERCChairmanCherylA. LaFleur said in a statement that “Colette brings awealthofexperienceandexpertisetotheimportantissueswearefacing. SheandIworkedtogethercloselyduringher time as the President of NARUC, and I very muchlookforwardtocontinuingthatstrongrelationshipwhenshejoinstheCommission.” Commissioner Honorable’s term expires in June2017.h

About the Author: see About the Editor p. 1

• Establishingsufficientenergysupplyanddeliveryinfrastructuretosupportenergyneeds;

• Usingenergyresourcesefficientlyandfacilitatingconservation;

• Facilitating development of low-cost energyresources, including development of clean coalresources;

• Facilitating development of less polluting energysources and ensuring the economic viability ofVirginia’sproducersoflow-costenergyresources;

• Fosteringresearchanddevelopmentofalternativeenergy sources that are competitive at marketprices;and

• Ensuring that energy generation and deliverysystems minimize adverse impacts to theenvironment.

In his remarks formally unveiling the 2014 Plan,GovernorMcAuliffe said, “Ifwearegoing tobuild theeconomy Virginia families deserve, we must begin by

givingthemtheenergyplanoureconomydemands.Theplanwearerollingouttodayisfocusedongrowingourenergy economy (particularly in the renewable sector),emphasizing energy conservation, strengthening ourenergyinfrastructureandtrainingtheworkforceweneedforthefuture.”The2014VirginiaEnergyPlanfocusesgenerally on incorporating aspects of energy assurance,energy response, and energy infrastructure resiliency,and specifically emphasizes theneed todiversify energysources and promotes the greater use of renewablegenerationsuchassolarandwindovertraditionalenergysources. ThePlanalso includesananalysisof thecostsandbenefitsofdistributedgenerationandnetmetering,anoffshoreoil andgaspreparedness study,anda studyof the possibility of 2,000 megawatts of offshore windpowergenerationby2022.Otherkeyhighlightsofthe2014EnergyPlaninclude:

• Strategicallygrowtheenergysectorbypromotingincreased development of renewable generationandsupportinginnovationinnucleartechnology.

• Reduce energy consumption by aggressively

2014 Virginia Energy Plan (continued)

— continued on next page


5

pursuing energy efficiency measures ingovernment,businessesandresidences.

• Investinreliableandresilientenergyinfrastructureto strengthen Virginia’s already strong businessclimate.

• Prepare Virginia’s workforce to drive the futureenergyeconomy.

A new component of the 2014 Plan addresses arecent amendment to Virginia Code § 67-201 thatrequirestheVirginiaEnergyPlantoincludeananalysisof proposed or promulgated Environmental ProtectionAgencyregulationsforreducingcarbondioxideemissions.Specifically, the Virginia Energy Plan must address §111(d)oftheCleanAirAct(commonlyreferredtoas“§111(d)”)4andEPA’srecentlyproposedrulesfor§111(d)relatingtoreducingcarbondioxideemissionsfromexistingfossil fuel-fired electric generation units (also known asthe“ClearPowerPlan”rules).5Undertheauthorityof§111(d),EPAisproposingemissionsguidelinesforstatesto followindevelopingplans toaddressgreenhousegas(GHG) emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired electricgeneratingunits.EPA’sproposedCleanPowerPlanruleis based on four specific assumptions: (i) improve theunitheatratesatcoal-firedplantsby6percent;(ii)runallexistingandnewnaturalgascombined-cycle(NGCC)units at a 70 percent capacity factor and preserve 6percent of current nuclear capacity; (iii) implementmandatorystaterenewableenergyprogramsreachingupto 13 percent by 2030; and (iv) implement mandatorystate energy efficiency programs reaching 10.7 percentmarketpenetrationby2030. EPA’sproposedrulesfortheCleanPowerPlanhavetwomainelements:(1)state-specificemissionrate-basedCO2 goals; and (2) guidelines for the development,submission, and implementation of state plans. Largereductions are proposed for Virginia’s emissions. In2012, the rate for Virginia CO2 emissions was 1,438lbs/MWh. The EPA’s proposed initial interim targetgoal is 991 lbs/MWh by 2020, followed by a rate of810 lbs/MWh by 2030. EPA’s proposal also includesan alternative with a higher ultimate target of 962 lbs/MWh, but with compliance required by 2025. EPA’scalculation of Virginia’s targets does not count eitherimprovements in efficiency gained since 2005 or thefull effect of the 28.7 million MWh of non-emitting

nuclear power generation in Virginia. Virginia’s CO2statecomplianceplanmustbesubmittedtoEPAbyJune2016. Between 2008 and 2012 there were fundamentalshifts in Virginia’s power generation mix, although thepercentageofrenewablegenerationcontinuestoaccountforalowpercentageofthegenerationmix:

VA Generation VA Generation 2008 2012

Coal 44% 20%Natural gas 13% 35%Nuclear 38% 41%Petroleum 2% 1%Hydroelectric 1% 1%Other 2% 2%6

This data indicates that there is room for growthand additional diversity in the renewable energy sectorin Virginia. The 2014 Virginia Energy Plan concludesthat an energy policy focused on further diversificationof energy resources, combinedwithenergyefficiencybyboththeprivateandpublicsectors,willenableVirginiatogrowitseconomyandincreaseemploymentby2030.7h

About the Author: Meera Ahamed has served in Washington Gas Light Company’s Office of the General Counsel for over nine years, focusing primarily on Virginia regulatory matters. She is a graduate of the George Washington University School of Law and earned an M.B.A. from George Mason University.

(Endnotes)1. 2014VirginiaEnergyPlan(Oct.1,2014),available

athttp://www.dmme.virginia.gov/DE/2014_VirginiaEnergyPlan2.shtml.

2. ThestatutoryprovisionsaddressingtheVirginiaEnergyPlanaresetforthinTitle67oftheCodeofVirginia.Va.Code§67-100et seq.AfteritsinitialcompletiononJuly1,2007,theplanwasupdatedonJuly1,2010.Byrecentamendmentto§67-202oftheCode,thePlanmustbeupdatedbytheDivision




6

Virginia.1Iffullydeveloped,theProjectisanticipatedtoproduce2,000megawattsofwindgeneration,orenoughelectricitytopower700,000homes.2 Though the lease has been signed, Dominion doesnot expect the first turbine tobe installed in theWEAfor at least 10 years.3 The long delay is in part dueto the fact that there remain significant regulatory,financial,andtechnologicalbarriers tothedevelopmentof the WEA. This article will assess Virginia’s effortstowardovercomingthosebarriers.Itwilldosothroughan investigation of efforts by the Commonwealth toaddress the regulatory, financial and technological costsand uncertainties currently facing the Project. TocontextualizetheCommonwealth’sefforts,thisarticlewillbeginwithadiscussionof the federal regulatoryregimegoverningthedevelopmentofoffshorewindenergy,andconcludewithanexaminationofthepositionsofmajorstakeholderstotheVirginiaWEAproject.Federal Regulations and Support for Offshore Wind in Virginia OffshorewindenergygenerationisanewphenomenonintheUnitedStates. Thoughprojects likeCapeWindare inching closer to construction, there are currentlyno commercial-scale offshore wind projects generatingelectricity in the U.S.4 Nevertheless, there has beensignificant push by the federal government to jump-start the industry.5 These efforts are a mixed blessingforVirginia.Aswillbeseen,federalincentivesenhancethe feasibility of the Project in a number of ways, buttheregulatoryprocessthatmustbenavigatedtocapturethoseincentivescanbedaunting. A2011studybytheDepartmentofEnergy identifiednearlyadozen federalentities that have authority over the siting, permitting,

andinstallationofoffshorewindfacilities.6Aprivateorpublicentitywishingtopursueanoffshorewindprojectmust therefore devote significant time and money tolearning and traversing this bureaucracy. In all, theprocesswas estimatedby that study to takeup tonineyears.7 This federal bureaucracy is not without purpose.Theroleofstatesinthedevelopmentofoffshorewindiscomplicatedbythegeographicallocationoftheresource.A coastal state’s jurisdiction does not extend muchfarther than its coastline. According toSection388oftheEnergyPolicyActof2005, the federal governmentcontrols the development of offshore wind resources.8Theterm“offshore”inthecontextofwindenergymeansthe Outer Continental Shelf (“OCS”).9 The OCSconsists of the submerged lands, subsoil, and seabed inaspecifiedzonebeginningroughly3nauticalmiles,andextendingout200nauticalmilesormorefromtheU.S.coastline.10TheWEAiswithinthisregion,atroughly23.5milesoff thecoastofVirginiaBeach. TheagencychargedwithadministeringtheauthoritygrantedunderSection388istheBureauofOceanEnergyManagement(“BOEM”),whichispartofDOI.11

Politicalsupportatthefederallevelforoffshorewindiscurrentlystrong.TheObamaadministrationhasmadethe development of offshore wind resources part of its“alloftheabove”energystrategy,andhascommittedtoaccelerating the regulatory approvalprocess.12 Towardthatend theBOEMissuednewrulesandguidelines in2009,whichgoverntheleasing,permitting,andoperationof offshore wind facilities.13 The rules streamlinedexisting procedures for environmental review, which isone of the most costly and time-consuming regulatorycomponents of the development process.14 They alsoincludedproceduresforanexpeditedleasingframework,and accelerated procedures for processing offshore

Blowing in the Wind? (continued)


ofEnergyoftheDepartmentofMines,MineralsandEnergybyOctober1,2014,andeveryfourthOctober1thereafter.Inaddition,theDivisionshallprovideinterimupdatesonthePlanbyOctober1ofthethirdyearofeachadministration.

3. TheenergyobjectivesandtheCommonwealthEnergyPolicyaredetailedin§§67-101and67-102,respectively.

4. 42U.S.C.§7411(d).5. TheEPAissueditsproposedrulesonJune18,2014.

Thecommentperiod,whichwasinitiallysettoendonOctober16,2014,wasextendedtoDecember1,2014.

6. Source:2014VirginiaEnergyPlan,ExecutiveSummaryat1.

7. Id.at2.



7

transmissionapplications.15Theguidelinesestablishedafour-stageauthorizationprocess, including (1)planning& analysis; (2) leasing; (3) site characterization &assessment; and (4) commercial development.16 Eachstage carries with it specific priorities, programmaticincentives, and metrics, which must be achieved if aprojectistoadvancetowarddevelopment.17

While the regulatory picture has been streamlined,reducingcost,federalactionsonlygosofarinreducingrisk for private sector investors. The simple fact thatthere are no commercial-scale offshore wind projectscurrentlyoperatingintheU.S.isitselfasourceofgreatuncertainty,whichinhibitsprivatesectorbuy-in.18ItisimportanttonotethatthefactthatDominionholdstheleasefortheVirginiaWEAdoesnotobligateittobuild-out the full-scale facility.19 If the risks involved provetoogreatforDominion,thenitmaysimplychoosenotto build the full-scale project. Virginia feels that fullydeveloping the WEA has the potential to create high-skilledjobsandgeneratemillionsofdollarsinindustrialactivity for the Commonwealth.20 Therefore, as thenext section will illustrate, state leaders have dedicatedsignificantresourcesinhopesofestablishingtheinvestorconfidenceneededtorealizethefull-scaledeploymentoftheProject.

Virginia’s Support of Offshore Wind: Reducing Risk and Building Confidence The Virginia Offshore Wind Project is currentlymoving into the five-year site characterization andassessment phase under the BOEM planning rubric.21This phase is devoted to environmental analysis,technological deployment, and regulatory approval.22As such, it requires significant on-site research. Areasunder evaluation at this point include the constructionandoperationoftheanchors,turbines,andtransmissionlines, demonstration of a variety of the technologieslikely to be deployed, and site-specific environmentalimpact.23 As will be seen below, the Commonwealthhas stepped in to reduce the risk to Dominion bycoordinating many of the activities needed during thisstage before full-scale development of the WEA canbegin. By doing so, the Commonwealth hopes toacceleratethedevelopmentof theWEAandtherelatedenergy industry supply chain. Two state initiatives –the Virginia Offshore Wind Technology Advancement

Project, and the Virginia Offshore Wind DevelopmentAuthority–aretheprimarymechanismsthroughwhichtheCommonwealthiscurrentlyfurtheringitsinterestsinthecontextofoffshorewind.

The Virginia Offshore Wind Technology Advancement Project OneofthemostsignificantstepstheCommonwealthhas taken in this effort is the establishment of theVirginia Offshore Wind Technology AdvancementProject (“VOWTAP”). VOWTAP is anoffshorewindtechnologydemonstrationprojectbeingdevelopedbytheCommonwealth in partnership with Dominion.24 Aswill be explained inmoredetail below,VOWTAPwillfeature a fully operational, but scaled-down, version oftheWEAProjectinanareadirectlyadjacenttotheWEA.TheprojectisledinpartnershipwithDominionandtheDepartmentofMines,MineralsandEnergy(“DMME”),which holds the federal lease to the site where theVOWTAPdemonstrationfacilitywillbeconstructed.25 In December of 2013, VOWTAP was awardeda $4 million grant from DOE intended to facilitatethe initial engineering, design, and permitting for thewind demonstration facility.26 By imitating the fullydevelopedWEAatamuchsmallerscale,VOWTAPwillfacilitate the on-site research necessary to gain furtherregulatory approval and know-how, while incurringlimited financial exposure. This initial phase of thedemonstration facility will therefore primarily be astate-directeddata acquisitioneffort intended to reduceuncertainty and risk for theprivate sector stakeholders,who ultimately will make much larger investments inVirginia’soffshorewindindustry.27 ThedemonstrationfacilitywillconsistoftwoAlstom6-megawattturbinesstandingatover100metersinheightandfeaturingsomeofthelongestwindturbinebladesintheworld.28Theturbineswillbemountedoninnovative“twisted jacket” foundations – themselves not at full-scalecommercialdeployment.29 Theseturbinemountsuse substantially less steel than traditional foundationswhile maintaining the strength needed in a deep-seaenvironment.30Theturbineswillbegrid-connectedviaan undersea cable, and will have a generating capacityofroughly12megawatts.31Thedemonstrationprojectis scheduled to become operational in 2017. It willfacilitatedetailedassessmentofconstruction,installation,and design data applicable to the full build-out of the



Virginia State Bar Volume XV, Issue 14

8

WEA, thereby reducing risk and building confidencealongtheway.32

The Virginia Offshore Wind Development Authority: Responsibilities to Stakeholders TheothermajorstepundertakenbytheCommonwealthincoordinatingthefull-scaledevelopmentoftheWEAisthecreationoftheVirginiaOffshoreWindDevelopmentAuthority (“VOWDA”). Nested within the DMME,VOWDA is a quasi-state organization responsible forspearheadingthedevelopmentofoffshorewindenergyinVirginia.33 VOWDA’s mission is very much oriented towardfacilitating the needs of non-state governmentalstakeholders in the development of offshore windenergy in Virginia. Its leadership includes experts inenergydevelopment,aswellasrepresentativesfromlocalgovernments and the various private sector industries,which will play an integral role in the supply chain,construction, and maintenance of the Virginia offshorewind project.34 The stakeholders are diverse andincludethewindenergyindustry,theshippingindustry,commercial real estate developers, power companies,landowners, local governments, environmental groups,andotherNGOs.35 VOWDAfacilitates thecollectionof information needed from this distinct array ofstakeholders,bringstolightbarriers,andrespondstotheneedsofsupplychainmanufacturersandotherbusinessesintegraltothedevelopmentoftheoffshorewindindustryintheCommonwealth.36 The shipping industry is a particularly significantstakeholder in the development of offshore wind inVirginia.37 One reason for the chosen location of theWEA is the fact that the Virginia Beach area is one ofthebusiestshippinglanesinthecountry.38Ontheonehand, thismeans theareaalreadyhas inplacemuchofthe infrastructure necessary to build and maintain anoffshorewindfacility.Ontheotherhand,italsomeansthatsitingandtheshippingdemandsofthewindfacilitywillcreateconflictswithothershippingneedsalongthecoast. The construction of the full Virginia WEA willrequire transporting hundreds of turbines, each over100 meters tall, to the WEA. To facilitate the massiveshipping needs of the project, VOWDA is chargedwith coordinating efforts to upgrade port facilities,ensuring the development of the WEA is compatible

withrecreationalandcommercialfisheries,andworkingwithofficialsattheNorfolkNavalBasetominimizeanyinterferencewithmilitaryactivities.39 Environmentalinterestshavemadetheirvoiceheardon offshore wind development across the country, andVirginia is no exception.40 They do not, however,speakontheissuewithonevoice.Manyenvironmentalgroups support the development of wind energy as acleanalternativetofossil fuels.41 Othersareconcernedwiththeimpactoffshorewindenergygenerationfacilitieswill have on avian and marine species and habitats.42Environmentalgroupsareoftencautiousofwindenergydevelopmentbecauseof itsdeadly impactonbirds andbats.43 With offshore wind there is the added risk ofheavy construction machinery and construction-relateddebris harming marine mammals and polluting thewatersandcoasts.44Therefore,oneoftheprimarygoalsof VOWTAP is obtaining data on the environmentalimpact of offshore wind on marine and coastal areasin order to ensure the development of the WEA iscompatiblewithavianandmarinewildlife.45 Someenvironmentalgroups in favorof theVirginiaoffshore wind project fear that Dominion will delay orabandonthedevelopmentofthelease.46TheyarguethattheCommonwealth’sabsenceofamandatoryrenewableportfoliostandardandlackofincentivestoreducecarbonemissions has created a policy environment favorableto fossil fuels.47 When combined with Dominion’srelative autonomy regarding the development of theWEA, the energy giant, as they see it, has the leewayand themotivation to forestalldevelopment in favorofbuildingnew,andcheaper,fossil-fueledplants.ThoughDominionmayindeedhavetheultimatesayinwhetheritdevelopstheWEA,theseenvironmentalistsshouldbeencouragedbythefactthatVirginiahassunksignificantresources into achieving what they too desire – thesuccessful full-scale development of offshore wind inVirginia.Conclusion Fosteringthedevelopmentofanewsourceofenergyastechnologicallyandlogisticallycomplexasoffshorewindisanimmenselydifficulttaskwithsignificantbarrierstosuccess. However, federal and state governments havedeterminedthatcommercial-scaledeploymentofoffshorewind is in the best interest of the Commonwealth andthe nation. The preceding discussion has highlighted




9

just a selection of the efforts of those governmentstowardfacilitatingthedevelopmentofoffshorewindinVirginia.FederalagenciessuchastheBOEMandDOEhave cooperated in streamlining the regulatory process,and successfully leased over 100,000 acres of the OCSfor the deployment of a commercial-scale wind energyproject. The Commonwealth in turn has undertakenVOWTAP inorder todemonstrate innovative offshorewindtechnologiesthatcanlowerthecosts,reducerisks,and encourage investment in offshore wind projects.Finally,throughtheVirginiaWindEnergyDevelopmentAuthority, the Commonwealth hopes to facilitate thegrowthofthevariousoffshorewindenergystakeholdersnecessarytosupportandsustaintheindustry. Though noticeable progress has been achieved,significantbarrierstothedevelopmentofoffshorewindinVirginiaremain.Itwilllikelybeadecadeormorebeforethefull-scaleprojectisinfullcommercialoperation,andthereisnoguaranteethatDominionwillfollowtheleadoffederalandstategovernments.Untiltheprivatesectoris fully invested, the Commonwealth must continue tovigorouslysupportoffshorewindifithopestoeventuallysucceedinbringingthisindustryandsourceofenergytoVirginia.h

About the Author: Gregory W. Durham is an associate in the Washington, D.C. office of Vinson & Elkins LLP, where his principal areas of practice are Energy Transactions and Projects and Capital Markets. He graduated from William & Mary Law School in 2014. Prior to entering law school, Greg worked at the Harvard Kennedy School where he coordinated the administration of public policy research programs engaged in the areas of energy technology innovation and science and technology policy. He is a member of the Virginia State Bar and resides in Arlington, Virginia.

(Endnotes)1. OfficialStatementofGovernorBobMcDonnellon

SecondinNationOffshoreWindLeaseSaleOffVirginia(Sep.4,2013),available at http://www.governor.virginia.gov/News/viewRelease.cfm?id=1971.

2. Id.3. DominionVirginiaPower,Dominion Virginia Power

Wins Federal Offshore Wind Auction, available at https://www.dom.com/about/stations/renewable/offshore-wind-power.jsp.

4. SeeU.S.DepartmentofEnergyWindandWaterPowerTechnologiesOffice,Funding in the United States: Offshore Wind Projects 2006-2012, available athttp://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/12/f5/offshore_energy_projects.pdf(showingnocommercial-scaleoffshorewindfacilitiescurrentlyproducingpowerintheUnitedStates).See alsoCynthiaStead,Finally,SpringAhead,Cape Cod Times(Mar.20,2014),available athttp://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20140320/OPINION/403200352.

5. Id.6. UnitedStatesDepartmentofEnergy,A National Offshore

Wind Strategy: Creating an Offshore Wind Energy Industry in the United Statesat11-12(Feb.2011),available athttp://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/national_offshore_wind_strategy.pdf

7. NavigantConsulting,Inc.OffshoreWindMarketandEconomicAnalysis(Feb.22,2013),available athttp://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/offshore_wind_market_and_economic_analysis.pdf(hereinafter“NavigantStudy”).

8. EnergyPolicyActof2005,Pub.L.No.109-58,§388(2005).

9. Id.10.AdamVann,CongressionalResearchService,Wind

Energy Offshore Permittingat2(Oct.12,2012).11.Id.12.SeeUnitedStatesDepartmentoftheInterior,Obama

Administration Announces Major Steps toward Leasing for Offshore Wind Projects in Mid-Atlantic(Feb.2,2012),available athttp://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/Obama-Administration-Announces-Major-Steps-toward-Leasing-for-Offshore-Wind-Projects-in-Mid-Atlantic.cfm.

13.FederalRegisterVol.77,No.232,AtlanticWindOneCommercialLeasingforWindPowerontheOuterContinentalShelfOffshoreVirginia—ProposedSaleNotice.

14.Id.15.Id.16.NavigantStudyat80.17.Id.18.Id.at79.19.SeePeterBrannen,Offshore Wind Farms Will Be




10

Encouraged in Tracts along the East Coast,WashingtonPost(Jul.23,2012),available athttp://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/offshore-wind-farms-will-be-encouraged-in-tracts-along-the-east-coast/2012/07/23/gJQAD2Pu4W_story.html.

20.See supranote2.21.NavigantStudyat80.22.Id.23.Id.24.BOEM,UnsolicitedApplicationforaSection238

ResearchLeasebytheVirginiaDepartmentofMines,MineralsandEnergy(Feb.8,2013),available at http://www.boem.gov/uploadedFiles/BOEM/Renewable_Energy_Program/State_Activities/VA/DMME%20Application%20for%20Sec238.pdf.

25.Id.at4.OthermembersincludeAlstom,awindturbinemanufacturer;theNationalRenewableEnergyLaboratory;VirginiaTech;KBRCorp.;andNewportNewsShipbuilding.

26.Id.at11.Alstom,Dominion,andtheVirginiaDMMEhavecommittedtosharetheadditionalcostsofthefirstphaseoftheVOWTAPproject.

27.Id.at1(“TheobjectiveoftheVirginiaresearchleasesisto...acceleratecommercialleasinganddevelopmentoftheVirginiaWindEnergyArea(WEA)andtheassociatedoffshoreenergyindustrysupplychain.Thepathtoachievetheobjectiveistoconductresearchactivitiesthatwillreduceprivatedevelopmentandprojectcostsandlowerrisk.”).

28.Id.at4.29.BOEM,UnsolicitedApplicationforaSection238

ResearchLeasebytheVirginiaDepartmentofMines,MineralsandEnergyat4(Feb.8,2013),available at http://www.boem.gov/uploadedFiles/BOEM/Renewable_Energy_Program/State_Activities/VA/DMME%20Application%20for%20Sec238.pdf.

30.Id. 31.Id.32.BOEM,MilestoneClearedforSecondWindEnergy

ResearchLeaseOffshoreVirginia(Dec.6,2013),available athttp://www.boem.gov/Press12062013/.

33.SeeTheVirginiaOffshoreWindDevelopmentAuthority(Apr.6,2014),available athttp://wind.jmu.edu/offshore/vowda/index.html.

34.Id. 35.Id.36.SeeVa.Code§67-1200 et seq.

37.VirginiaOffshoreWindDevelopmentAuthority,AnnualReportat5-7(Oct.15,2012),available athttp://wind.jmu.edu/offshore/vowda/documents/VOWDA2012FinalAnnualReport.pdf.

38.Id.at26.39.Id.at2.40.SeeTimZink,Wind Turbine Proposals for Atlantic Coast

Face Challenges,BayJournal(Jan.1,2013),available athttp://www.bayjournal.com/article/wind_turbine_proposals_for_atlantic_coast_face_challenges.

41.Id.42.LauraLutz,Clean May Not Always Be Green Where Wind

Power Is Concerned,BayJournal(Mar.1,2011),available athttp://www.bayjournal.com/article/clean_may_not_always_be_green_where_wind_power_is_concerned.

43.Id.44.Id. 45.VirginiaOffshoreWindDevelopmentAuthority,

AnnualReportat3(Oct.15,2012),available at http://wind.jmu.edu/offshore/vowda/documents/VOWDA2012FinalAnnualReport.pdf.

46.SierraClubVirginiaChapter,Tell Dominion to Support Offshore Wind(Apr.62014),available athttp://action.sierraclub.org/site/PageServer?pagename=TellDominiontoSupportVAOffshoreWind.

47.Id.



11

Asanalternativetotherate-basedgoal,astatemayoptforamass-basedgoal.21Undersuchanapproach,a statewouldbe required to lower its total emissions,perhaps by closing a coal-burning facility, withoutnecessarily changing its rate (if for, example, theremainingEGUswereallcoalburningaswell).22EPAdescribes and seeks commenton this situation,wherestatesshrinkthesection111(d)universe:“underamassbasedprogram,ifnewNGCCswerenotincluded,theircostswouldbelessthanthecostofanexistingNGCCunit.”23

Thefirstpartoftherule is thesettingoftherate,summarizedabove.Theseconddealswithstateplansdevelopedtocomplywiththerule.Eachstateisrequiredto submit a state plan toEPA for approval, and theyhavebroaddiscretioninhowtocraftthestateplan.24Thestateplan,likesection110(a)stateimplementationplans,mustincludeenforceablemeasurestoensurethatthereductionsaremade.25AccordingtoEPA,a“stateplan must include enforceable CO2 emission limitsthat apply to affected EGUs.”26 All of the measuresincludedinastateplanwouldbefederallyenforceable,including those carried out by the state.27 EPA isseeking comment, however, on a “state commitmentapproach” that would not have federally enforceablerequirements for entities other than affected EGUs—thosecomponentswouldnotbepartofthestateplan.28

EPA envisions states that use Integrated ResourcePlanning (IRP) as planning their emission reductionsin the IRP framework.29 EPA suggests that theRegional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) offers amodelforhowstatescandesignaprogramforreducingemissions.30Stateswillbeabletocooperateinaregionalapproachbysubmittingoneplanformultiplestates.31A state plan may assign responsibility on the affectedEGUs for the entirety of emission performance—theutility then would be responsible for achieving theemissions rate through outlay of renewables and theother building blocks.32 Alternatively, a state couldtakea“portfolioapproach”byimposingrequirements,such as renewable energy and demand-side efficiencymeasures, onother entities (presumably state agenciesornewlycreatedauthorities).33

Thegistof compliancewith the rule is to changedispatchfromcoaltoNGCCandzero-emittingsources,loweringastate’srate.DispatchofelectricityinVirginiaisofcoursecontrolledbyPJM,notbystateregulatorsor the utilities. A state plan in such a setting wouldlikelysteerdispatchawayfromcoalthroughtheuseofacarboncreditpaidforeachtonofcarbonemitted.34Thestatecoulddeterminethetotalemissionsandsellthe credits, and allow trading between EGUs, in thewaythatsulfurdioxideistradedorcarbonistradedinRGGI.Theemissionscredit,paidbytheEGU,wouldbebuilt into theprice seen through the eyesofPJM.Thus,compliancewiththecarbonprogramwouldthusbe“monetized”intoeconomicdecision-makinginthepowersector,similartotheAcidRainProgramunderTitleIVoftheCAA.35 A state possibly could decline to include anenforceablecapontotalemissions,opting tochargeacarbontaxandmodelthereductionrangeexpected—andthatprogramwouldbefederallyenforceable.Thisapproach would eliminate the need for “offramps”where extreme weather events (e.g., polar vortex)requireadditionalcarbonemissionstoavoidblackouts.It is not clear the extent to which a state plan couldadjust its emissions credit system (trading or tax) tomarket conditions, or whether such changes wouldrequireEPAapproval.Ifthereisonlyoneinevitabilityoftherule,itisthatinthePJMsetting,astatewillsetapriceoncarbonemissions.

Legal Challenges Sincethepublicationoftherule,numerousgroupshave conducted studies and offered conclusions onthe technical ramifications of the rule36 and theenvironmental benefits and costs of compliance.37 Araft of objections to this rulemaking appeared evenbefore the promulgation of the proposed rule. Andshortly after publication, Murray Energy Companyand twelve states filed separate petitions in the D.C.Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the proposedrulemaking.38 That legal challenge, and several otherlegalissues,issummarizedbelow. The thrust of the extraordinary writ argumentis that EPA does not have the authority to regulate

From Smokestacks to the Grid (continued)



12

a source under section 111(d) if existing stationarysourcesofthepollutantinquestionareregulatedundersection112oftheCAA.InpromulgatingitsMercuryAir Toxics Standard (the MATS rule) under section112 and regulating existing EGUs, the argumentgoes, EPA lost its ability to use section 111(d). Theargument is based on the 1990 amendments to theCAA.TheHouseofRepresentativesandSenatepassedslightly different versions of the bill, and ultimatelybothamendmentswerepresentinthelegislationsignedby the president.39 The current version of the CAAcontainsbothchangesinbracketswithanotethattheamendments “appear to be duplicative or conflicting;both, in different language, change the reference tosection112.”40 AnotherlegalchallengeconcernswhethertheCleanAirActallowsEPAtoimposedifferentrequirementsonindividualstates.ThetextoftheActinsection111(d)speakstoestablishingastandardofperformance,whichis defined as the best system of emission reductionadequately demonstrated—the text does not appearto contemplate state by state emission standards, butonlyanationalone.41Thelegislativehistoryofsection111(d)supportstheideathatthesectionwasmeanttocreatenationallyuniformstandardsandnotfavoroneregion over another.42 Like other parts of the CleanAirAct,section111wasdesignedtopreventa“racetothebottom”byhavingnationallyconsistentstandards.EPA takes the position that while the states’ goalsaredifferent, the applicationof thebuildingblocks isconsistent,anditisthebuildingblocksthatconstitutethebestsystemofemissionsreduction. For some states like Virginia, the final emissionsrate is actually more stringent than the rates EPAproposed fornewpowerplants.43 Somecommentershave argued that the Clean Air Act does not permitEPA to set a section 111(d) standard for existingsources that is more stringent than the standard fornewsourcesunder section111(b). LegislativehistorysuggeststhatCongress intendedtheregulationofnewsourcestobemorestringentthanexistingsources,asitismoreeconomicaltoinstallpollutioncontrolsonnewfacilities.44 This interpretation comports with EPA’s

ownNutshellpublicationontheAct:“Thelawcallsfornewstationarysourcestobebuiltwithbesttechnology,andallowslessstringentstandardsforexistingstationarysources.”45 Anotherlegalissue,andperhapsthemostpopular,isthatEPAisgoing“outsidethefenceline”toregulateemissions.Existingpowerplantscannotreducecarbonemissions by 30% on their own with reasonablyavailabletechnology.Instead,EPAwouldpermitstateregulators tomandateothermeasures to achieve30%instatewideemissions.Forexample,astatecaneffectaredispatchfromcoaltonaturalgasbyimplementingacapandtradesystemorperhapsacarbontax.Itcanalsoincrease the outlay of renewable energy and mandateimprovementsinenergyefficiency.Anumberofstateand industry voices have challenged the “outside thefenceline”approachasbeyondEPA’sauthorityundertheCleanAirAct. Resolution of these issues will depend on thebreadth of deference that federal courts give EPA tointerprettheprovisionsoftheAct.UnderChevron,thecourtswillaccepttheagency’sinterpretationifCongresshasnotaddressedtheissue,andtheinterpretationisareasonable one.46 Generally, where there is a gapor an ambiguity, courts will generally defer to EPA’sinterpretation. Intwocasesfromthespringof2014,theSupremeCourt applied Chevron to uphold EPA’s regulatoryauthority,atleastinpractice.Inthefirstcase,theCourtupheld EPA’s cross-state rule despite the fact that itconsideredcosts,whichappearedcontrarytotheCAA’slanguage regarding reducing based on contribution(ratherthancosts).47Essentially,EPA’smodelingtookinto account cost, reflecting the belief that it wouldmake the most sense to require pollution controls atthe largest, dirtiest plants where reductions could bemade cheaply.48 The Court, citing to Chevron, heldthatthestatutepermittedEPAtoconsidercosts,sayingthatdoingso“alsomakesgoodsense.”49Thedissentargued that the Court was undemocratically bendingthestatuteforconsiderationofeconomicefficiency.50

Thesameconflictofpracticalityandefficiencyonthe one hand versus the statutory text on the otheremergedinUtility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA.51The




13

CourthadbeforeitEPA’sdeterminationthatTitleVoftheCAAcompelledittoregulategreenhousegasesfromany source. Because thenumberof sources thatemitthestatutorythresholdswassovast,EPAhadadoptedthe tailoring rule so that only large emitters wouldbe regulated.52 TheCourt struckdown the tailoringrule, as it strayed from the plain numerical standardsofthestatute. ItalsorejectedEPA’s interpretationoftheCAAthata sourcemustobtainaPSDorTitleVpermitonthesolebasisofitspotentialgreenhousegasemissions. Its reasoning, in light of 111(d), is worthnoting:

EPA’s interpretation is also unreasonablebecauseitwouldbringaboutanenormousand transformative expansion in EPA’sregulatory authority without clearcongressional authorization. When anagency claims to discover in a long-extant statute an unheralded power toregulate a significant portion of theAmerican economy, we typically greetits announcement with a measure ofskepticism.WeexpectCongresstospeakclearly if it wishes to assign to an agencydecisions of vast economic and politicalsignificance.53

But crucially, the Court upheld EPA’s authorityto regulate large emitters of greenhouse gases as“anyway” sources already regulated under the Act.54The Court thus struck two major blows to EPA’slegalinterpretations,butallowedEPAtoproceedwithregulationofGHGsfromlargeemitters. How the federal courts will address the statutoryglitchinthe1990amendmentstotheCAA,ortothefence line or other legal challenges that it will face,remains tobe seen. EPAwillmost certainly take theposition that the Clean Air Act does not specificallyaddress these issues, that the term “best system ofemissionreduction”hasacapaciousmeaning,andthusthattheirinterpretationshouldbeupheldasreasonable.EPA recently pushed back the date for the final ruleto issue to “midsummer,” and the final rule for new

sourceswillissueatthattimeaswell.h

About the Author: Matthew Gooch serves as an Assistant Attorney General in the Environmental Section of the Office of the Attorney General of Virginia. He litigates cases before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. In 2014, Mr. Gooch successfully argued an appeal before the Supreme Court of Virginia, which reversed the en banc Court of Appeals in a case involving public health. Prior to joining the office, he clerked for two years for Justice William C. Mims at the Supreme Court of Virginia. Mr. Gooch is a graduate of the University of Richmond’s T.C. Williams School of Law and Washington & Lee University. Any views expressed herein are those of Mr. Gooch and not the Attorney General.

(Endnotes)1. 79Fed.Reg.117(June18,2014)(tobecodifiedat40

C.F.R.pt.60).2. Id.at34879.3. Id.at34833.4. Id.5. Id.at34832.6. Id.at34839-41.7. Id. 8. Id.at34836-37.9. Id.10.Id.at34894.11.VirginiaCenterforCoalandEnergyResearch,

Virginia Energy Plan Item 8: Impacts of Proposed Regulations under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Actat39(Sep.26,2014),available athttp://www.dmme.virginia.gov/DE/LinkDocuments/2014_VirginiaEnergyPlan/21AppendixA1.pdf.

12.Id.at43.See also79Fed.Reg.1430(Jan.8,2014)(settingarateof1,000lbs/MWHfornewgasplants).

13.79Fed.Reg.117at34895.14.Id.15.Id. 16.Id.at34855-58.17.Id.at34837,34876.18.Id.at34837.19.Id.at34834.20.Id.at34836.




14

21.Id.at34837.22.Id.at34838,34924;see alsoTechnicalSupport

DocumentforCarbonPollutionEmissionGuidelinesforExistingStationarySources:ElectricUtilityGeneratingUnits,TranslationoftheCleanPowerPlanEmissionRate-BasedCO2GoalstoMass-BasedEquivalents,DocketIDNo.EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602(Nov.2014).

23.Id.at34924.24.Id.at34900-28;see alsoTechnicalSupportDocument

forCarbonPollutionEmissionGuidelinesforExistingStationarySources:ElectricUtilityGeneratingUnits,StatePlanConsiderations,DocketIDNo.EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602(June2014)(“StatePlanConsiderationsTechnicalSupportDocument”).

25.Id.at34909-10.26.Id.at34837.27.Id.at34902.28.Id.at34902.29.Id.at34834.30.Id.at34838.31.34833,34834.32.SeeStatePlanConsiderationsTechnicalSupport

Documentat6.33.Id.at34853;StatePlanConsiderationsTechnical

SupportDocumentat8-12.34.See id.at34847-48,34910;StatePlanConsiderations

TechnicalSupportDocumentat7-8.35.Id.at34834,34862.36.See e.g.,VirginiaCenterforCoalandEnergyResearch,

Virginia Energy Plan Item 8: Impacts of Proposed Regulations under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Actat39(Sep.26,2014),available athttp://www.dmme.virginia.gov/DE/LinkDocuments/2014_VirginiaEnergyPlan/21AppendixA1.pdf;CommentsoftheStaffoftheVirginiaStateCorporationCommissionontheProposedCleanPowerPlan,DocketIDNo.EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602(Oct.14,2014).

37.E.g.,SouthernEnvironmentalLawCenter,CleanPowerPlanImpactAnalysisSupport(Sep.4,2014),available athttp://www.dmme.virginia.gov/DE/LinkDocuments/2014_VirginiaEnergyPlan/22AppendixA2.pdf.

38.Murray Energy v. EPA,CaseNo.14-1112(D.C.Cir.2014);West Virginia v. EPA,CaseNo.14-1146(D.C.Cir.2014).

39.PubL.101-549,§108(g),104Stat.2,399,2,467(1990)(Houseversion);Pub.L.101-549,§302(a),104Stat.2,399,2,574(1990)(Senateversion).

40.42U.S.C.§7411(d)(asamendedthroughP.L.108-201(Feb.24,2004)).

41.42U.S.C.§7411.42.H.R.Rep.95-294(1977);H.R.Conf.Rep.95-564

(1977).43.See79Fed.Reg.1430(Jan.8,2014)(settingrateof

1,000lbs/MWHfornewgasplantsand1,100lbs/MWHfornewcoalplants).

44.H.R.Rep.95-294(1977);H.R.Conf.Rep.95-564(1977).

45.UnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgency,TheCleanAirActinaNutshell:HowitWorks(Mar.22,2013).

46.Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.,476U.S.837(1984).

47.EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, LP,134S.Ct.1584(2014).

48.Id.at1596-97.49.Id.at1607.50.Id.at1610(Scalia,J.,dissenting).51.134S.Ct.2427(2014).52.Id.at2437-38.53.Id.at2444(internalcitationsandquotationmarks

omitted).54.Id.at2449.

From Smokestacks to the Grid: (continued)


15

VIRGINIA STATE BAR ADMINISTRATIVE LAW SECTIONBoard of Governors 2014-2015

Kristian Mark DahlChairMcGuireWoodsLLP(804)[email protected]

Ashley B. MackoVice ChairStateCorporationCommission(804)[email protected]

Charlotte P. McAfeeSecretaryDominionResourcesServices,Inc.(804)[email protected]

Samuel R. BrumbergImmediate Past ChairVirginiaMaryland&DelawareAssociationofElectricCooperatives(804)[email protected]

James G. RitterNewsletter EditorChristian&Barton,LLP(804)[email protected]

Meera AhamedWashingtonGasLightCompany(202)[email protected]

Charles M. Burton, Jr.OfficeoftheAttorneyGeneral(804)[email protected]

K. Beth ClowersStateCorporationCommission(804)[email protected]

Philip R. “Duke” de HaasTroutmanSandersLLP(804)[email protected]

Alisson P. KlaiberStateCorporationCommission(804)[email protected]

Nancy F. [email protected]

William T. ReisingerOfficeoftheAttorneyGeneral(804)[email protected]

Mark C. Shuford SpencerLLP(804)[email protected]

Web Site News The Section’s home page on the Virginia State Bar’s web site now provides a helpful bit of history, reflect-

ing past developments in state regulatory law and the Section’s efforts to keep its membership apprised of those

developments. A comprehensive collection of Administrative Law News issues dating back to 1988 can now

be accessed on-line. In addition, the programs of every National Regulatory Conference can be downloaded.

The Administrative Section home page can be found at http://www.vsb.org/sections/ad/index.htm Or,

if it’s easier, just go to the State Bar’s web site (www.vsb.org), click on “Sections,” then “Administrative Law.”

Administrative Law News PRST STDU.S. POSTAGE

PAIDPERMIT NO. 709

RICHMONDVIrgInIA stAte BAr

1111 e. mAIn street, suIte 700rIchmond, VA 23219-3565

WWW.VsB.org/sectIons/Ad/IndeX.htm