AES Corp v. Steadfast

In a major victory for insurers, the Virginia Supreme Court held that insurance companies do not have to defend utility companies accused of intentional wrongdoing in connection with climate change liability lawsuits. In AES Corp. v. Steadfast Insurance Co.,[1] the court concluded that the underlying climate change claims in the Kivalina lawsuit did not constitute an “occurrence” under AES’ commercial general liability (CGL) policies. Because the court decided the case on the occurrence issue, the court did not reach the issue of whether the pollution exclusion might apply. 



[1] Virginia Supreme Court Case No. 100764.

Continue Reading...

Rhetoric increases over alleged EPA regulatory "train wreck" but will reliability really be imperiled?

As part of their fall jobs agenda, House Republicans are targeting a number of controversial EPA regulations, including the utility MACT and cross-state air pollution (“CSAP”) rules.  Opponents of these and other rules argue that they will result in a regulatory “train wreck,” which could threaten the reliability of domestic electricity grid.  Next week, the House is expected to consider H.R. 2401, the Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation Act, which would require an analysis of the cumulative economic impacts of EPA’s air, waste, water and climate change rules.  In addition, two House Committees held hearings this week regarding the potential impacts of these rules.  The House Energy and Power Subcommittee held a hearing with commissioners from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) on the potential reliability and costs implications of the utility MACT, CSAP and other proposed EPA regulatory actions.  A House Science Committee also heard testimony from EPA, utilities and state regulators regarding the CSAP rule.  

Continue Reading...

U.S. Solar Spin, China Moves Ahead

 Congressional oversight and press coverage of DoE’s failed $500 million loan guarantee to Solyndra, a now bankrupt U.S. solar manufacturer, is everywhere.  These loans were provided pursuant to Section 1705 of the 2005 Energy Policy Act authorizing DoE to provide credit subsidies to emerging technologies including solar, nuclear and carbon capture & storage for coal.  There is a significant amount of political finger pointing in Washington to explain why Solyndra went bankrupt and who is to blame for leaving U.S. taxpayers potentially on the hook.  

With President Obama’s green jobs push, it is easy to see why Solyndra is such a hot political button. There are also reports of campaign contributions linked to both the decision to approve by solar interests and zealous scrutiny by some critics in Congress linked to fossil fuel interests.

Continue Reading...