Change picture on Slide Master The Climate Change Scene in Washington Georgia Traditional Manufacturers Association LaGrange, GA November 5, 2009 PRESENTED BY Peter Glaser Troutman Sanders LLP th Street, NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC

CURRENT STATE OF PLAY Congress EPA Courts Copenhagen in December

Waxman-Markey Passed House June 26, 2009, vote – 8 Rs for, 44 Ds against First bill to pass either House that mandates GHG Reductions 1427 pages (!) 300+ page Manager’s Amendment Filed at 3:00 A.M. the day of vote Floor debate limited to one afternoon

Change picture on Slide Master

Cap-and-Trade Cap-and-trade program for capped sources, principally large industrial sources emitting ≥ 25,000 tpy CO2e and accounting for 85% of U.S. GHG emissions. Targets and Timetables - 3% below 2005 when program starts in % below by % below by % below by 2050

Source: Climate Policy Group

Change picture on Slide Master

The Senate 6 Committees have jurisdiction over bill, leading committee is Boxer’s EPW, but Kerry (Foreign Relations), Baucus (Finance), and Lincoln (new Chair of Ag) expected to play strong roles. Majority Leader Reid has essentially thrown in towel on getting bill this year Problem is Midwestern and coal state Ds

Kerry-Boxer Introduced 9/30 with key sections blank Chairman’s Mark with key sections filled at 11 PM Fri, 10/23 (900+ pages) Hearings week of 10/26 Mark-up this week?

Kerry-Boxer v. Waxman-Markey Similar on cap-and-trade Kerry-Boxer more aggressive 2020 target: 20% reduction vs. 17% reduction Kerry-Boxer more liberal on offsets (maybe) Kerry-Boxer does not provide same trade protections Waxman-Markey has energy provisions that Kerry-Boxer does not include because of lack of jurisdiction

Key Political Considerations Northeast/West Coast vs. Heartland Overwhelming complexity of bill and of harmonizing work of different committees in Senate, plus between House and Senate → Key Role for Conference Committee if it gets that far Health Care Unemployment Rate Don’t underestimate President’s determination

Supreme Court Massachusetts v. EPA Decision April 2007 GHGs are CAA “air pollutants” which EPA must regulate if it finds endangerment to public health or welfare Case was in the context of GHG emissions from new motor vehicles, but precedent applies to sources across the economy

Next Steps EPA to finalize endangerment finding this year EPA’s first GHG regulation will be for new motor vehicles by 3/31/10 EPA will begin proposing GHG performance standards for categories of sources beginning next year

The PSD Permit Problem for Major Stationary Sources As soon as auto GHG regs are finalized next March, GHGs are regulated pollutants At that time, “major” new and “major” modified sources of GHG emissions must have PSD permits with GHG Best Available Control Technology EPA “tailoring rule” to define “major” as 25,000 tpy CO2e – questionable legality Expect several years of confusion as to what is BACT for CO2 at various plants

CO2 Nuisance Decisions Are a Huge Problem 2 federal courts of appeals: GHG emitters can be held liable for tort of global warming Further appeals likely Potential impact on legislative debate

Copenhagen No one expects any significant agreement at this point: issue is Third World refusal to commit to actual reductions Blame game commencing But watch out for last-minute deals: U.S. and China have been talking

GHG REGULATION: HOW MUCH PAIN?

Peter Glaser Troutman Sanders LLP th Street, N.W., #1000 Washington, D.C