Category Archives: Climate Change

An Emerging Corporate Risk – Climate Impacts to Critical Energy Infrastructure

By: Rudiger Tscherning

PDF Version: An Emerging Corporate Risk – Climate Impacts to Critical Energy Infrastructure

Research Commented On: “Corporate Risk and Climate Impacts to Critical Energy Infrastructure in Canada” (Dalhousie Law Journal)

Introduction

This post, based on my recent article, examines climate impacts to critical energy infrastructure assets from a corporate risk perspective. It focuses on the importance of undertaking climate adaptation to critical energy infrastructure as a corporate risk-mitigation strategy. Emerging climate risk was most recently identified as one of the top five challenges facing the global economy at the World Economic Forum 2020 in Davos, Switzerland (see World Economic Forum Global Risks Report 2020).

By way of background, Canada’s 2009 National Strategy for Critical Infrastructure considers infrastructure as critical where the asset is essential to the “health, safety, security or economic well-being of Canadians.” Examples in the energy sector include electricity generation and transmission infrastructure, oil and gas industry infrastructure, maritime ports, and rail infrastructure related to energy transportation. All of these classes of assets are vulnerable to the anticipated and unanticipated effects of climate change impacts from extreme weather and climate events, which are predicted to intensify. These impacts may affect both the physical infrastructure of the asset and their operations, as well as the business continuity of the owners and operators of the asset. Within this context, adaptation to the effects of climate change can be considered a process of adjustments in natural and human systems to actual or expected climate impacts and their effects (see, for example, Article 7 of the Paris Agreement, 12 December 2015, FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1). Continue reading →

Draft Strategic Assessment of Climate Change: Big Steps for Impact Assessment, Baby Steps for Climate Change

By: David V. Wright

PDF Version: Draft Strategic Assessment of Climate Change: Big Steps for Impact Assessment, Baby Steps for Climate Change

Document Commented On: Environment and Climate Change Canada, Draft Strategic Assessment of Climate Change

Earlier this year, Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) released draft guidance for the climate change related requirements in the new federal Impact Assessment Act (S.C. 2019, c. 28, s. 1) (IAA or the Act). While the future of this guidance was uncertain in recent months due to the federal election, as was the future of the entire new regime, the Act is now firmly in force and here to stay. No amendments are expected, as stated by the new federal environment minister. As part of implementing the regime, the new Impact Assessment Agency (the Agency) is now in the process of issuing detailed guidance explaining what information proponents should provide during the planning and assessment phases, including with respect to initial and detailed project descriptions, engagement with Indigenous communities, public participation, and climate change. The final climate change guidance, which ECCC has developed through what it calls a Strategic Assessment on Climate Change (SACC), is expected in early 2020.

This post focuses on the draft SACC. Specifically, I provide relevant background, explain the general threshold-based structure of the proposed regime, and then offer commentary on several key features and one missing piece. Overall, this draft guidance takes a significant step in the right direction by providing details and parameters that should be welcomed by project proponents and those interested in seeing clarity regarding quantification of greenhouse gasses (GHGs) in impact assessment. This is no small feat in the impact assessment realm where integration of climate change considerations has been a challenge for many years across the world. However, in several ways the guidance does not go far enough, particularly in terms of relating project-specific emissions analysis with what really matters: achieving Canada’s climate change commitments and avoiding severe climate change-induced damage on a global scale. As the 25th Conference of the parties (“COP 25”) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change draws to a close in Madrid, the world is watching. It is not too late for Canada to further clarify how emissions from major projects reviewed under the IAA will fit into the path toward achieving Canada’s targets under the Paris Agreement and achieving the recently announced commitment to net zero carbon emissions by 2050, which has just been included in the mandate letter released today to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. Continue reading →

A Comment on the Strategically Narrowed Strategic Assessment of Climate Change

By: David V. Wright

PDF Version: A Comment on the Strategically Narrowed Strategic Assessment of Climate Change 

Document Commented On: Terms of Reference for the Federal Strategic Assessment of Climate Change

 Earlier this month, Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) released the terms of reference (TOR) for the Strategic Assessment of Climate Change (SA). This post briefly provides commentary on the context behind this development, offers several initial impressions of the TOR, and notes a number of ways to make the most of the process as now prescribed. Overall, the TOR charts a relatively narrow path that misses a critical opportunity to improve coherence across climate law, policy and programs in Canada, including with respect to carbon pricing and provincial climate measures such as those in Alberta.

For those following federal developments on the climate law and policy front, the wait for the TOR was a long one. This is the first development since the discussion paper released last summer. Why it took so long is unclear, though the federal government has obviously had a number of matters to contend with on the climate front, including the Ontario and Saskatchewan carbon price reference cases (the latter discussed in a recent post by my colleague, Martin Olszynski) and the relatively contentious Bill C-69.

Continue reading →

Dissonance in Federal Carbon Pricing Regime(s)

By: David V Wright

PDF Version: Dissonance in Federal Carbon Pricing Regime(s)

Legislation Commented On: Legislative Proposals Relating to the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act

Last week, the Trudeau government released draft legislation for a national price on carbon pollution, the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. While this significant step should be lauded as follow-through on important election and international commitments, it is another step toward embedding a disconcerting dissonance that still exists within the federal approach to assigning a monetary value to carbon emissions. Specifically, there remains a glaring and unexplained discrepancy between the soon-to-be-legislated carbon price and the dollar value associated with the social cost of carbon (SCC) used in federal regulatory analyses. In this post, I briefly recount the path to the release of last week’s legislative proposal, then explain the social cost of carbon concept and how it is used, and then conclude with a short account of the apparent dissonance between the carbon pricing in the draft legislation and the government’s SCC estimates.  Continue reading →

In the Growing Wave of Climate Litigation, Could the Automobile Industry be Next?

By: Martin Olszynski

PDF Version: In the Growing Wave of Climate Litigation, Could the Automobile Industry be Next?

Litigation Commented On: County of San Mateo v Chevron Corp., Docket number(s): 3:17-cv-04929-MEJ; County of Marin v Chevron Corp., Docket number(s): 3:17-cv-04935; City of Imperial Beach v Chevron Corp., Docket number(s): 4:17-cv-04934; People of State of California v BP p.l.c., No CGC-17-561370 (Cal Super Ct, filed Sept 19, 2017); People of State of California v BP p.l.c., No RG17875889 (Cal Super Ct, filed Sept 19, 2017)

Over the course of the summer, five California municipalities (San Mateo County, Marin County, and the City of Imperial Beach as a first group, San Francisco and Oakland as a second) filed statements of claim against many of the world’s largest oil and gas companies – including Exxon Mobil, Chevron, BP, Shell, and Canada’s own Encana – claiming that these companies should be liable for the current and future costs incurred by these municipalities as a result of climate change, and especially those associated with rising sea levels. In this post, I consider whether the world’s top automobile manufacturers could be next in the defendant line. I’ve been thinking about automobile manufacturers’ potential liability for a while now, having first considered the issue in a recent article co-authored with Professors Sharon Mascher and Meinhard Doelle (which we blogged about here). This post’s focus on car manufacturers has been motivated by two separate but related developments in particular: (i) the automobile manufacturers’ December 2016 letter to Scott Pruitt, the then-new head of the United States’ Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), requesting that he reconsider the “strict” fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks established by the Obama administration; and (ii) the industry’s response to a potential zero emission vehicle (ZEV) mandate currently being considered here in Canada, and especially the industry’s suggestion that it “can’t control consumer tastes”. Continue reading →