March 2021

It’s Not Always Greener on the Other Side: Challenges to Environmental Marketing Claims

March 28, 2021
Environment, Environmental Law, FTC, Regulatory

Ben Cooper, MJLST Staffer

On March 16, 2021 a trio of environmental groups filed an FTC complaint against Chevron alleging that Chevron violated the FTC’s Green Guides by falsely claiming “investment in renewable energy and [Chevron’s] commitment to reducing fossil fuel pollution.” The groups claim that this complaint is the first to use the Green Guides to prevent companies from making misleading environmental claims. Public attention has supported companies that minimize their environmental impact, but this FTC complaint suggests that a critical regulatory eye might be in the future. If the environmental groups convince the FTC to enforce the Green Guides against Chevron, other companies should review the claims they make about their products and operations.

A Morning Consult poll released in early December 2020 showed that nearly half of U.S. adults supported expanding the use of carbon removal practices and technologies. Only six percent of survey respondents opposed carbon removal practices. In response to the overwhelming public support for carbon reduction, hundreds of major companies are making some type of commitment to reduce their carbon footprint and curb climate change. One popular program, the Science Based Targets initiative, has over 1,200 participants who made various pledges to decarbonize (or offset the carbon within) their operations.

International and non-governmental organizations took the reins of climate change policy, especially once the Trump Administration withdrew the United States from the Paris Agreement in 2017. “Climate change seems to be the leading fashion statement for business in 2019,” declared a Marketplace story in October of 2019. Yet, as with fashion, style only gets one so far. Substance is key—and often lacking. One of the founders of the Science Based Targets initiative criticized fashionable but flimsy voluntary corporate commitments: “[T]here is not a lot of substance behind those [voluntary corporate] commitments or the commitments are not comprehensive enough.”

The voluntary commitments placated environmental groups when the alternative was the Trump Administration’s silence—but the Biden Administration presents an eager environmental partner: the FTC complaint “is the first test to see if [the Biden Administration] will follow through with their commitment to hold big polluters accountable,” said an environmental group spokesperson according to a Reuters report. The consensus of environmental groups, industry commentators, and regulatory observers appears to be that government oversight is imminent to encourage consistency and accountability—and to avoid “greenwashing.”

Should organizations that make environmental claims be concerned about enforcement action? It is too early to tell if the Chevron FTC complaint portends future complaints. In the Green Guides, the FTC declared that it seeks to avoid placing “the FTC in the inappropriate role of setting environmental policy,” which might suggest that it will stick to questions of misrepresentation and avoid wading into questions of evaluating environmental claims. It is also worth noting that the FTC is missing one of its five commissioners and Commissioner Rohit Chopra is expected to resign in anticipation of his nomination to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. While the FTC might not be in a position at the moment to enforce the Green Guides, organizations that make environmental claims in marketing materials should monitor this complaint and ensure their compliance with FTC guidance as well as any policy changes from the Biden Administration.

Clawing Back the “Jackpot” Won During the Texas Blackouts

March 28, 2021
Economics, Energy Law, Regulatory

Isaac Foote, MJLST Staffer

For most Texans, the winter storm in February 2021 meant cold temperatures, uncertain electricity at best, and prolonged blackouts at worst. For some energy companies, however, it was like “hitting the jackpot.” We here at MJLST (in Madeline Vavricek’s excellent piece) have already discussed the numerous historical factors that made Texas’s power system so vulnerable to this storm, but in the month after power was restored to customers, a new challenge has emerged for regulators to address: who will pay the estimated $50 billion in electricity transactions carried out during the week of blackouts. A number estimated to eclipse the total sales on the system over the previous three years!

At the highest level, the Texas blackouts were a result of the electric grid’s need to be ‘balanced’ in real time, i.e. always have sufficient electricity supply to meet demand. As the winter storm hit Texas, consumers increased demand for electricity, as they turned up electric heaters, while simultaneously a lack of winterization drove natural gas, wind, and nuclear electricity producers offline. So, to “avoid a catastrophic failure that could have left Texans in the dark for months,” Texas grid operator, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), needed to find a way to drastically increase electricity supply and reduce electricity demand. Blackouts were the tool-of-last-resort to cut demand, but ERCOT also attempted to increase supply through authorizing an extremely high wholesale price of electricity. Specifically, ERCOT and the Texas Public Utility Commission (PUC) authorized a price of $9,000 per megawatt hour (MWh), over 340 times the annual average price of $26/MWh.

These high prices may have kept some additional generation online, but they also resulted in devastating impacts for consumers (especially those using the electric provider Griddy) and electric distributors (like Brazos Electric Power Cooperative that has already filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection). Now, the Independent Market Monitor (IMM)for the PUC is questioning whether the $9,000/MWh electricity price was maintained for too long after the storm hit: specifically, the 32 hours following the end of controlled blackouts between February 17th and 19th. The IMM claims that the decision to delay reducing the price of electricity “resulted in $16 billion in additional costs to ERCOT’s market” that will eventually need to be recovered from consumers.

The IMM report on the issue has created a showdown in Texas Government between the State Senate, House, and the PUC. Former Chair of the PUC, Arthur D’Andrea, argued against repricing as “it’s just nearly impossible to unscramble this sort of egg,” while the State Senate passed a bill that would require ERCOT to claw back between $4.2 billion and $5.1 billion in from generators for the inflated prices. D’Andrea’s opposition to the clawback has already resulted in his resignation, but it appears unlikely this conflict will be resolved as the State House may concur with the PUC’s position.

There is further confusion over whether such a clawback would be legal in the first place. Before his resignation, D’Andrea implied such a clawback was beyond the power of the PUC. However, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issued an opinion that: “the Public Utility Commission has complete authority to act to ensure that ERCOT has accurately accounted for electricity production and delivery among market participants in the region. Such authority likely could be interpreted to allow the Public Utility Commission to order ERCOT to correct prices for wholesale electricity and ancillary services during a specific timeframe . . . provided that such regulatory action furthers a compelling public interest.”

Going forward it appears that the Texas energy industry will be facing a wave of lawsuits and bankruptcies, whatever the decisions made by the PUC or legislators. However, it is important to remember that someone will end up bearing responsibility for the billions of dollars in costs incurred during the crisis. While most consumers will not see this directly on their electricity bill, like those using Griddy had the misfortune to experience, these costs will eventually be transferred onto consumers in some ways. Managing this process in conjunction with rebuilding a more resilient energy system will be a challenge that Texas energy system stakeholders, policymakers, and regulators will have to take on.

No, Dolphins Did Not Reappear in Venice Canals: The Effects of COVID-19 on the Environment

March 14, 2021
COVID-19, Environment, Public Health

Drew Miller, MJLST Staffer

2020 was a strange, difficult year for billions of people as the COVID-19 pandemic wreaked havoc across the globe. The virus has claimed the lives of over 2,500,000 people, but the effects of the pandemic extend well beyond the loss of life. In an effort to slow the spread of the virus, governments at every level around the world began to implement protective measures such as stay-at-home orders and travel bans as early as March 2020 in the United States—nearly a full year ago. The mass quarantine forced over 100,000 businesses to close their doors in the first two months—some temporarily, some permanently— which in turn led to a rise in unemployment and massive drops in stock markets such as the Dow Jones and the FTSE. These economic effects and their potential remedies have been debated endlessly by news organizations, politicians, and regular citizens alike. However, the environmental effects of the pandemic have not been covered as extensively. Reduced travel tendencies have provided the climate and environment a reprieve, but it will not last; if we are to continue down the road towards environmental sustainability, we must continue to push for reform despite the unique challenges presented by COVID-19.

Environmental Effects

In mid-March, 2020, scattered among an unremitting flood of bad news, some happy stories emerged. Swans and dolphins had returned to formerly desolate Venice canals. A group of elephants had sauntered through a village in Yunnan, China, gotten drunk off corn wine, and passed out in a tea garden. Wild boars were wandering through towns. The stories continued. These reports of the Earth healing and wildlife reclaiming space in a world without people went viral, and understandably so: they offered a spark of light in a dark and uncertain time. One tweet (since deleted) about fish, swans, and clear water in Venice canals amassed over 1,000,000 likes.

Unfortunately, the stories weren’t real. “The swans … regularly appear in the canals of Burano.” “The ‘Venetian’ dolphins were filmed at a port in Sardinia, in the Mediterranean Sea, hundreds of miles away.” The water was clearer because fewer boats were disturbing the sediment at the bottom. The elephants are a regular presence in the depicted village. If anything, allow these stories to serve as a reminder not to believe everything on the internet.

Moreover, the pandemic may have hurt wildlife more than it helped. Many governments pay for environmental conservation and enforcement initiatives with tourism revenue. As that revenue dried up and budgets were cut, those protections weakened. Financial distress caused by widespread unemployment further exacerbated the situation. In April, there were reports of increased falcon smuggling in Pakistan; in June, poaching of leopards and tigers in India; and in October, trafficking of rhino horns in South Africa and Botswana. The chaos of the pandemic also provided cover for illegal logging in the Brazilian Amazon rainforest, which rose more than 50% in the first three months of 2020 compared to the same period in 2019.

Nevertheless, despite the absence of Venetian dolphins, the pandemic looked “okay” from an environmental perspective in 2020. Although there was an uptick in reliance on single-use plastics during lockdowns and increased generation of biomedical waste, pollution levels improved. Transportation, the most significant source of greenhouse gases in the United States, saw a 14.7% decline in emissions, and America’s greenhouse gas emissions from energy and industry plummeted more than 10 percent in 2020, reaching their lowest levels in at least three decades. According to a research group, the fall in emissions nationwide was the largest one-year decline since at least World War II. There were also reduced levels of water and noise pollution.

Policy Implications

Unfortunately, the pollution-related benefits of COVID-19 are likely only temporary. Emissions reductions and air quality improvements primarily resulted from reduced transportation. Consequently, as more people return to their typical travel habits, emissions and air quality are likely to bounce back to their pre-pandemic levels. As Corinne Le Quere, professor of climate change at the University of East Anglia in Britain, stated, “We still have the same cars, the same roads, the same industries, same houses. So as soon as the restrictions are released, we go right back to where we were.”

In fact, emissions may bounce back to levels even higher than they were prior to the pandemic due to the dismantling of numerous climate and environmental policies worldwide. In the United States, nearly 100 environmental protection policies and regulations were reversed or rolled back during the Trump presidency. Citing economic concerns due to COVID, the Czech Prime Minister urged the European Union to abandon the Green New Deal and the European Automobile Manufacturers Association lobbied the European Commission to weaken vehicle emission standards.

COVID-19 has impacted just about every industry in the world, and its economic ramifications continue to present significant difficulties. However, the pandemic is, ultimately, temporary; rebuilding will be challenging, but just as the economy rebounded after the 2008 recession, so it will do again. The Earth may not be so resilient. If we are to achieve a healthier and more sustainable world, businesses and policymakers alike must not recoil from that effort even in the face of unexpected bumps in the road—instead, they must forge ahead.

Decode 16 tons (of bitcoin), what do you get? Nevada considers redefining the phrase “corporate governance”

March 14, 2021
Corporate Ethics, Cryptocurrency, Economics, Regulatory

Jesse Smith, MJLST Staffer

On January 16, 2020, Nevada Governor Steve Sisolak, as part of his state of the state address, announced a new legislative proposal allowing certain types of private companies to essentially purchase the ability to govern as public entities. The proposal applies specifically to tech firms operating within the fields of blockchain, autonomous technology, the internet of things, robotics, artificial intelligence, wireless technology, biometrics, and renewable resources technology. Those that purchase or own at least 50,000 contiguous acres of undeveloped and uninhabited land within a single county can apply to create “innovation zones” within the property, or self-governed cities structured around the technology the company develops or operates. The company must apply to Nevada’s Office of Economic Development and provide a preliminary capital investment of at least $250 million, along with an additional $1 billion invested over ten years. Upon approval by the state, the area would become an “innovation zone,” initially governed by a three-member board appointed by the governor, two members of which would be picked from a list provided by the company creating the zone. This board would be able to levy taxes and create courts, school districts, police departments, and other offices empowered to carry out various municipal government functions.

One of the main companies lobbying for the passage of the bill, and the likely its first candidate or adopter, is Blockchains LLC, a Nevada based startup that designs blockchain based software in the areas of “digital identity, digital assets, connected devices and a stable means of digital payment.” The company purchased 67,000 acres of largely undeveloped land near Reno in 2018 for $170 million, in pursuit of building what it calls a “sandbox city,.” There, the company would further develop and use its blockchain technology to store records and administer various public and private functions, including “banking and finance, supply chains, ID management, loyalty programs, digital security, medical records, real estate records, and data sharing.”

Natural and rightful criticism of the legislation has mounted since the announcement. Many pointed out that Jeffrey Berns, the founder of Blockchains LLC, is a large donor to both Sisolak and Democratic PACs in Nevada. Furthermore, months before the proposal was unveiled, Blockchains purchased water rights hundreds of miles away to divert to its Nevada land, prompting various outcries from water rights and indigenous activists. From a broader perspective, skeptics conjured up dystopian images of zone residents waking up to “focus group tested alarm[s]” in constantly monitored “corporate apartments.” Others reflected on the history of company-controlled towns in the U.S. and the various problems associated with them.

Proponents of the plan seem fixated on two particular arguments. First, they note that the bill in its current incarnation requires an innovation zone to hold elections for the offices it sets up once its population hits 100. This allegedly demonstrates that while any company behind the zone “retains significant control over the jurisdiction early on, that entity’s control quickly recedes and democratic mechanisms are introduced.” Yet this argument ignores the fact that there is no requirement that a zone ever reach 100 residents. Additionally, even where this threshold is met, the board still retains significant control over election administration, and may divide or consolidate various types of municipal offices as it sees fit, and dismiss officials for undefined “malfeasance or nonfeasance” (§ 20 para. 2). Such powers provide ripe opportunity for gaming how an innovation zone’s government operates and avoiding true democratic control through consolidation of various powers into strategic elected offices.

Second is the more traditional argument that these zones will attract new businesses to the state and bestow an influx of money and jobs upon the citizens of Nevada. Setting aside various studies and arguments that question this assumption, this argument is yet another tired talking point that ignores the damage large businesses already wreak on the local communities they take over. Many overuse the limited resources of various departments. Others use the “value” that big businesses supposedly bring to communities to pit local governments against each other in bidding wars to see who can offer more tax breaks and subsidies to bring the business to their town, money and revenue that could and likely should be used to fund other local programs. Thus, the ability to actually govern appears to be the logical end in a progression of demands big businesses expect from the cities they set up shop in. Perhaps the best argument in favor of innovation zones is also the saddest, in that they allow big businesses to, as is said in corporate speak, “cut out the middleman” by directly collecting the tax dollars they already consume by the billions and directly controlling the municipal resources they already monopolize.

Sisolak, Berns, and other proponents of the proposal fight back against the idea that innovation zones will become the equivalent of “company towns” and argue that it will make Nevada a tech capital of the world by attracting the businesses specified in the bill. They would be well suited to remember two maxims that summarize the criticism of their idea: that history repeats itself and the road to hell is paved with good intentions. There is a reason these phrases are overused cliches. Last week’s MJLST blog post left us with the sweet sounds of Billy Joel to close out its article. As suggested by Tony Tran of “The Byte,” I’ll end mine with the classic, yet unknowingly cyberpunk ballad “16 tons” (the Tennessee Ernie Ford version), and leave the reader thinking about the future plight of the Nevada Bitcoin miner, owing her or his uploaded cloud soul to the company store, aka Blockchains LLC, in their innovation zone job.

Everything’s Bigger in Texas, Including Power Outages

March 7, 2021
Energy Law, Public Health, Regulatory

Madeline Vavricek, MJLST Staffer

On last week’s episode of “now what?”, Texas was experiencing massive power shortages following a winter storm, leaving hundreds of thousands of Texans without power and water. An estimated 4.3 million Texans were rendered without power for up to a week as the cold snap that swept the nation caused Texas’s power grids to fail. Though the power grid is back up and Texas has returned to its regularly scheduled spring temperatures, last month’s empty grocery store shelves and power shortages have yet to melt from many Texans’ memories. As massive electric bills arrive in citizens’ mailboxes (hello, surge pricing!), lawsuits levied against power companies, and bankruptcies filed by energy companies, one might ask why Texas, far from being the coldest part of the United States that week, was so thoroughly and singularly felled by the winter weather. The answer, perhaps unsurprisingly, is both political and economic, and requires a history lesson as well.

Nearly half a century after Thomas Edison’s 1880 invention of the light bulb, the advent of the power grid was gaining traction in the nation’s cities and becoming less of a luxury and more of a necessity. This created a highly profitable market for electricity where previously no market had existed, and the expansion of the industry only shed light on ways that electric companies were utilizing the novel market to their advantage. This expansion eventually lead to the passage of the 1935 Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA) under President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The Act outlawed the “pyramidal structure” of interstate utility holding companies, preventing holding companies from being more than twice removed from their operating subsidiaries, and required companies with a ten percent stake or greater in a utilities market to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission for monitoring. Essentially, this legislation was to prevent energy companies from operating as monopolies in the relatively new energy market, a move met with vehement opposition by the utility companies themselves; the bitter feeling was mutual, with FDR notably calling the holding companies “evil” in his 1935 State of the Union address.

While PUHCA inconvenienced these villainous utility companies’ interstate operations, there was one loophole left available to them: their “evil” was left unregulated within the state, allowing holding companies that operated within a single state unregulated under PUHCA. While the Act was effective, decreasing the number of holding companies from 216 to 18 between 1938 and 1958, creating a “a single vertically-integrated system which served a circumscribed geographic area regulated by either the state or federal government.” It was following the 1935 passage of PUHCA that Texas power companies decided to band together within the state rather than submit to the federal regulation at hand. By only operating within state lines, Texas companies effectively skirted federal regulation and interference, politically maneuvering itself to an energy independence largely made possible through Texas’s energy-rich natural resources.

In the late sixties, the federal government created two main power grids to serve the country: the Eastern Interconnection and the Western Interconnection. Texas opted out of this infrastructure, choosing instead to form its own grid operator, called the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or ERCOT. The ERCOT grid “remains beyond the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,” the federal entity that regulates the power grid for the rest of the nation. ERCOT took on additional power following the 1999 move to deregulate the energy economy in Texas, an effort to create a completely free market for electricity in the state to benefit both consumers and companies. This independence had most Texans’ ardent approval . . . until the cold front rolled in late February 2021, obstructing the flow of the state’s natural gas and leading to the failure of 356 electric generators state-wide. While other Southern states relied on the national power grid to maintain their electricity, Texas had no one but itself to fall back on, and was quite literally left out in the cold.

While some argue that the independent electrical grid was not to blame for Texas’s misfortunes, insisting that the cold temperatures in the rest of the nation meant there wouldn’t be much energy to spare anyway, it is undeniable that the deep freeze has called attention to many cons of Texas’s pro-deregulation energy market. Though there is what could be considered an “instinctive aversion to federal meddling” in avoiding federal regulation, as well as sensible reasons for a state of Texas’s size and natural resources to remain separate from the other 47 continental United States, the reality remains that many Texans suffered at the hands of its own power grid. As the bills pile up and Texans increase the water bottles they have in their pantry at any given time, one can see how some might favor the security of a more regulated system over the freedom that lead to surge pricing, dry faucets, and dark homes. However, as with all government regulation, there is a price to pay, and perhaps the Lone Star State prefers to stay “lone” for that very reason. Either way, Texas, now warmer and well-lit, is no doubt grateful to return to our 2021 definition of “normal” and hoping that their lives stop sounding like a verse of a beloved Bill Joel song (no, not Piano Man).

March 2021

Contact Information