Page 1

2016 REGULATORY

FORECAST

ENVIRONMENTAL &

ENERGY POLICY

2016 REGULATORY

FORECAST

ENVIRONMENTAL &

ENERGY POLICY

ALABAMA

FLORIDA

GEORGIA

MISSISSIPPI

WASHINGTON, DC

2016 REGULATORY FORECAST / 4

Looking ahead to 2016, federal environmental and energy policies will continue to have

a significant impact on businesses across many sectors. That impact will be particularly

pronounced as the current Administration aggressively finalizes its regulatory priorities

before the next Administration takes office in January 2017. Changes in congressional

leadership, electoral politics, court actions, and a host of other factors promise to play

a role as well.

We sat down with three partners in Balch & Bingham’s Washington, D.C., office who

focus their law practices on federal environmental and energy policy. Each of these

attorneys has deep experience serving as counsel on Capitol Hill and in the private sector,

providing a unique perspective and targeted insight on the path of many anticipated

environmental and energy regulations in a changing political climate.

ENVIRONMENTAL &

ENERGY POLICY FORECAST

BALCH’S ENVIRONMENTAL & ENERGY PRACTICES

BALCH’S ENVIRONMENTAL & NATURAL RESOURCES SECTION has helped clients across a broad

range of industries navigate complicated environmental matters, including air quality, water quality,

contaminated land and groundwater, land use, renewable energy issues, and complex litigation matters.

Our lawyers are the preferred source of legal counsel on environmental matters for some of the nation’s

largest electric generating companies, manufacturers, business coalitions, and mining companies. The

practice includes over two dozen dedicated environmental and natural resources attorneys across the

South with regulatory relationships and courtroom experience throughout the country.

BALCH’S ENERGY SECTIONhas served the electric industry for more than 90 years. Our firm’s attorneys

have included some of the industry's leading practitioners before state public utility commissions, the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Our

attorneys are heavily involved in consulting on developing energy legislation, and work with clients to

anticipate and respond to potential effects. Because the needs of our energy clients often extend into

areas that require different expertise, the balance of the firm is also heavily involved and versed in the

business of producing, transmitting and delivering energy services, in both regulated and unregulated

markets.

5

MARGARET E. CARAVELLI

PARTNER

mcaravelli@balch.com

(202) 661-6342

MARGARET CARAVELLI

counsels businesses,

associations and other clients

on energy, environmental and

transportation matters. With

over a dozen years of experience

in federal policy, Margaret has

handled complex legislative

and regulatory matters both on

and off Capitol Hill. Utilizing

her expertise in developing and

executing legislative strategies

to shape public policy, Margaret

helps clients solve regulatory

and legislative challenges in

order to achieve business

objectives. Prior to joining Balch,

Margaret served for a decade

as lead counsel on Clean Air

Act (CAA) issues for the three

congressional committees with

jurisdiction over the law and

the Environmental Protection

Agency.

SEAN B. CUNNINGHAM

PARTNER

scunningham@balch.com

(202) 661-6344

SEAN CUNNINGHAM focuses

his practice on energy policy.

He has extensive experience

representing electric utilities

on regulatory, legislative

and appellate litigation

matters pertaining to electric

transmission and distribution,

utility telecommunications,

renewable energy, and energy

efficiency. In addition to his

regulatory experience, Mr.

Cunningham has served as

counsel to the U.S. House of

Representatives’ Committee on

Energy and Commerce, and the

Committee on Oversight and

Government Reform. He was

the lead negotiator and primary

drafter for electricity and energy

efficiency provisions of the

Energy Policy Act of 2003.

JEFFREY H. WOOD

PARTNER

jhwood@balch.com

(202) 661-6345

JEFF WOOD counsels

businesses, associations,

and other clients regarding

complex legal, regulatory,

and policy matters primarily

in the environmental, natural

resources, and energy contexts.

For more than three years,

Jeff served as legal counsel

to U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions

(R-AL), where he provided

counsel on environmental,

energy, maritime, agriculture

and forestry issues, and worked

closely with members of

Congress and federal agency

officials. He also served as the

Republican Staff Director for

two U.S. Senate subcommittees

and interacted regularly with

senior officials at the U.S.

Environmental Protection

Agency, Department of the

Interior, Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC), and other

federal agencies.

2016 REGULATORY FORECAST / 6

TSCA, which empowers EPA to regulate the manufacture and use of chemicals, has been widely viewed

as inadequate by both public interest groups and the regulated community, but political consensus on how

to reform TSCA was elusive for many years.

A key breakthrough occurred in 2013 when Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), a longstanding advocate for

a comprehensive overhaul of TSCA, reached agreement with Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) and other Senate

Republicans on a reform bill, the Chemical Safety Improvement Act of 2013, which was not enacted into

law in 2013 but laid the foundation for future reform efforts.

In March of 2015, 16 Senators – equally split among Republicans and Democrats – introduced the Frank

R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (S. 697), named in honor of the now deceased

senator from New Jersey. Similar to the 2013 bill, S. 697 would revise safety standards, require more EPA

safety reviews for new and existing chemicals, and preempt certain state regulations. On April 28, 2015,

the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee approved S. 697 by a vote of 15-5. Likewise, on June

In recent months, Congress has taken significant steps toward amending the Toxic

Substances Control Act (“TSCA”), which would be the first major reform of TSCA since it

was enacted in 1976 and one of the most significant environmental laws passed since the

1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.

TSCA REFORM

PREEMPTION OF STATE

CHEMICAL REGULATIONS

WILL LIKELY REMAIN A

POINT OF CONTENTION

3, 2015, the House Energy & Commerce Committee approved its own bill, the TSCA Modernization Act

of 2015 (H.R. 2576), by a vote of 47-0, and the full House passed the bill on June 23, 2015.

On December 18th, the Senate approved the TSCA

reform bill by unanimous consent, with enactment

of a major reform bill in the 114th Congress now

seen as likely, although some questions remain over

whether the President will sign a final House-Senate

compromise bill. Preemption of state chemical

regulations will likely remain a point of contention

as TSCA reform moves through both chambers. In

most respects, the House version provides fewer opportunities for states to establish their own standards

than the Senate bill.

If TSCA reform is enacted, the impact would not be limited to the chemical sector. Any industry that

manufactures or uses chemicals in the United States could be impacted by these changes and the ensuing

new regulations, including the agriculture industry, oil and gas sector, and a wide array of manufacturing

entities. As EPA completes a prioritized review of chemicals as contemplated by the TSCA reform bills,

it is likely that new requirements will be established for industries that currently may not be expecting to

be affected.

Assuming TSCA legislation is enacted, it is of critical importance to remain engaged with EPA and provide

input when there is opportunity for comment. Moreover, through citizen suits and other means, TSCA still

provides opportunities for third party groups to have a central role, which could lead to further friction or

litigation over the implementation of the TSCA reforms. Many states, particularly California, have been

active in pushing for tighter state standards than is likely to be allowed under federal law so monitoring

state responses will be important, too. Comment periods will be announced by EPA and can be tracked via

EPA’s website.

“Upon enactment, we would expect a new slate of EPA proposals to come out,” said Jeff Wood, partner

in Balch’s Washington, D.C., office. “At which point, it will be important for companies doing business in

affected industries to participate early in the process and weigh in on those proposals.”

Looking ahead to 2016, a key goal

of the TSCA modernization effort, in

addition to protecting public health

and the environment, should be to

enhance the global competitiveness

of the nation’s chemical sector.

–JEFF WOOD

7

2016 REGULATORY FORECAST / 8

SEAN CUNNINGHAM

PARTNER | WASHINGTON, D.C.

MARGARET CARAVELLI

PARTNER | WASHINGTON, D.C.

JEFF WOOD

PARTNER | WASHINGTON, D.C.

9

Q&A

Congressional leaders just approved a $1.1 trillion dollar

omnibus bill for fiscal year 2016. How will this legislation

impact federal energy and environmental policy in the year

ahead?

JEFF: The final 2,000-page spending bill and 200-page tax extenders package contain

consequential provisions on low-tier, mid-tier, and top-tier energy and environmental

issues. For starters, the bill lifts the 1970s ban on crude oil exports while also extending

tax credits for solar and wind energy. By some estimates, expanding oil exports may

increase domestic oil production by over a million barrels per day and reduce gasoline

prices by about a dime per gallon. In addition, this legislation extends tax incentives for

electric vehicles, biofuels, certain residential and commercial energy efficiency projects,

electric utility transmission transactions, and real estate transfers for conservation

purposes. The bill also adds new comprehensive cybersecurity laws to protect against

cyber attacks impacting critical energy infrastructure. Concerning nuclear power,

the bill presses regulatory reforms at the NRC and supports DOE’s efforts on small

modular reactors, although it does not include any congressional direction regarding

spent nuclear fuel and high level waste (such as funding for the Yucca Mountain

repository license). To the disappointment of many in the regulated community, the

bill fails to block the most contentious environmental rules issued recently such as the

Clean Power Plan, the ozone standard, or the “Waters of the U.S.” rule. In that respect,

key parts of the Administration’s regulatory agenda for 2016 will, in essence, proceed

without major congressional hurdles, with a few fairly minor exceptions (such as riders

blocking efforts by the Administration to revise the Clean Water Act’s definition of

“fill material”). However, the bill does cut EPA’s overall budget to 2008 levels. While

the bill does not accommodate the President’s specific request for contributions to

the U.N. Green Climate Fund, it does not prohibit the Administration from allocating

funds towards it. The bill contains almost $400 million for international climate change

programs, including $50 million for the Strategic Climate Fund. The bill also creates a

new National Oceans and Coastal Security Fund to “better understand and utilize ocean

and coastal resources and coastal infrastructure…” Finally, by reauthorizing the Land

and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) until 2018, the omnibus cleared the way for the

Senate to approve chemical safety legislation by unanimous consent in the final hours

of 2015, as that unrelated effort had been stymied by political maneuvers tied to LWCF.

We sat down with three members of our Washington, D.C.,

office for a roundtable discussion of emerging environmental and

energy legislation moving on the Hill that will continue to affect

businesses in 2016.

Q:

2016 REGULATORY FORECAST / 10

Q: What about congressional efforts to block the controversial “Waters

of the U.S.” regulation that EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers issued

this summer?

JEFF: The “WOTUS” rule is definitely a focus of concern on the Hill, as it should be. Recent judicial

orders about the rule, which have not favored the Administration, may also embolden Congress as it

works toward a final spending deal to aggressively block it. The Congressional Review Act process has

already been initiated, too. One such court action is an appeals court order staying that rule nationwide

and another is a judicial panel order denying the Administration’s request to consolidate the nine pending

WOTUS legal challenges into one proceeding. These actions add credence to the view that this particular

regulation shouldn’t be put into effect. An appropriations rider addressing this rule may not be surprising,

although any efforts along those lines is certain to face stiff opposition by the White House.

Q: The last major energy bill to be enacted was the 2005 energy

legislation, although the 2007 energy bill was, perhaps arguably, a

significant undertaking as well. Looking back over the last ten years

or so, how successful has the 2005 law been?

SEAN: As counsel to the House Energy and Commerce Committee in 2001-2003, my mandate was

to draft and negotiate an electricity title as part of a comprehensive energy bill. The title we negotiated

in 2003 was later enacted unchanged as part of EPACT 2005. In terms of Congressional intent, the

electricity title has been successful in part, but in some ways has been rendered less effective by agency

interpretation and court decisions. For example, PUHCA was repealed, but FERC has taken a more

aggressive role in merger reviews. Congress provided for transmission rate incentives, but low interest rates

have made FERC reluctant to approve substantial incentives. Also, surprisingly, the FERC “backstop” for

transmission siting was gutted by a court decision that prevented the FERC from acting in cases where

the States have simply failed to act on transmission siting applications.

Q: On the other hand, are there any aspects of the 2005 legislation

that you feel have been less successful?

SEAN: An interesting case study of underwhelming success is the fate of EPACT 2005’s amendments to

the Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act of 2005. PURPA was enacted in 1978 in part to decrease reliance

on foreign oil and promote renewable energy. The original Section 210 of PURPA required electric utilities

to purchase electricity offered for sale by “qualifying facilities” (“QFs”), which can be either cogeneration

units, where a facility simultaneously produces electricity and either “process heat” or steam that is

used for another industrial purpose, or small power production facilities, which are renewable projects of

80 MW or less. To address the overbuild of “PURPA machines,” which forced utilities to buy unneeded

power from QFs at “avoided costs” typically at above market rates, Congress repealed the application of

the mandatory purchase obligation where FERC finds that the QFs have access to competitive wholesale

electricity markets. In doing so, Congress recognized that the development of “day two” organized energy

11

markets and open access policies had provided the market access for renewable resources that PURPA

was intended to provide. However, FERC’s implementation of this amendment has been too restrictive.

Although FERC has eliminated the mandatory purchase obligation for most large QFs in the organized

markets, it continues to grant QF status to virtually all renewable QFs of 20 MW or less, regardless of

access to markets. If these QFs are not satisfied with market opportunities in organized markets, they

can essentially forum shop until they find a utility with high enough “avoided costs” and force a long-term

obligation. Furthermore, FERC often allows large renewable QF projects, such as wind and solar, to be

split creatively configured into 20 MW segments to secure QF status. A recent letter from the House

and Senate energy committee chairmen spotlights the shortcomings of FERC’s permissive approach and

asks FERC to hold a technical conference to address PURPA reform. Regardless of whether FERC takes

up this request, it appears likely that further statutory changes will be needed to bring PURPA into the

21st century.

Q: Margaret, you had a significant role on Capitol Hill advising on

Clean Air Act policies including those impacting the oil and gas

industry. What are some of your observations about the results of

the 2005 and 2007 energy bills?

MARGARET: Only after a couple of false starts and years of input did the Energy Policy Act of 2005

(“EPACT 2005”) make it to the President’s desk. With 18 titles, EPACT 2005’s provisions went through

multiple hearings, markups, and a formal conference committee process prior to being signed into law in

August of 2005. Conversely just two years later, enactment of the Energy Independence and Security Act of

2007 (“EISA 2007”) took just under a year, shuttling back and forth between the House and Senate without

undergoing a formal conference committee process. The result included, in my view, one important misfire –

the thus far unsuccessful revisions to and significant expansion of the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS).

The RFS, an amendment to the Clean Air Act, first established in EPACT 2005 originally mandated at

least 4 billion gallons of renewable fuel be used in 2006, increasing to 7.5 billion gallons by 2012. This

3.5 billion gallon increase was to occur over a six year period. However, just two years later, EISA 2007

extended the program through 2022 and significantly expanded the mandated volumes. This RFS2

mandated 9 billion gallons of renewable fuel for 2008, ultimately requiring 36 billion gallons by 2022.

Adding to the complexities of the RFS2 are nested, yet separate, volumetric mandates for four categories

of renewable fuels: total renewable fuel, advanced biofuels, biomass based diesel, and cellulosic biofuels.

By 2022, cellulosic biofuels are to contribute 16 billion gallons to the 36 billion gallon total mandate with

conventional corn ethanol being capped at 15 billion gallons starting in 2015. In addition, each fuel category

includes certain minimum thresholds for lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions.

The enthusiasm accompanying enactment of the RFS2 hit a wall of reality almost immediately. The

necessary production of cellulosic biofuels failed to come to fruition; the projected demand for gasoline

decreased instead of increasing, limiting the amount of renewable fuel that could be safely blended into the

transportation fuel pool; and EPA was unable to implement the program in a timely manner, repeatedly

missing annual deadlines for the promulgation of volumetric requirements. These dynamics resulted in

a program that has failed, in one way or another, to achieve its central goals. While EPA looks to place

the program back on track by finalizing 3 years’ worth of volumetric requirements, the RFS2 remains a

cautionary tale of unintended consequences and it appears action by Congress may be the only way to

remedy the situation.

2016 REGULATORY FORECAST / 12

13

THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY’S CLEAN POWER PLAN (CPP)establishes mandatory

greenhouse gas emission reductions on a state-by-state basis, requiring states to reduce carbon dioxide

(CO2) emissions from existing electricity generating units. According to EPA, when fully implemented in

2030, CO2 emissions from power plants will be 32 percent below 2005 levels.

With publication in the Federal Register on October 23, 2015, the CPP triggered a wave of legal actions,

both for and against the rule, and started the clock ticking for states to respond to the rule’s deadlines.

Since October, more than half of all states have filed lawsuits opposing the CPP, with less than 20 states

joining the litigation on the side of EPA. It is widely expected that judicial decisions on the various motions

to stay the rule will not come until early 2016. Rulings on the merits will likely not come until late 2016 or

early 2017. Given the significance of this regulation and uncertainties surrounding EPA’s legal authority

to adopt it, the CPP is more likely than most other federal rules to ultimately garner the attention of the

U.S. Supreme Court, where a ruling would likely not occur until 2018 or beyond. Of course, between

now and then, another national election will take place. A new administration is guaranteed, although it

remains to be seen whether the next President will keep the CPP in place entirely, modify it, or repeal it

altogether.

CLEAN POWER

PLANNING:

Preparing for Clean Power

Plan Implementation

2016 REGULATORY FORECAST / 14

While the litigation over the CPP is playing out in the courts and the presidential candidates banter

back and forth about their plans to either restrain or reinforce EPA, those states opposing the CPP are

faced with important questions: ignore the deadlines EPA seeks to impose, seek an extension of the plan

submission deadline, or begin plan development.

At last check, a number of states were considering a combination of these to protect their ability to

challenge both the regulation on its face and as applied to the specific state in the context of an EPA

determination on the adequacy of its plan submittal.

CLEAN POWER PLAN – STATE LEGAL ACTION FOR AND AGAINST

STATES FILED

SUIT IN OPPOSITION

TO THE RULE

STATES AND

THE DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA FILED IN

SUPPORT OF THE RULE

27

18

15

LOOKING AHEAD:

NUCLEAR

Within the overall Clean Power Plan debate, a broader conversation

has been taking place about the role nuclear power should play in

America’s energy future. The administrative record for the CPP

suggests an internal struggle within the Executive Branch—and

among stakeholders—concerning nuclear power’s place in the

broader context of emission reduction programs, with some in the

Administration pressing for nuclear energy to be elevated while others

seemed inclined to leave nuclear out of the discussion altogether.

With respect to nuclear power specifically, some aspects of the EPA

proposal were problematic from the start. For instance, as part of the

target-setting formula, EPA included new nuclear reactors currently

“under construction,” essentially disqualifying these reactors from

helping their host states achieve designated emissions goals. For

states investing in new nuclear power plants, it was disconcerting,

to say the least, to be told that their emissions targets would be

substantially more stringent (that is, more difficult to achieve)

because those states made the proactive decision to invest early in

new nuclear power. Fortunately, this component of the Clean Power

Plan was corrected in the final rule. Whether the final rule goes far

enough to support nuclear power – or even whether the rule is legally

valid at all – remains the subject of continual debate. Balch had a key

role in crafting the comments on that rule for the companies that are

constructing new nuclear power plants.

2016 REGULATORY FORECAST / 16

2015

AUGUST 3 Prepublication of the Final Rule by the EPA

OCTOBER 23 Publication in the Federal Register (80 FR 64661)

OCTOBER 23 Motions for Stay and Petitions for Review Filed in the D.C. Circuit by various states,

industry coalitions, utilities, and other parties

OCTOBER 27 Motion to Intervene In Support of EPA by environmental groups

OCTOBER 29 D.C. Circuit order scheduling briefing of stay motions

NOVEMBER 5 Motions to Intervene In Support of EPA by various states

NOVEMBER 17 U.S. Senate passed joint resolutions under the Congressional Review Act disapproving

the Clean Power Plan (as well as the rule for new sources)

NOVEMBER 30-DECEMBER 11 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

(UNFCCC) Conference meeting – Paris, France

DECEMBER 1 U.S House of Representatives passed joint resolutions under the Congressional Review

Act disapproving the Clean Power Plan (as well as the rule for new sources). Upon passage the joint

resolutions were sent to the President for his signature or veto.

DECEMBER 3 EPA’s consolidated response to motions for stay

DECEMBER 8 Respondent Intervenors’ responses to motions for stay

DECEMBER 23 Replies in support of motions for stay

A key decision point for each state is whether, as mandated by the CPP, to make an initial submittal to EPA on

September 6, 2016, and if so, the composition of any such submission. For states that do make a submssion that

includes a state plan, they must choose either rate-based or mass-based and between two general approaches:

an emissions standards plan places federally enforceable emissions standards on the power plants in the state;

while a state measures plan may include not only federally enforceable emissions standards but also renewable

energy and energy efficiency measures, enforceable by the state. Both approaches allow for multi-state trading

systems. The initial submission by a state may consist of a request for a two year extension to submit a final

plan. With actual compliance beginning in 2022, EPA provides a glide path for achieving a state’s final emission

rate target by 2030, through a series of interim emissions rate periods in which a state must meet a specific

emissions rate for each period or set their own goals for meeting the average interim emissions rate set by

EPA. To encourage states to begin reductions prior to the initial compliance date of 2022, EPA created an

optional Clean Energy Incentive Program to award credits for investments during the 2020-2021 time period

in energy efficiency projects in low-income communities as well as wind and solar generation projects in states

that included these elements in their final plans. States that fail to submit a plan will be subject to a federal plan,

proposals for which were published at the same time as the final CPP.

CLEAN POWER PLAN: KEY DATES

17

2016 2017

2022

2025

JANUARY 21 D.C. Circuit

denied motions for stay

JUNE 2 Oral Arguments at

D.C. Circuit

SEPTEMBER 6 Deadline for

states to submit a final plan or a

request for a 2 year extension

NOVEMBER 8 Election Day

JANUARY 20 Inauguration Day

SEPTEMBER 6 Progress report

due for states granted a 2 year

extension for submission of a

final plan

JULY 1 1st interim step period

report due (2022-2024)

JANUARY 1 Initial compliance

start date

2022-2029 8 year glide path;

three interim steps. January 1,

2022- December 31, 2024;

January 1, 2025- December

31, 2027; January 1, 2028-

December 31, 2029 (each has

its own interim goal)

2018

2020 2021

2028 2030

2032

SEPTEMBER 6 Deadline for

state plan submittals (if an

extension is granted)

NOVEMBER 3 Election Day

JANUARY 20 Inauguration Day

JULY 1 2nd interim step period

report due (2025-2027)

JANUARY 1 Final compliance

date

JULY 1 3rd interim step period

report due (2022-2029)

JULY 1 Biennial report due (in-

cludes actual emissions check to

demonstrate state continues to

meet the final state CO2 goal)

2016 REGULATORY FORECAST / 18

ABOUT BALCH & BINGHAM

BALCH & BINGHAM LLP is a corporate law firm with more than 250 attorneys and lobbyists across offices

in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi and Washington, D.C. We have more than 50 lawyers exclusively

focused on the state and federal environmental and energy issues affecting American industry. Our firm

is led by nationally ranked attorneys who combine business intelligence and industry leadership with high-

quality legal counsel to anticipate and respond to corporate challenges both creatively and proactively.

Founded in 1922, Balch has a history of client service across highly regulated industries, including energy,

financial services and healthcare, along with established practices in business, environmental, government

relations, labor and employment, and litigation. We manage our client partnerships efficiently and

transparently, resulting in value-driven representation and counsel tailored to each of our client’s specific

needs.

Balch serves clients in over 65 practice areas that fall under seven firm sections:

BUSINESS . ENVIRONMENTAL & NATURAL RESOURCES

ENERGY . LITIGATION . GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

LABOR & EMPLOYMENT . FINANCIAL INDUSTRIES

Balch routinely works on environmental and energy matters in the federal appellate courts.

• Filed petitions for review with the D.C. Circuit on behalf of client in challenge to the EPA Mercury

Air Toxics Standards rule.

• Recently filed petition for review with the D.C. Circuit in challenge to EPA Clean Power Plan.

• Filed Eleventh Circuit brief on behalf of industry intervenors defending the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers’ issuance of Nationwide Permit 21.

• Filed petition for review with the Eleventh Circuit in challenge to EPA’s disapproval of the opacity

provision in State Implementation Plan.

• Recently filed amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in major energy law case addressing certain

FERC demand response programs.

Balch is actively engaged in the process of preparing and submitting comments to federal and state

agencies in response to significant regulatory proposals.

• Prepared and filed comments with EPA on behalf of a coalition of companies concerned with the

nuclear aspects of the EPA Clean Power Plan.

• Prepared and filed comments with EPA regarding EPA’s 2014 regional

haze rulemaking in Texas and Oklahoma.

• Prepared and filed comments with EPA regarding EPA’s coal ash proposals.

19

SEAN CUNNINGHAM

PARTNER

scunningham@balch.com

(202) 661-6344

MARGARET E. CARAVELLI

PARTNER

mcaravelli@balch.com

(202) 661-6342

WILLIAM F. STIERS

GOVERNMENT RELATIONS

wstiers@balch.com

(202) 661-6346

W. LOUIS HENGEN JR.

GOVERNMENT RELATIONS

lhengen@balch.com

(202) 661-6349

JEFFREY H. WOOD

PARTNER

jhwood@balch.com

(202) 661-6345

2016 REGULATORY FORECAST / 20

WASHINGTON, D.C. OFFICE

601 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Suite 825 South

Washington, DC 20004

No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater

than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers. This is provided for informational purposes

only and should not be construed as legal advice on any particular topic or matter.

1 .800.762.2426

balch.com

ALABAMA

FLORIDA

GEORGIA

MISSISSIPPI

WASHINGTON, DC