The New Carbon Cycle

McKinsey Article Concludes Good News for Emissions: US and EU Emissions Down, Economies UP

McKinsey and Company director Scott Nyquist authored on article entitled Great News on Emissions. Really.  He concludes that the US and EU have cut emissions while growing their economies. 

His article provides an upbeat view.

So it’s very important that in both 2014 and 2015 the global economy grew—and energy-related emissions didn’t.  In the 40 years that the International Energy Agency has been tracking emissions, this is the first two times that year-on-year energy-related emissions have been flat or less, without an economic downturn.  And in 2013, emissions grew less than the global economy.  For perspective, energy accounts for more than two-thirds (68 percent) of global GHG emissions, and energy use increased more than 150 percent from 1971 to 2013.

So all that sounds pretty wonky.  Why does it matter?  Because it means that it is not only possible, but a reality that the link between emissions and growth can, in fact, be cut.  Indeed, in a number of developed countries, that is already happening.  In 2014, for example, the EU grew modestly—and cut emissions by more than 5 percent.  The United States saw power-related carbon emissions decline 10 percent from 2005 to 2014, due to greater efficiency—in effect, like Europe, it is creating more wealth using less energy—and  the displacement of coal with cleaner natural gas.

China and India have room to approve as most of us know.

But here, too, there are encouraging trends.  The rate of growth of emissions in China is slowing, as its economy becomes less energy intensive—services now account for more than half of GDP, the highest ever.  China has also begun to get serious about growing less filthily. In part because of pressure from a public literally sick of living in smog-choked cities, the country is investing in more efficient and cleaner energy use.  In 2014, Chinese emissions increased less than 1 percent compared to the previous year, even as it grew 7.3 percent.  In the previous decade, China’s emissions had grown an average of 6.7 percent a year.  So that’s a big change.  The big reason: China is depending less on coal, which accounts for more than 80 percent of its energy-related emissions.

 

The author concludes, and I agree, that technological innovation is the key to solving greenhouse gas emissions issues. While the emissions issues are far from solved, great steps have been made.  The investment in new technology, renewables, innovations in business models and financing approaches present one of the great business opportunities the world has ever seen.  Trillions of dollars will be invested over the next 10 years and beyond to address these issues as more energy is demanded, but more efficient use and alternative ways of generation energy and controlling emissions from traditional sources opens up an economic boom.

Related articles

California, the clean energy leader

Tax Credits Expire for Waste to Energy and Several Other Project Types Unless Construction Begins

Last year on December 18, 2015 Congressional approval of H.R. 2029, The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, which President Obama promptly signed into law (P.L. No. 114-113, 114th Cong. 1st Session). This legislation extended tax incentives in the form of a production tax credit or the option to receive an investment tax credit (30 percent) for various renewable energy projects.  For those other than wind and solar, the incentives were only extended through December 31, 2016.  The only way to gain more time is to start construction as outlined in IRS memoranda and continue that construction, again as outlined in the IRS documents.  Waste to energy was one of the renewable energy types that was allowed under the new legislation.  Thus, WTE projects, and other non-wind and non-solar projects, must pay close attention to the deadline and how to extend it under IRS guidance.

How Disruptive Technology Can Provide Money-Making Emissions Reductions

I recently published an article entitled How Disruptive Technology Can Provide Money-Making Emissions Reductions.  This article explores the disruptive technologies that are changing the way companies purchase power, or reduce their power consumption or both.  With renewable energy, LED lighting, Cloud-based, Internet of Things energy management, and now batteries, the technologies are getting cheaper and the money that can be saved is signifiant. 

These new technologies also reduce emissions as they reduce the amount of fossil fuel that needs to be burned to produce electricity.   With new business and financing models, the customer may not have to put up any capital, but through a shared savings model, start making money the first or second month.

Thus, emissions go down, and the customer makes money from lower electricity prices or reduced electricity use.  The company providing the power, LED lights, and energy management make money. 

It is a win all the way around.  The new technologies and financial models are bringing clean, cheap energy to corporate America.

What Do “Primordial Soup” and Climate Change Solutions Have in Common?

In my last blog, I mentioned the class I am teaching at in Climate Change Law at the University of Texas Law School.   One of my classes I mentioned consisted of inviting several companies and the leader of the UT Clean Energy Incubator to speak to my class and to people in the university community and local community.  The title of the program was Environmental Entrepreneurs: Local Companies Leading the Way to a Low-Carbon Economy. (Video) This program may seem odd, and some in the audience thought it was odd to have such speakers at a law school.  However, the crux of my class was that the concerns raised by the national academies of science and climate scientists and merely reported on by the International Panel on Climate Chance (IPCC) requires the invention of new technologies.  Current technology is not sufficient.  Thus, as we study law and policy, we have to think about how law and policy cannot only get out of the way of such invention, but actually promote the innovation and investment necessary to address climate concerns.

But why “Primordial Soup”?  First, let’s define the concept.  “Primordial Soup” is a concept that began with a Russian biologist Alexander Oparin, who, in 1924, proposed that life begin in a combination of organic chemicals in ocean water that somehow combined to form the earliest life forms.  The mixture of water and organic chemicals was thus this “primordial soup” that spawned life.  Later theories have been proposed, which come up with different explanations, but for purposes of our discussion, let’s focus on the primordial soup.

In studying ecology and evolution in my early days of education, I, as any student in this sphere became enthralled as to how nature through innovation and adaptation leads to new or modified species in response to changes in the environment.  The concept of primordial soup from which life emerges is a fascinating thought.  

In my own practice and study of energy and environmental law, I’ve read about and have known and worked with start up companies with many new and potentially transformational technologies.  Many of which can reduce energy use, significantly increase energy efficiency, or produce energy in new or more efficient ways.

Thus, the adaptation and evolution I studied in biology and ecology classes many years ago, is occurring now in an economic setting as opposed to an ecological setting as there is significant focus on clean energy, clean tech, and ways of doing other types of energy and industrial activities in ways that have much less impact on the environment.

Getting back to my class, we had several companies speak at our class that are engaged in new technologies, most seeking early stage capital to try to develop the technology and hopefully reach commercialization.  

The reason for this harks back to another class in which we reviewed the California or AB 32, by its original bill name in the California legislature.  California is seeking to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 85% by 2050.  A Berkley National Laboratories analysis concluded that without new technologies, the state could not achieve such reductions.  Thus, I wanted to introduce my students to some of the local companies that are working on technologies that may lead to reduced greenhouse gas emissions.  

The speakers and their companies were as follows:

Mitch Jacobson, UT Clean Energy Incubator

Barry McConachie, CEO, Incenergy

Lu Yan, CEO, Yan Engines, Inc.

F. Todd Davidson, CEO, nCarbon

Panos Adamopoulos, Founder, Seismos

Yetkin Yildirim, Co-Founder, Terra Pave International, Inc.

Video of Presentations.

These companies in many ways are working on low carbon technologies, and are a very small subset of companies across the United States, and the world for that matter, developing potentially commercial technologies that can in numerous ways lead to a lower carbon economy.

Just in Texas, in the Austin area, another company, Skyonic, is working on a technology to capture CO2 from smokestacks and use it to produce carbonates and other products, so pollution control becomes a for profit business. The first deployment is at a cement plant near San Antonio.

Several companies use captured CO2 for enhanced oil recovery, such as Denbury Resources in Plano, Texas and Chaparral Energy in Oklahoma City.

With the large installed base of fossil fuel power plants, our global fleet of fossil-fueled vehicles, pipelines, refineries, etc. we have to find technologies to use fossil fuels in way that reduce emissions. Too much infrastructure and investment in that infrastructure to expect it to go away any time soon. I don’t expect that to occur in my lifetime.

After the class and meeting, I had dinner with one of the company CEOs and several attendees.  We talked about many things and one of which was carbon trading law, as one of the people mentioned I had written a book on the subject.  In our discussion, I made the point that the exact nature of carbon trading programs was not to regulate the greenhouse gases out of existence or have a perfect system, but to have enough of a carbon price that substantial investment was made in hundreds if not thousands of technologies and services such that out of the “primordial soup” would emerge technologies that would transform our energy use.

So as I had thought about “cap and trade” it was not to solve the problem through the regulatory system as such, but to create the economy or market place that drives sufficient research and development and investment to come up with low cost innovative technologies.  I said this doe not comport with environmentalists, who simply want to phase out fossil fuels, with an idealistic view that this can be done without great economic loss and job loss, and frankly that it is even possible le with today’s technology.

The renewable energy they promote depends on natural gas plants to balance the grid so our lights will stay on—yes, renewable energy is dependant on fossil-fuel produced energy.

To ignore the issues is unrealistic as well as the overwhelming science on climate change and its causes will put pressure on governments and policy makers and publicly traded companies, particularly those that produce, use, or are otherwise dependent on fossil fuels, which are most of the publicly traded companies.

Thus, we need a policy and regulatory system that promotes the type of technological research and innovation and creates enough profit for angel and venture capitalists to invest in companies developing these technologies.  My point at the dinner was that a perfect system is not needed, or possible, but enough of a system that provides sufficient incentives to create the primordial soup.

Thus, perhaps a long winded way of answering the question posed.  To find the solutions you need the primordial soup of inventors, investors, and entrepreneurs to form the marketplace that will lead to climate change solutions.

 

The program was made possible through the University of Texas Law School

Video--Environmental Entrepreneurs: Local Companies Leading the Way to a Low-Carbon Economy

A program called Environmental Entrepreneurs: Local Companies Leading the Way to a Low-Carbon Economy was a  program presented at the University of Texas Law School was presented as part of my Climate Change Law Class I'm teaching at the UT Law School, and in conjunction with UT's Center for Global Energy, International Arbitration and Environmental Law.  A video can be viewed if you are interested.

 

 

 

The speakers were as follows:

Mitch Jacobson Co-Director, ATI Clean Energy Incubator, The University of Texas at Austin; Board Chair, CleanTX Foundation

Barry McConachie, CEO, Incenergy

Lu Yan, CEO, Yan Engines, Inc.

F. Todd Davidson, CEO, nCarbon

Yetkin Yildirim, Co-Founder, Terra Pave International, Inc.

Panos Adamopoulos, Founder, Seismos

Video

 

 

 

The World Bank Partnership for Market Readiness Assists Countries in Developing Carbon Markets

The World Bank meeting this week amoung several countries seeking to establish or in the process of establishing carbon markets is part of a larger program called the Partnership for Market Readiness.  The participating countries include the fastest growinig and highest greenhouse gase-emitting developing countries:

• Brazil
• Chile
• China
• Colombia
• Costa Rica
• India
• Indonesia
• Jordan
• Mexico
• Morocco
• Peru
• South Africa
• Thailand
• Turkey
• Ukraine
• Vietnam

The development of emissions markets, a concept that was largely adopted and developed and continues in the US for traditional air emissions, and a growing number of states for greenhouse gases, is being widely adopted in many developed and developing countries.

In my book, Carbon Trading Law and Practice, I outline the elements of carbon markets and the legislation and regulations that form carbon markets.

The concept of bringing markets to environmental challenges and regulations is a growing form of regulation that allows market efficiencies to find the lowest cost means of addressing an environmental concern, and is far more efficient in most cases, than a pollution tax or a traditional command and control form of regulation. 

The World Bank is providing assistance to the developing countries that are seeking to address greenhouse gases through a lower cost, market-based approach.

Related articles

World Bank's Kim Urges Governments to Get Behind Carbon Market

A carbon market takes root in California

What California's Carbon Market Is Doing Right

California's carbon market: a potential game-changer in slowing the Amazon's deforestation

Brian Fallow: Govt in bind over emissions target

Carbon trading has failed: scrap the ETS now

Northeast U.S. carbon market expected emissions to tighten cap

Reported Post-2012/Post-Kyoto Carbon Credit Sale at Reduced Price

PointCarbon reported a deal between Norsk Hydro and Statkrafte Energy and carbon fund C-Quest Capital.  Finding buyers for post-2012/Post-Kyoto carbon credits has been a challenge.  PointCarbon reported that carbon brokers said that such deal would likely reflect aprice of 6-9 euros per ton CO2e.    The current price for CERs under the Clean Development Mechanism would be about 14 euros.  The discount for post-Kyoto credits would thus be 5-8 euros--a significant reduction reflecting the uncertainty of the negotiations at Copenhagen and at UNFCC meetings thereafter.  If a treaty is not finalized until next December, these low prices may continue until then.

EPA Issues Final Greenhouse Gas Monitoring and Reporting Rule

On September 22, 2009, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)  issued its final greenhouse gas monitoring and reporting rule that will require as many as 10,000 facilities in the United States to measure their greenhouse gases (GHGs) and start reporting them in early 2011 (GHG Reporting Rule).  Some industry groups had asked EPAfor a delay until 2011 to start monitoring and 2012 to start reporting their GHG emissions.  EPA chose not to provide such a delay and regulated facilities only have three and a half months to prepare for the monitoring that they must begin January 1, 2010.  This may be particularly challenging for those companies that must install or modify continuous emission monitors.

 

Following a Congressional amendment to the Omnibus Spending Bill in December of 2007 that required the EPA to issue a proposed rule by September of last year and a final rule by June of this year, the EPA under the Obama Administration has now moved forward with an initial step in establishing a GHG regulatory system.

 

In the GHG Reporting Rule, EPA has adopted a substantial program of GHG monitoring and reporting with a publicly available registry.  The program is “economy wide” and covers 85-90 percent of GHG emissions in the United States.

 

The EPA is in part implementing the GHG Reporting Rule to gather information for future regulatory and policy decisions. Thus, many of those sources that would be required to report under the GHG Reporting Rule may also be those that would be regulated under a federal GHG cap and trade system being discussed by Congress and the Obama Administration.

 

While the rule does not impose any reduction obligations, as prior reporting rules, such as the Toxic Release Reporting of SARA Title III, have shown, companies reporting emissions “manage what they measure.”  In other words, once companies must publicly report their emissions, they start to invest in ways to reduce those emissions.

 

I.     WHEN MUST YOU START MONITORING?

 

As stated above the monitoring must begin on January 1, 2010.

 

II. WHEN MUST YOU START REPORTING TO EPA?

 

The first report will have to be submitted to EPA by March 31, 2011, and then for subsequent years thereafter.

 

III.    WHAT GASES ARE COVERED?

 

The EPA has identified the traditional GHGs for reporting: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, chlorofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and certain other fluorinated gases. For purposes of comparing emissions of the various gases using a single unit, the gases are converted into the equivalent GHG impact of CO2. The conversion is based on the principle that the other gases have a greater impact in terms of causing the greenhouse effect and thereby global warming. As an example, one metric ton of methane emissions would be reported in terms of the carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) of 21 metric tons. This is critical in understanding the threshold levels for application of the reporting requirements, as the non-CO2 GHG emissions may need to be converted to CO2e before determining whether the GHG reporting obligations apply to a particular facility.

 

IV.   WHAT FACILITIES ARE COVERED?

 

Four categories of facilities are required to measure and report their GHG emissions. In addition, vehicle manufacturers would be required to report the GHG emissions of their vehicles. We will focus on facility-based emitters in this Article.

 

1. Source Categories

 

The first category of facilities required to report under the GHG Reporting Rule are facilities that fall under a list of source categories identified by the EPA. These sources include, among others,

 

• coal-fired electric generating plants subject to the Acid Rain program,
• aluminum,
• ammonia,
• cement,
• electronics,
• lime,
• petrochemical,
• petroleum refining,
• certain underground coal mines, and
• municipal landfills.

 

2. Other Facilities That Emit 25,000 Tons Per Year or More of CO2e of Combined Emissions From Listed Source Categories

 

The second category of sources required to report are facilities that emit 25,000 or more metric tons of CO2e per year of combined emissions from stationary fuel combustion units, miscellaneous uses of carbonate, and all source categories that are listed and located at the facility in any calendar year.

 

These sources include, among others,

 

• electricity generation,
• electronics,
• ethanol production,
• food processing,
• glass production,
• iron and steel production,
• ferrous alloy production,
• oil and natural gas systems,
• pulp and paper,
• industrial landfills, and
• wastewater treatment.

 

3. Facilities That Do Not Meet the First Two Source Categories, but That Emit 25,000 Metric Tons of CO2e Per Year From Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources

 

The third source of facilities required to report are those that meet all of the following conditions:

 

(1) the facility does not contain any source category designated for the first two groups of categories;

(2) the aggregate maximum rated heat input capacity of stationary fuel combustion units at the facility is 30 mmBtu/hr or greater; and

(3) the facility emits 25,000 metric tons of CO2e per year or more from all stationary fuel combustion sources.

 

4. Entities That Sell, Import, or Export Fossil Fuels, Industrial GHGs, and CO2

 

The final category of entities required to submit GHG emission reports under the proposed GHG Reporting Rule are suppliers of coal, coal-based liquid fuels, petroleum products, natural gas and natural gas liquids, producers of industrial GHGs as listed in the Rule, importers and exporters of industrial GHGs and CO2, and importers and exporters of industrial GHGs and CO2 exceeding 25,000 metric tons of CO2e per year.

 

V. WHAT MONITORING AND MEASUREMENT APPROACH MUST BE USED?

 

The EPA reviewed several monitoring or measurement options in developing the GHG Reporting Rule. The EPA selected the option of combined direct emission measurement and facility-specific calculations. Facilities that already have continuous emission monitoring (CEM) devices are generally required to add a GHG measurement capability. Those that do not have CEM devices would have the choice to install them or to use facility-specific calculation methods.

 

VI.   WHAT CERTIFICATION AND VERIFICATION IS REQUIRED?

 

The EPA reviewed several options regarding certification and verification of the GHG emissions reported to the EPA. The agency decided to require certification by a designated representative of the facility submitting the report and to have the EPA verify the emissions report. No third-party verification is currently proposed.

 

VII.     WILL THE INFORMATION REPORTED TO EPA BE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC?

 

The information provided by the regulated facilities will be made available to the general public by a website developed by EPA.

 

VIII. WHAT CORPORATE FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE AND CORPORATE STRATEGIES SHOULD BE DEVELOPED AS A RESULT OF THIS NEW REGULATION?

 

The GHG Reporting Rule is one of the significant steps made by the Obama Administration into climate change regulation and extends GHG measurement and reporting to a large part of the economy. As companies continue to review and develop their strategies for evaluating the potential risks and opportunities that a GHG regulatory system and potential cap and trade system will present, the GHG Reporting Rule is the one of the first salvos in what will be a concerted effort by Congress and the President to impose a GHG regulatory system in the United States.  Since establishing a company’s “carbon footprint” is now mandatory, understanding the implications of the reporting and public disclosure of the amount of greenhouse gas emissions raises several issues.

 

With this rule and potential future legislation that may be passed as early as this year or early next year, many publicly traded companies should also consider their disclosures in their filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission to determine if any further description of the risks or opportunities presented by climate change legislation should be discussed in their public filings.

 

Companies that may be regulated by any future climate change legislation, whether state, federal, or both, should develop a climate change strategy. Such strategies should include an evaluation of the number of GHG or carbon allowances that may be required to comply with climate legislation. One allowance would be required for every ton of emissions of CO2e equivalent. In addition, those companies selling or importing fossil fuels may be required to obtain allowances for every ton of CO2e equivalent of fuel sold. In engaging in this planning, companies should consider the extent to which low cost offsets purchased today could reduce the ultimate liabilities of the company in the future.

 

Many utilities, oil and gas companies, and other potentially regulated companies are already investing in carbon offset projects or purchasing credits now. In what could be one of the most significant environmental regulatory programs in the history of the United States, planning today could pay off with significant savings or dividends in the future. For many companies, climate change impacts should be a key strategic issue for the board and management.

Should Trees Be Industry's Best Friends in a New Climate Change Regime?

The suggestion that trees should be industry's best friends under a new climate change or cap and trade program being considered by Congress, seems absurd at first.  Forests do not initially appear to most people to be a source of the problem when it comes to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.  We generally think of planting trees as a local, individualized step to attempt to remove emissions from the atmosphere.  Often we think of tree planting as a symbolic rather than a substantive or significant action to reduce climate change.  Forests, however, are in fact a significant storing house for carbon and when burned, release a large amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. 

Forests provide the low-cost approach for the first tranche in anthropogenic greenhouse gas reductions as we seek the "low hanging fruit" of these reductions.  Forest preservation and regrowth provide the potential for the larger-volume and lower-cost source of greenhouse gas reductions and offsets for greenhouse gas emissions.  As carbon capture and storage by which CO2 from coal-fired power plants and other sources is injected underground for long-term storage takes several years to bring on line, Reduced Emission from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) can serve to make a significant step toward emissions to be achieved by 2020 being discussed in Congress for a US climate change and cap and trade program, and in terms of international negotiations for a tray to follow the Kyoto Protocol.

The size of the emissions from forest destruction usually is startling.  It is in gross and relative terms rather astounding.  The destruction of forests actually accounts for somewhere between 17 and 22 percent of human greenhouse gas emissions.    Thus, controlling the greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation is critical to any global plan to reduce climate change, particularly in the first few years as costlier reductions can be developed over the next decade, and perhaps ways to reduce those costs.

A second aspect of deforestation relates to the areas that have already been lost or significantly degraded.  For example, farmland that was previously what we call “primary forest” or forest that existed in its natural state prior to being deforested or degraded.   In these areas, opportunities exist for reforesting the land through tree planting.  Two types of reforestation are possible.  First, the forest can be replanted with native species that would have been present prior to the destruction of the forests.  The second involves the planting of non-native species or otherwise planting for the purpose of harvesting some or all of the trees.  The second approach has the goal of using trees to absorb or sequester CO2 , and then using the harvested wood in ways that maintain the carbon in building or other products for a long time.

In understanding the challenges of private development of forest carbon projects, it is important to comprehend the issues of these projects.  First let us consider avoided deforestation projects.  One of the first issues is simply measuring the amount of carbon in the forests that would be released if destroyed.  There are certain protocols that can be used now developed by the Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS), which has become the main standard setting organization for forest-related offset projects. 

Another issue is the question of permanence.  For growing forests a significant risk is permanence, that is, to what extent will the forest will be preserved over a very long period, as opposed to short term preservation with destruction to follow.  If the forest is logged or it burns or dies from disease, then the carbon sequestered in the trees, plant life, and soil, will be largely emitted to the atmosphere and future sequestration of carbon dioxide will not occur.  The carbon credits that are generated would be without substance if after five years the forest is destroyed.  Forestry projects are largely long-term projects, lasting 20 to 100 years in most cases.  Parties must show the registration entity and the verifiers that review the Project Design Document that the forest will not be cut down, burned, or harvested within the relevant project period.  One approach used by the VCS to address permanence concerns is to hold back a percentage of the verified credits and to release them back over time, say the 30-year life of the project, to the project developer.

One of the other major concern for forest projects is leakage.  For forest projects, leakage involves the question of whether the reduction in deforestation or degradation in one are simply moves that activity to a nearby property or a significant distance away.  As an illustration, burning forests for soy bean farming, which is such a significant problem in Brazil, moves from one part of a state in a country where actions have been taken to stop such burning to another area in that state or to an altogether different state.  Measuring and addressing these issues is required by the VCS.

Though the real game right now for REDD and reforestation projects lies with the VCS and voluntary carbon credits, it appears fairly clear that forest carbon projects will play a role and be large part of future US federal legislation and already has been accepted as an offset mechanisms in the California climate change regulatory system and will likely be part of the three multi-state climate change regulatory programs that are evolving and will go into effect even if Congress does not act to pass climate change legislation.  The discussions at the international level appear to be moving toward accepting forest-based offset credits.

The greenhouse gas emissions from forest destruction are so massive, that we cannot avoid taking on the need to reduce this destruction dramatically.  More and more major greenhouse gas emitters in the United States are beginning to review this opportunity and to look at investing in project-based REDD opportunities.  The thinking is that investment in a project or entering into emission reduction purchase agreements that allow a company to have a right to purchase REDD credits once approved and verified, provides a good hedging mechanism for future offset prices.  More and more of our clients are looking at both domestic and international forest carbon projects either as project developers or as investors to ensure that they take advantage of the opportunities that forest carbon projects provide.  Ironically, utilities and oil and gas companies may find that trees are truly their best friends when it comes to addressing the first few years of a cap and trade system in the United States.

Hart Energy's 2008 Energy Solutions Conference to Be Held in Houston, Texas

Texas - Thompson & Knight Partner Scott Deatherage will be a featured speaker at Hart Energy's 2008 Energy Solutions conference being held November 6th through 7th in Houston, Texas. Deatherage will discuss "The Future of Carbon Trading and Its Benefit to the Sustainable Industry" on November 6th.

The 2008 Energy Solutions conference will feature other timely discussions on the developments and challenges facing the global energy industry, including solutions being developed by refiners, automakers, fuel producers, governments, and capital markets to balance the supply and demand situation with sustainability requirements. The conference will also include the Global Energy & Environmental Excellence Awards Dinner, which recognizes and celebrates the remarkable progress the global energy industry, engine manufacturers, technology suppliers, and governments are making toward the sustainability of natural resources. For more information on the 2008 Energy Solutions conference, please visit the Hart Energy Conference website.