Climate Change and Clean Technology Blog : Climate Change Lawyer & Attorney : Sheppard Mullin Law Firm : Clean Technology, Greenhouse Gas

By Olivier Theard

The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) recently released its proposed regulations to require safer consumer products under California's precedential "green chemistry" law. The green chemistry law, originally passed in 2008, is an industry and environmental game-changer because its stated purpose is to reduce adverse impacts to health and the environment by requiring manufacturers to use the safest available chemical components in their products. DTSC's regulations are aimed at fulfilling this mandate by prioritizing particular harmful chemicals and encouraging redesign of products containing those chemicals. The law and regulations represent a paradigm shift whereby the old model - essentially a "wait and see" approach in which chemical health risks were analyzed after someone complained about an injury allegedly caused by that chemical - is giving way to a new model whereby chemical risks are analyzed in advance of exposure in an effort to minimize future harm.
 

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Greg Woodard and Jim Pugh

On November 2, 2010, Californians will cast a vote on Proposition 23 (the "California Jobs Initiative") and decide whether or not to suspend AB 32, also known as the "Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006." The legislature enacted AB 32 with the intention of establishing California as a national leader in the climate change and clean technology arena. The stagnating economy has provided AB 32 opponents with a platform to propose suspending AB 32 until unemployment in California falls below 5.5%, a proposition both advocates and detractors of Prop 23 admit will not likely happen for several years. Prop 23 supporters claim that AB 32 is a job-killer that will increase Californians' energy bills. Opponents counter that AB 32 provides jobs for California's burgeoning clean tech industry and suspension of AB 32 will threaten not only that industry, but all but end California's attempt to drastically curb greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) in the state. Amid the flurry, the truth about Prop 23 is likely somewhere in the middle. Below, we provide the backdrop for Prop 23 and objectively summarize the arguments for and against it.[1]
 

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Theresa Bangert

In a decision that may create a significant roadblock for companies saddled with environmental clean-up liability to continue as a going concern, the Seventh Circuit in U.S. v. Apex Oil Company, Inc., 579 F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 2009) affirmed a district court injunction requiring the clean-up of a contaminated site in Illinois under section 7003 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) despite the company's bankruptcy. On September 27, 2010, the Supreme Court is scheduled to discuss whether to grant review of the Apex decision. 
 

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Share Link