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

Association of Irritated Residents v. California Air Resources Board et al., A132165 (1st  Dist. Div. 3, June 19, 2012)

By Whitney Hodges and Randolph Visser

On June 19, 2012, the California First District Court of Appeal upheld the California Air Resources Board’s (“ARB”) Climate Change Scoping Plan (“Scoping Plan”), which charts dozens of climate change control measures. This ruling clears the way for ARB to move forward with its designated plan to combat greenhouse gas (“GhG”) emissions with a market-based cap-and-trade program. The decision also found the Scoping Plan to be in compliance with the 2006 California Global Warming Solutions Act, also known as AB 32, which required ARB to prepare a scoping plan to reduce GhG emissions to 1990 levels by the end of 2020. A ruling against ARB could have forced ARB to revise the Scoping Plan and freeze implementation of its GhG regulations.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San Diego (May 19, 2011, D057524) __ Cal.App.4th __

By Jeffrey Forrest & Robyn Christo

On May 19, 2011, the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District upheld an Addendum to an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR Addendum”) over claims that the lead agency failed to follow statutory procedures for adopting a Water Supply Assessment (“WSA”) and that a supplemental EIR (“SEIR”) was required to analyze “new” environmental impacts related to drought and global warming.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

By Brenna Moorhead

On December 29, 2009, the California Natural Resources Agency ("Resources Agency") adopted amendments to the guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA").  The amendments were filed with the Secretary of State on February 16, 2010 and will assist lead agencies in complying with CEQA's existing requirements when analyzing and mitigating the impacts of greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions[1] associated with a proposed project. 
 

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

On December 19, 2008, the California Air Resources Board ("CARB") announced that it would postpone the release of the revised draft of the CARB staff's Recommended Approaches for Setting Interim Significance Thresholds for Greenhouse Gases under the California Environmental Quality Act ("Preliminary Draft"). Instead, CARB is continuing to accept public comments on the Preliminary Draft through January 9, 2009.
 

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) recently issued a Technical Advisory, providing assistance to CEQA practitioners, land use officials, planners and others on the treatment of climate change in CEQA documents. OPR is in the process of preparing formal amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines for adoption by the California Resources Agency on or before January, 2010. These amendments will provide the regulatory guidance for the analysis of GHG (greenhouse gas emissions) and corresponding mitigation in CEQA documents. Pending adoption of these amendments, OPR has produced, in cooperation with the Resources Agency, Cal EPA and the California Air Resources Board (ARB), the Technical Advisory to assist lead agencies in addressing climate change in CEQA documents.
 

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Last year global warming was a topic of movies, magazines, newspapers and legislation but not, for the most part, of California Environmental Quality Act environmental impact reports.

The following article by Donna Jones was originally published in the California Environmental Insider. To read the article please click here.

• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The mere filing of a lawsuit under the California Environmental Quality Act does not automatically halt an approved project.  In fact, the act mandates that responsible agencies "shall assume" compliance with the law and act accordingly unless ordered by a court to halt project activity. Project developers therefore often proceed at their own risk with project construction in the face of a pending challenge based on the act.

The following article by Arthur Friedman was originally published in the California Real Estate Journal. To read the article please click here.

• Print
• Comments
• Share Link