By Randolph Visser and Whitney Hodges
Until recently, Association of Irritated Residents v. California Air Resources Board proceeded along the litigation path as smoothly as any environmental challenge might. However, things took an unexpected twist last week that has left unanswered questions and many spectators baffled.
By Jessica A. Johnson
California's Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) directed the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to adopt regulations that would reduce the state's greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) to 1990 levels by the year 2020. AB 32 authorized CARB to adopt regulations that use "market-based compliance mechanisms," among other means, to achieve that goal. Accordingly, on December 17, 2010, CARB adopted the Cap-and-Trade Program (Program) aimed at reducing the GHG emissions of electricity providers, large industrial sources, carbon dioxide suppliers, and fuel suppliers and distributors. The landmark Program will take effect on January 1, 2012, and promises to dramatically change "business as usual" in California.
By Jessica A. Johnson
Last week, the California Air Resources Board (CARB), a department of the California Environmental Protection Agency, adopted two significant rules to aid in the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. CARB established a standard that 33% of the electricity sold in the state by 2020 come from renewable energy sources, and approved final emission reduction targets for each metropolitan planning region pursuant to SB 375. However, there is some risk that these rules could be suspended if Proposition 23 passes.
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]
By Olivier Theard
The California Air Resources Board (ARB) recently released its Updated Economic Analysis of California's Climate Change Scoping Plan. The detailed report examines the economic impact to California of implementing the strategies set forth in the Climate Change Scoping Plan (released in December 2008). The Scoping Plan sets forth California's blueprint for reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, as mandated by California's landmark Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32). The Scoping Plan identified several strategies for reducing emissions, including promoting energy efficiency in virtually all economic sectors, cap and trade of emissions, and transportation-related measures aimed at reducing emissions from vehicles (including development of low-carbon fuels and land use development strategies). The Economic Analysis was designed to measure the effect on California's economy from implementing the Scoping Plan.
By Kyndra Joy Casper
In September of 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the "EPA") revealed a new proposal to regulate greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions from power plants, factories and refineries, which are considered large GHG emitters. In a response to questions from Senate Democrats, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson issued a letter on February 22, standing by the agency's plans to develop the first-time Clean Air Act ("CAA") regulations for GHGs and attacking pending efforts in Congress to overturn the EPA's finding that GHGs endanger public health and welfare.
By Olivier Theard
Introduction
On February 17, 2010, the EPA issued a final rule under the Clean Air Act intended to reduce emissions of toxic pollutants from existing diesel powered stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE), also known as compression ignition (CI) engines. The new rules are important because they will affect operations at many facilities throughout the country that need to generate electricity for certain applications. RICE engines are typically used in industrial facilities such as power plants, chemical and manufacturing plants to generate electricity for compressors and pumps. The engines can also serve in emergency situations to produce electricity to pump water for flood and fire control. In general, the rules will require installation of pollution control equipment, performance of emissions tests and the burning of ultra-low sulfur fuel. A link to a fact sheet concerning this rule is attached here. This article, in combination with the EPA fact sheet, summarizes the key aspects of the rule.
By James Rusk
Connecticut v. American Electric Power Company Inc., ____F.3d ____, No. 05-5104 (2nd Cir. 2009)
States and private plaintiffs may sue utility operators under the federal common law of nuisance to abate carbon dioxide ("CO2") emissions that contribute to global warming, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held this month. Although the 139-page opinion appears to open a new front in the fight over climate change, its full import is uncertain. The court held only that plaintiffs had standing, that they had stated public nuisance claims under the federal common law and that those claims were justiceable. It did not reach the merits of plaintiffs' claims, and it expressly noted that those common law claims could yet be displaced by federal legislative or rulemaking action. With that in mind, the case could prove more significant as an additional impetus for national greenhouse gas regulation than as a tool for judicial control of emissions.
Enter keywords:
Add this blog to your feeds or put your e-mail in the box below and hit GO to subscribe by e-mail.