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

By Whitney Hodges, Randy Visser & Olivier Theard 

The landmark Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (“AB 32”) tasked the California Air Resources Board (“ARB”) with reducing greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. In adopting a scoping plan assembling a number of differing, but complementary, GHG reduction strategies, the ARB included a “cap-and-trade” program as one such strategy to help satisfy AB 32’s goals while allowing industry flexibility in choosing emissions reduction options (i.e., facilities could choose to buy pollution credits, or could choose to reduce emissions and sell credits on the market). The “cap-and-trade” program was deemed preferable to other potential options such as a carbon tax.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Olivier Theard and Whitney Hodges 

I. Background

The California Air Resources Board (“ARB”) recently commenced development of a new regulation targeting emissions from “off-road” agricultural equipment, such as tractors and combines. The “In-Use Self-Propelled Off-Road Mobile Agricultural Equipment Regulation” is intended to help the State attain federal air quality standards. ARB officials claim the rule is a necessary tool in employing the upcoming ozone and particulate matter state implementation plans (“SIPs”), initiated in 2007.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Whitney Hodges

On January 27, 2012, the California Air Resources Board (“ARB”) notched a potential victory in the battle against greenhouse gas (“GhG”) emissions. In a unanimous vote, ARB adopted the Advanced Clean Cars (“ACC”) regulatory package, which is a program designed to deliver cleaner air, reduce GhG emissions, and help build the market for fuel cell and battery-electric vehicles. At the opening of the ARB hearing on this historic vote, Mary Nichols, ARB Chairman, predicted:

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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.
 

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

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. 
 

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

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.
 

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• 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 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.
 

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

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. 
 

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

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.
 

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

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.
 

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Share Link