Governor Jerry Brown signed Assembly Bill 1132 (“AB 1132”) into law on August 7, 2017.  The bill, authored by Democratic Assemblymember Cristina Garcia, adds Section 42451.5 to the Health and Safety Code which authorizes air districts to issue interim orders for abatement pending an abatement hearing for non-vehicular sources of air pollution.  The South Coast Air Quality Management District sponsored the bill.

Existing law permits the governing boards and the hearing boards of California air districts to issue orders for abatement, after notice and an abatement hearing, whenever the air districts find a violation of any order, rule, or regulation prohibiting or limiting the discharge of air contaminants into the air.  Health & Safety Code § 42451.  AB 1132 goes one step further.  Effective on and after January 1, 2018, AB 1132 permits an air pollution control officer to issue an interim abatement order, without a hearing, if the officer finds there is an “imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health or welfare, or the environment.”  Id. § 42451.5(a) (emphasis added).  It is not hard to imagine that most air pollution control officers will exercise this new power with zeal and impunity.Continue Reading How Due Process Will Wither and Die under California’s New Air Contaminant Law: AB 1132 Authorizes Air Districts to Shut Down Facilities Without a Hearing

California’s cap-and-trade program withstood a battle in court, and now the Legislature is proposing changes to the controversial program.  Senator Bob Wieckowski (Democrat – District 10), Chair of the Environmental Quality Committee, has authored Senate Bill 775 (“SB 775”) which would extend the cap-and-trade program to 2030 with modifications.  The existing cap-and-trade program, established under Assembly Bill 32 (2006) or the California Global Warming Solutions Act (“Act”), expires in 2020.  The Act requires the State Air Resources Board (“ARB”) to approve a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit equivalent to 1990 greenhouse gas emissions level to be achieved by 2020, and to ensure that statewide greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to at least 40% below the 1990 level by 2030, as outlined in Senate Bill 32 (2016).
Continue Reading Senate Bill Proposes Major Market-Based Remodel of Cap-and-Trade Program

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals capped a saga of over seven years on June 18 by extending its March 11, 2015 ruling in support of alternatives to imposing hefty fees on individual companies which have complied with the law, but happen to do business in California’s Central Valley or South Coast. Environmental groups challenged USEPA’s approvals of the alternatives adopted by both the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. The March 11 ruling, in Natural Res. Def. Council v. EPA (9th Cir. 2015) 643 F.3d 311, upheld the SCAQMD’s alternative, which pays the fees from surplus air quality plan funds. The June 18 ruling in Medical Advocates for Healthy Air v. US Environmental Protection Agency (9th Cir. June 18, 2015, No. 12-73386 (opinion ordered nonpublished)) clarified extension of the March ruling to uphold the SJVAPCD’s alternative, which pays the fees from motor vehicle fees.

Background:

The 1990 Amendments to the Federal Clean Air Act added Section 185 imposing “nonattainment fees” on any “Major Source” of emissions in any area that had severe or extreme air quality problems Southern California and the San Joaquin Valley fell squarely within this provision, which also would apply to businesses emitting over 10 tons per year (100 tons applies to many US regions). While failure was alleged for the region, yet the fees would be levied on individual businesses even though most were in full compliance with the strictest air quality requirements in the Country.
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Limits Clean Air Act “Nonattainment Fees” in California’s San Joaquin Valley

The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Central District (SJVAPCD) has released a Final Draft Staff Report and proposed rule revising Rule 2301 that concerns the banking of greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions.

The rule amends the SJVUAPCD’s existing offset banking Rule 2301 and would allow entities to bank GHG credits generated by protocols issued by California