Our latest post provides updates on environmental and legal developments in Los Angeles and adjacent counties, as well as the Southern San Joaquin Valley.  We welcome your comments and contributions.

Legislation and Ordinances  

Implementation of AB 617, CARB’s Community Air Protection Program. AB 617 requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB) by October 1, 2018 to identify the highest priority communities affected by a high cumulative air emissions exposure burden (“impacted communities”); to establish the criteria for air monitoring and local emissions reduction programs; and to develop a statewide strategy for reducing emissions, to be updated every 5 years.  Additional timeline for required actions:Continue Reading SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL UPDATE – NEW AIR QUALITY AND OIL & GAS REGULATORY DEVELOPMENTS

In March 2017, the California Air Resources Board (“ARB”) adopted regulations for Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards for Crude Oil and Natural Gas Facilities (“Methane Regulations”), which impose emission controls for oil and gas facilities across the state.  Following the state rulemaking process, ARB and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (“Air District”) – and the Air District’s regulated stakeholders – jointly determined that local administration of the program would provide for more effective and expeditious implementation at a lower cost to businesses in the Air District.  Thus, in December 2017, the Air District adopted a registration program (Air District Rule 2260) to implement ARB’s regulations.
Continue Reading San Joaquin Valley Oil and Gas Operators Take Note: New Emission Rules and Compliance Deadlines

This is the third update on environmental regulatory and legal developments in Los Angeles and adjacent counties, as well as the Southern San Joaquin Valley.  We welcome your comments and updates.

South Coast Air Quality Management District

*Governing Board Shift:  New Governing Board Member Sheila Kuehl replaced Mike Antonovich, returning the Board to a Democratic Majority.  Ms. Kuehl calls upon the South Coast Air Quality Management District (District) to use its full regulatory power, and she has strong ties with the California Legislature.  New emphases now include further regulations of stationary facilities, such as warehouses and shopping malls that are considered “indirect sources” of air emissions because they attract emissions from cars and trucks, as well as a termination of the RECLAIM Program.  Questions on the latter include when (2025, 2023, 2031?), treatment of credits from shutdowns, and how companies that invested in long-term credits will be dealt with.  In addition, the District wants to achieve the NOx shave under RECLAIM and at the same time sunset the Program.  Collaterally, the District is pushing the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and US EPA to do their “fair share” to regulate mobile sources so that further efforts to improve air quality will not be piled on the backs of stationary businesses.Continue Reading SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL UPDATE #3 – APRIL 24, 2017

As the sands shift on federal climate change policy, California’s cap-and-trade program survives to fight another day.  Yesterday, a California Court of Appeal upheld the program because it does not impose a tax subject to the two-thirds supermajority vote requirement under Proposition 13.  The Court also affirmed the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) authority to auction GHG emissions allowances.  For the ins and outs of the decision and prior coverage of the case, pop on over to Renewable + Law for a great post by my colleagues, Allison Smith and Parissa Florez.

Now, stating the obvious here: a lot is riding on this case.  The cap-and-trade program has generated billions of dollars in fees and the program plays a crucial role in California’s goal to cut GHG emissions.  Those fees don’t get paid with monopoly money, but instead hit the bottom line of companies across many different industries.  Of course, some consider the fees to be a small price to pay to prevent flooding, the sixth mass extinction, and in their view, the end of the world. On a level that hits closer to home for many readers of this blog, the challenge to the cap-and-trade program has added to the uncertainty of how to address GHG emissions for development projects subject to CEQA.  As previously discussed by my colleague, Tom Henry, reliance on the cap-and-trade program appears to be one of the few approaches to a legally defensible CEQA GHG analysis.Continue Reading CARB Wins Again on Cap-and-Trade, But Is It Really in Any Danger of Losing?

Our previous post on the Second District Court of Appeal’s decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife, No. B245141 (Mar. 20, 2014), highlighted the court’s holdings on California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and California Endangered Species Act (CESA) issues.  The opinion also provides a useful (although unpublished) discussion on how to evaluate the significance of a project’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under CEQA.  This post examines the court’s GHG analysis, and adds observations regarding the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) May 22, 2014 adoption of the First Update to the AB 32 Scoping Plan (Updated Scoping Plan). Continue Reading Is A 16% Reduction in GHG Emissions From “Business-As-Usual” Enough Under CEQA?

The California Air Resources Board has released its first semi-annual report to the California Legislature on the agency’s AB 32 programs, designed to meet the state’s goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.  The report details recent developments and anticipated milestones for three of CARB’s major AB 32 initiatives:  the cap and trade program, the low carbon fuel standard (LCFS), and the advanced clean cars program.  For our primer on the cap and trade program, see our earlier post.  Some highlights from these programs in 2012 and things to look for in 2013: 

  • The first auction of cap and trade greenhouse gas emission allowances was held in November 2012, raising $233 million for the state’s investor-owned utilities (for the benefit of ratepayers) and $55 million for the state Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.  The next auction will take place February 19, 2013 and the first allowance price containment reserve sale will be on March 8, 2013.
  • A trial court decision is expected in 1Q 2013 in the lawsuit challenging the offset protocols adopted for the cap and trade program, Citizens Climate Lobby and Our Children’s Earth Foundation v. CARB.
  • Sacramento Superior Court will hear arguments at the end of May 2013 in California Chamber of Commerce v. CARB, which challenges the cap and trade auction mechanism.
  • In early 2013, Governor Brown will consider the proposed linkage between California’s cap and trade program and Quebec’s program.  Public comments will be accepted on the package considered by the Governor.
  • Proposed amendments to the cap and trade regulation will be released summer 2013.
  • Development of new offset protocols is anticipated for spring 2013.
  • Further study has been initiated on several hot topics in cap and trade – leakage, industry benchmarks for efficiency, and affects of cap and trade on the agricultural sector, including food processors.
  • For the LCFS, hearings will be held in spring 2013 to add fuel pathways and crude oil carbon intensities.
  • Expect amendments to the LCFS in fall 2013, with rulemaking workshops to begin in the first half of 2013.  Workshops topics will include specifications for alternative diesel fuel blends, including biodiesel.
  • Related to the advanced clean cars program, CARB withdrew its Clean Fuels Outlet regulation in December 2012, which would have required fuel providers to build hydrogen stations once a certain number of fuel cell vehicles were in the California market.  Proposed legislation – AB 8 – would reauthorize various clean air fees to fund the hydrogen fueling network.  The Assembly Transportation Committee held its first hearing on AB 8 today.

Continue Reading California Air Resources Board Issues AB 32 Report

In December 2012, San Diego Superior Court Judge Timothy Taylor ruled that the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) had violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), in part because the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that SANDAG prepared for its 2050 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) failed to analyze the greenhouse gas (GHG) targets set by