California Cap & Trade Challenge Final Order Issued
On Friday, May 20, 2011, Judge Goldsmith of San Francisco Supreme Court issued a final order (PDF) with respect to a lawsuit challenging the environmental review of the Cap and Trade regulations created under California’s AB 32 Greenhouse Gas statute and the associated Scoping Plan. In its order, the Court enjoined the Cap and Trade portion of the Scoping Plan.
This revised final order is narrower than the draft order previously circulated in March. The order applies only to the Board Regulation O8-47 and Executive Order G-09-001 (approving the climate change scoping plan) as they relate to Cap and Trade; and the Cap and Trade regulations themselves Regulation 10-42. The Executive order enjoins the California Air Resources Board (CARB) from:
“[e]ngaging in any cap and trade-related Project activity that could result in an adverse change to the physical environment until ARB has comes into complete compliance with ARB’s obligations under its certified regulatory program and CEQA, consistent with the Court’s Order. This includes any further rulemaking and implementation of cap and trade especially but not limited to any action in furtherance of California Cap and Trade Program Resolution 10-42.”
Keep in mind, this lawsuit was filed challenging a CEQA type document which is procedural in nature. Thus, once CARB revises the environmental document in the manner required by the court and it is determined to be sufficient at the time the writ is returned, the project may go forward. Additionally, in the interim, those portions of AB 32 that are not related to Cap and Trade, such as mandatory reporting, are still in effect pursuant to the Implementation Schedule.
In the interim, it will be interesting to see whether various interests will attempt to make changes to the Cap and Trade program. The Sierra Club has already come out in favor of changes related to emissions levels and environmental justice issues.
California Court Enjoins Implementation of Cap-and-Trade
|
Legal News Alert from Stoel Rives Environmental Law Group
March 23, 2011 San Francisco Superior Court has issued a final decision in Association of Irritated Residents v. California Air Resources Board. For the moment, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is enjoined from further rulemaking to implement the California Global Warming Solutions Act (A.B. 32), including for the cap-and-trade program. The Court upheld the validity of CARB’s Scoping Plan for implementation of A.B. 32, saving CARB from having to revise the Plan. But, the Court found flaws with CARB’s environmental review of the Scoping Plan under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), in particular its analysis of alternatives to the Plan’s recommended greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction measures, such as cap and trade. CARB is enjoined from further rulemaking until the agency has come into compliance with CEQA by amending its environmental review of the Scoping Plan. For entities facing regulation under A.B. 32, this decision has important implications. Scoping Plan GHG reduction measures that have already made their way through the rulemaking process appear unaffected. But CARB’s cap-and-trade program never made it out of the formal rulemaking process. While the Board members of CARB approved the cap-and-trade program in December 2010, it left it to the Executive Officer to take final action to adopt the proposed regulation (or bring it back to the Board) after more details were finalized. CARB had a packed schedule this year to finalize cap and trade prior to its January 1, 2012 start date. Under the Court’s final decision, these activities will have to be shelved if they fall within the rubric of further rulemaking or implementation. Regulated entities may thus have a temporary reprieve from the onset of cap and trade in 2012. But continued uncertainty over the details of CARB’s planned GHG regulation of stationary sources is a less than ideal situation for regulated sources. For more background and information on the decision and its implications, click here. If you currently subscribe to Stoel Rives legal updates, click here to update your contact information and preferences. To join the Stoel Rives mailing list and ensure direct delivery of future alerts, click here to subscribe. To unsubscribe, send an email to unsubscribe@stoel.com. |
California Court Enjoins Implementation of Cap-and-Trade
|
Legal News Alert from Stoel Rives Environmental Law Group
March 23, 2011 San Francisco Superior Court has issued a final decision in Association of Irritated Residents v. California Air Resources Board. For the moment, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is enjoined from further rulemaking to implement the California Global Warming Solutions Act (A.B. 32), including for the cap-and-trade program. The Court upheld the validity of CARB’s Scoping Plan for implementation of A.B. 32, saving CARB from having to revise the Plan. But, the Court found flaws with CARB’s environmental review of the Scoping Plan under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), in particular its analysis of alternatives to the Plan’s recommended greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction measures, such as cap and trade. CARB is enjoined from further rulemaking until the agency has come into compliance with CEQA by amending its environmental review of the Scoping Plan. For entities facing regulation under A.B. 32, this decision has important implications. Scoping Plan GHG reduction measures that have already made their way through the rulemaking process appear unaffected. But CARB’s cap-and-trade program never made it out of the formal rulemaking process. While the Board members of CARB approved the cap-and-trade program in December 2010, it left it to the Executive Officer to take final action to adopt the proposed regulation (or bring it back to the Board) after more details were finalized. CARB had a packed schedule this year to finalize cap and trade prior to its January 1, 2012 start date. Under the Court’s final decision, these activities will have to be shelved if they fall within the rubric of further rulemaking or implementation. Regulated entities may thus have a temporary reprieve from the onset of cap and trade in 2012. But continued uncertainty over the details of CARB’s planned GHG regulation of stationary sources is a less than ideal situation for regulated sources. For more background and information on the decision and its implications, click here. If you currently subscribe to Stoel Rives legal updates, click here to update your contact information and preferences. To join the Stoel Rives mailing list and ensure direct delivery of future alerts, click here to subscribe. To unsubscribe, send an email to unsubscribe@stoel.com. |
EPA Releases Two New Final Rules Today Regarding Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide
An update from Sara Bergan and Sarah Johnson Phillips
Federal Requirements Under the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program for Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Geologic Sequestration (GS) Wells See Pre-publication Rule
The rule finalizes minimum federal requirements under the Safe Drinking Water Act for underground injection of carbon dioxide (CO2) for GS purposes. It establishes a new class of well, Class VI, and sets minimum technical criteria for projects. The guidance covers steps from permitting and site characterization to ongoing monitoring of the CO2 stream, injection wells and CO2 plume to well plugging, post-injection site care and site closure. All criteria are set for the purposes of protecting underground sources of drinking water (USDW) only. The rule covers owners and operators of new CO2 injection wells used for Class VI GS as well as those transitioning CO2 injection wells from Class I,II, or V to Class VI GS. Notably the final rule, as changed or clarified from the earlier proposed rule, provides for the following:
- Independent primacy exclusively for Class VI wells under subparagraph §145.1(i) of the final rule;
- Adaptive rulemaking whereby EPA will review the rulemaking every 6 years to make changes as necessary to incorporate new research, data and information about GS technologies;
- Reevaluation of the Area of Review (AoR) for GS projects every 5 years in order to address concerns about the inherent uncertainties in modeling CO2 movement and with emerging GS technology;
- Requirement that owners or operators use direct methods to monitor for pressure changes in the injection zone and to supplement with indirect, geophysical techniques; and
- Clarification of the requirements necessary to ensure financial resources are available to protect USDWs from endangerment over the long term.
The Final Rule will be published in the Federal Register. Information on the Final Rule and earlier actions can also be found at www.regulations.gov, under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390.
Final Rule: Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Injection and Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide See Pre-publication Rule
EPA amended the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reporting Program, 40 CFR part 98, to cover GHG monitoring and reporting requirements for owners and operators of facilities conducting GS activities (subpart RR) and of any other facility conducting CO2 injection (subpart UU). The data collected under the GHG Reporting Program will inform EPA policy decisions under the Clean Air Act related to the use of CO2 capture and sequestration (CCS) for mitigating GHG emissions. Owners or operators of GS facilities are required to develop and implement a site-specific Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) plan that would be used to verify the amount of CO2 sequestered and quantify any emissions leaks.
All UIC permitted Class VI wells will be covered under subpart RR. Enhanced oil and gas recovery (EOR) projects using CO2 will be covered under subpart UU, but could be covered by subpart RR if they choose to opt in or apply for a Class VI well permit. Opting into subpart RR would not, for example, require an existing EOR project with a UIC Class II well permit to obtain a Classs VI permit.
The EPA approval process for the purposes of GHG reporting and verification is separate from the UIC permitting process, and the GHG reporting requirements were developed to minimize overlap with the UIC requirements. Despite the effort to avoid overlap, both programs require regular reporting on the quantity of CO2 injected (flow rate) but at different frequencies and specifications. There may also be overlap in monitoring for CO2 leakage to the surface, although the UIC purpose in doing so is to protect USDWs whereas the GHG program’s purpose is to assess the efficacy of GS as a climate change mitigation strategy. The GHG rule is drafted to build upon the UIC requirements and accept information obtained under the UIC program where feasible. Research and development projects meeting eligibility requirements are exempt from reporting under subpart RR.
The Final Rule will be published in the Federal Register. Information on the Final Rule and earlier actions can also be found at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0926.
EPA Issues Proposed RFS2 Rules for 2011
The EPA has issued proposed RFS2 rules for 2011 that provide some indications that the agency is dedicated to jump starting the advanced biofuels industry. Most notably, the EPA held fast to an overall mandate of 13.95 billion gallons of renewable fuel. While the agency intends to deviate downward on cellululosic biofuels with a cut of 90% or more anticipated, the proposed rule maintains the overall Advanced biofuel mandate at 1.35 billion gallons and the Biomass-based diesel requirement at 800 million gallons. Thus the agency is paying significant attention to the existing capacity of the biodiesel industry despite the lack of approval for the blender's credit six months into the year. Biofuel supporters hope that this policy gap will be addressed shortly or that RIN values will continue to increase for Biomass based diesel.
The proposed rule contains two other notable components: tentative but retroactive RIN credit for canola, sorghum, pulpwood and palm oil biofuel producers; and a petition process for foreign countries to avoid the onerous feedstock obligations that now apply in favor of the aggregate approach available within the US. The referenced feedstocks have been under consideration by EPA for Life Cycle Analysis since prior to the original RFS2 Final Rule was released but the work has still not been completed. The severe challenge for this group of biofuel producers is that EPA has previously indicated that RIN generation would trigger only when the pathway was certified. EPA's proposed new flexibility is an improvement but still falls short of providing full RIN value for these producers due to the lag time and uncertainty associated with the approach. The proposed petition process for foreign countries is an apparent attempt to level the playing field for foreign producers who now must trace and certify feedstocks such as soy and corn in a manner not required within the US.
The rules will be published in the Federal Register shortly and the public comment period will likely run to approximately August 13th.
DOT, EPA Boost Fuel Economy, Set GHG Emission Limits for Light Vehicles
The U.S. Department of Transportation (“DOT”) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) have established new federal rules for greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions standards for all new passenger cars and light trucks sold in the US. The rules improve fuel efficiency, could save the average buyer up to $3,000 over the life of a 2016 model year car, conserve about 1.8 billion barrels of oil, and reduce nearly a billion tons of GHG emissions over the life of a new vehicle.
The joint issue of rules allows automakers to comply with one set of rules, instead of three different sets (DOT, EPA, and a state standard).
NHTSA and EPA believe automakers can meet the new standards by adopting existing efficiency technologies such as lighter materials, more efficient engines, transmissions, tires, and air conditioning systems.
For more information, see the DOT press release, the final rule (PDF 6.93 MB), and the Web page for the EPA climate regulations.
SEC Adopts Interpretive Guidance on Disclosure Regarding Climate Change
As described in a previous alert, the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") voted on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 to adopt an interpretive release to provide guidance on existing public company disclosure requirements as they apply to business or legal developments relating to climate change. The SEC has now distributed the interpretive release itself, which can be found here. The interpretive release indicates that its purpose is to provide guidance on how to interpret existing SEC disclosure rules and requirements as applied to business and legal developments associated with climate change. For our detailed alert on the subject, click here.
SEC Posts Climate Change Interpretive Release
Earlier today, the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) posted its climate change interpretive release, which can be found at http://www.sec.gov/rules/interp/2010/33-9106.pdf. Our prior Blog on the subject is here, and our alert on the topic can be found here. Stoel Rives corporate securities partners Ron McFall and CJ Voss will be posting a follow up alert shortly.
If you'd like to sign up for our Energy Law Alerts, click here.
SEC Issues Interpretive Guidance on Greenhouse Gases
My partner Tom Wood circulated this preliminary alert this afternoon:
"Earlier today the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) approved interpretive guidance intended to inform public companies how climate change must be taken into account when applying existing disclosure requirements. Specifically, the SEC's interpretative guidance highlights the following areas as examples of where climate change must be considered in crafting disclosures:
· The direct effects of existing and pending environmental regulation, legislation and international accords and treaties on the company’s business, its operations, risk factors and in Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations (MD&A);
· The indirect effects of climate change legislation and regulation on a company’s business—this could include new opportunities or risks posed by legal, technological, political and scientific developments related to climate change; and
· The actual and potential effect on a company’s business and operations resulting from physical changes to the planet resulting from climate change.
"The interpretive guidance specifies that public companies must have adequate knowledge of their greenhouse gas emissions—a requirement that is consistent with recent EPA regulations requiring many (but not all) significant greenhouse gas emitters report their direct emissions starting in calendar year 2010. The SEC stated “management should ensure that it has sufficient information regarding the registrant’s greenhouse gas emissions and other operational matters to evaluate the likelihood of a material effect arising from the subject legislation or regulation.”
Unsurprisingly, the SEC said that registrants must weigh whether climate change related information is material or not. In doing so, they said that if it was a close question, the company should decide in favor of disclosure."
The complete language of the interpretive guidance has not yet been released. Corporate securities partners C. J. Voss and Ron McFall are reviewing the issue and will be issuing an Energy Law Alert on the topic. If you'd like to sign up for our Energy Law Alerts, click here.
EPA Announces "Endangerment" and "Cause or Contribute" Findings
Stoel Rives partner Tom Wood reports:
Minutes ago EPA announced its long awaited “endangerment” and “cause or contribute” findings in relation to six key greenhouse gases – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride. While technically this announcement is of limited significance (applying only to motor vehicle emissions), the policy import of these determinations is tremendous.
In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court held that greenhouse gases are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act in the Massachusetts v. EPA decision. This case arose in relation to EPA’s choice not to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from new motor vehicles. The Court held that EPA must determine whether or not emissions of greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision.
Earlier this year EPA proposed to issue the two part finding required to commence regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles. This required first a finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare and a second finding that emissions from new motor vehicle engines cause or contribute to greenhouse gas air pollution. The comment period for these proposed findings ended June 23, 2009 and EPA received over 380,000 public comments. Today, Lisa Jackson (EPA Administrator) signed final findings that greenhouse gases endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations and that the combined emissions of these greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas air pollution that endangers public health and welfare.
As a legal matter, today’s findings relate only to vehicle emissions. However, the precedent that they create will almost certainly result in substantial regulation for other source categories. It is no coincidence that this finding was announced on the first day of the Copenhagen talks on climate change. The Obama administration both wanted to show that some progress was being made in the U.S. and it wants to leverage this progress into further statutory or regulatory requirements.
Towards this goal, one of the more interesting things to come out of the determinations is the formal establishment of the new pollutant: “Well-Mixed Greenhouse Gases.” This term is now officially entered into EPA’s regulatory lexicon as a pollutant to be regulated. Well-Mixed Greenhouse Gases consists of the 6 Kyoto gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride) but introduces the grouping now as a regulatory unit. It is noteworthy that vehicles are not material sources of all of these greenhouse gases and so the use of this term should be seen as setting the stage for future regulation.
Also of interest is an EPA restatement in a footnote that at this time it does not consider greenhouse gases to be a regulated air pollutant. This is of tremendous significance to stationary sources of greenhouse gases as the moment that greenhouse gases become regulated, there is the potential argument that they are subject to Title V and major new source review permitting. At the risk of understating the issue, that would be a mess of biblical proportions.
For those wishing to read all 284 pages of the findings document, it can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/downloads/FinalFindings.pdf
The findings are not valid until 30 days after they are published in the Federal Register. Expect publication to occur later this month.
Growing Green Jobs
Check out our recent client alert on President-elect Obama's selection of California congresswoman Hilda Solis as Labor Secretary, which we believe highlights the significance the incoming administration is placing on clean renewable energy and the contributing role of green jobs. Also highlighted in our client alert is the efforts of several states, including Minnesota, California and Oregon, to promote green jobs. In Minnesota, Governor Tim Pawlenty recently announced a "Green Jobs Investment Initiative" that includes several proposals for the 2009 Minnesota Legislature, including a Green JOBZ Program, Job Growth and Small Business Investment Tax Credits, and Biomethane and Solar Power Conservation Credits. Stay tuned!
ASTM Proposes Corporate Climate Change Disclosure Standard
ASTM International (formerly the American Society for Testing and Materials) recently published a proposed voluntary standard entitled “Financial Disclosures Attributed to Climate Change,” intended to provide guidance on when public company disclosure of climate change matters is required. While the standard itself isn’t available via the Internet, a summary is available from the Brattle Group, which helped craft the standard, and we have a copy of the ASTM proposal if you’re interested. There have been numerous discussions on the proposal over the last year (see, for example, Global Reporting Initiative and Carbon Disclosure Project materials), including last year’s detailed petition to the SEC by a coalition of environmental groups and investment funds. It remains to be seen to what extent companies will modify their disclosures if the proposal is adopted as written. Generally speaking, public disclosure is backward looking and conservative, and therefore currently includes only those items that are substantive and measurable, such as lawsuits, new environmental regulation, and capital expenditures. That being said, environmental groups, both on the disclosure front and the proxy proposals front, and the New York Attorney General, continue to voice their thoughts on this concept.
If you'd like to receive any of our law alerts, please let us know. And as always, stay tuned!
