The Climate Policy, Renewable Energy, & Sustainability Blog
If you’re looking for a new cleantech startup idea, the San Diego Regional Energy Innovation Network (SD-REIN) recently released a report that identifies cleantech market opportunities in the Southern California region.
The report, entitled “Regional Energy Technology Priorities and Needs,” was presented at an SD-REIN meeting on March 9, 2017. It will be…
Wyoming has one of the nation’s best wind resources. But if a contingent of state senators and representatives there have their way, electric utilities located in the state will be slapped on the wrist for using it (or other renewables, for that matter). Senate File 71, which has been introduced in the Wyoming State Senate…
Yesterday, California’s Third District Court of Appeal heard oral argument in the related cases California Chamber of Commerce v. California Air Resources Board and Morning Star Packing Co. v. California Air Resources Board. The three-justice panel actively questioned both sides as lawyers for the State, the Chamber, Morning Star, and Environmental Defense Fund made…
Amidst all the focus in Washington DC over inauguration crowd sizes, at least one state is instead focusing on matters affecting jobs, security, and quality of life–renewable energy! A bill (SD.1932) introduced in Massachusetts would require the state to use 100% renewable energy for electricity by 2035 and also seeks to deeply cut fossil fuels…
Yesterday, Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill (SB) 32 into law, extending and expanding California’s 10-year old greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions mandate under Assembly Bill (AB) 32. SB 32 provides for a 40% reduction in GHG emissions from 1990 levels by 2030. This builds on AB 32’s existing mandate to reduce statewide emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. In negotiations to pass SB 32 in the final weeks of the state legislative session, the bill was trimmed to add only one sentence to existing statute, to insert the 2030 target. Left unaddressed was one question of the moment, can the cap and trade program authorized by AB 32 legally continue past 2020? The California Air Resources Board (ARB) has its own answer to the question, the subject of this earlier post. The courts will no doubt end up as the final arbiter. Whether post-2020 GHG emissions reductions are met through a cap and trade program or other screws and hammers in ARB’s toolbox, the 2030 target is now written into law, rather than just Executive Order B-30-15.
The vital component of the compromise to pass SB 32 was companion bill AB 197. AB 197 establishes legislative oversight of ARB’s actions to implement AB 32 and SB 32, by creating a Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies and adding two ex officio nonvoting members to the Board. AB 197 also puts a new twist on ARB’s broad authority to adopt rules and regulations to achieve emissions reductions. AB 32 requires ARB to achieve maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective emissions reductions from sources or categories of sources. AB 197 further requires ARB to prioritize direct emissions reductions, including from large stationary sources and mobile sources, when adopting rules and regulations to achieve reductions.
In addition to headliner SB 32, the Legislature passed one additional bill with direct emissions reduction mandates, SB 1383.Continue Reading California Continues Ambitious Regulation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Late Tuesday, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) released draft amendments to California’s cap and trade regulation, including revisions to the current program in place through 2020, an extension of the program through 2030, and setting the stage for continued emissions reductions under the program through 2050. ARB’s proposed amendments come in the middle of a recent milieu of uncertainty: pending litigation challenging the legality of the existing program, an opinion from the state Office of Legislative Counsel that ARB lacks authority under AB 32 to continue cap and trade past 2020, unprecedented weak demand at the most recent allowance auction, and legislation proposed in the California Senate to establish a statutory emissions reductions mandate for 2030 still in process this session. With all of these balls in the air, ARB has doubled down and drafted regulations dropping the program’s emissions cap from 334.2 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2e in 2020 to 200.5 MMT in 2030, with major elements of the cap and trade regulation continuing in effect past 2020 to achieve the emissions reductions.
Continue Reading What You Need to Know about the Proposed Revisions to California’s Cap and Trade Program
Today, the Eighth Circuit determined that the Next Generation Energy Act (“NGEA”), a Minnesota law that established power sector standards for carbon dioxide emissions, was unconstitutional (decision available here). In so doing, the Court affirmed the decision of District Court Judge Susan Nelson, whose 2014 decision we covered in “Court Declares Minnesota…
Oregon legislators passed Senate Bill (SB) 1547 into law yesterday, creating aggressive timetables for eliminating coal-fired electricity from the State and setting a 50% Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) by 2040. A diverse group of utilities, consumer advocacy organizations, and renewable energy advocates support the bill. Next stop for SB 1547 is Oregon Governor Katherine Brown’s desk, where she is expected to sign the bill into law.
Key provisions and significance of SB 1547 include:
50% RPS by 2040
Oregon’s two largest utilities – PacifiCorp and PGE – will have a 50% RPS standard by 2040, meaning 50% of their electricity supply must be derived from renewable energy sources. The two largest utilities serve approximately 70% of Oregon customers’ electricity needs. There was no change to the existing requirements on consumer-owned utilities.
Ed. – originally authored by Kevin Johnson and Thomas Wood.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s order on February 9, 2016 staying EPA’s implementation of the Clean Power Plan (CPP) will create at least a year of uncertainty about the shape of the future electric power regulatory framework, with implications for states, utilities and other electric power providers, and for the many other stakeholders potentially affected by the CPP. The CPP is the regulatory program issued by EPA on October 23, 2015, that requires states to develop plans to reduce carbon (CO2) emissions by meeting either state-specific mass caps (tons/year) or state-specific emission rate intensity limits (lb/netMWh). The CPP seeks to establish a whole new style of regulation using authority under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act.
Supreme Court Halts CPP Implementation
Twenty-nine (29) states and a number of utilities, labor unions and trade associations challenged the legality of the CPP. These appellants sought a stay of the rule from the D.C. Circuit in November 2015. The petition for a stay was denied on January 21, 2016. The appellants then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court — a move that most pundits thought was futile as it is extremely rare for the Supreme Court to grant such a stay. In order to grant a stay, the Court needed to find that if the D.C. Circuit were to uphold the CPP, (1) there is a reasonable probability that four Supreme Court Justices would vote for review of the D.C. Circuit opinion; (2) there is a fair prospect that a majority of the Supreme Court would vote to reverse the D.C. Circuit’s opinion upholding the CPP; and (3) that there is a likelihood that immediate, irreparable harm would result from the denial of a stay. By granting the stay, it appears that five of the nine Supreme Court justices (Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Kennedy and Thomas) indicated that they believe there is a fair prospect that they would vote to overturn the D.C. Circuit were the D.C. Circuit to uphold the CPP. The Court’s action prevents EPA from further implementation of the CPP until the petitioners’ appeal is decided. The underlying challenge to the CPP is proceeding on an expedited schedule with oral argument set for June 2 and 3, 2016.
In addition, another factor in the Court’s stay decision was likely the pending deadlines for states to take compliance actions. The deadline for states to submit initial plans demonstrating how they would comply with the CPP was September 6, 2016. While virtually all states were likely to request an extension for plan submittal until September 2018, states still needed to show progress on their plans by this September, and many states, including several of the 29 appellant states, were beginning the planning process.
Next Steps: Back to the D.C. Circuit
Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court Stays Clean Power Plan Implementation: Next Steps
In Paris over the weekend nearly 190 countries reached a landmark international agreement on climate change. My friend Gerard Wynn of GWG Energy has written an excellent explainer on exactly what was agreed to. Gerard has kindly agreed to let us share his post with Renewable + Law blog readers. His post follows below.
[Originally published on the Carbon & Climate Change Blog]
The world concluded four years of negotiations on Saturday with the first universal agreement on climate change. Nearly 190 countries pledged national climate action, and all countries agreed a global long-term goal to phase out greenhouse gas emissions this century, suggesting a turning point in the use of fossil fuels.
The Paris outcome has two parts.
1. A 12-page “Paris Agreement”, which sets out new commitments for climate action beyond 2020, and potentially through this century.
2. A 20-page “Decision”, which describes what countries have to do before the Agreement enters into force in 2020.
Following is an attempt to decipher what all the wonky language means.Continue Reading Guest Post: Decoding the Paris Climate Agreement
