Board

Subscribe to Board via RSS

This week the California Air Resources Board (ARB) released a draft of its AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update. The original Scoping Plan was adopted in 2008 and must be updated every five years. The Scoping Plan serves as a blueprint for achieving AB 32’s goal of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

The draft Update summarizes programs implemented over the last five years under AB 32 and outlines actions necessary to continue California’s progress toward the 2020 emissions reduction goal. The draft Update shows that California is on track to meet the 2020 emissions reduction goal and inventories the progress made across different economic sectors and programs like cap and trade. With the Update, ARB continues its strategy of achieving AB 32 goals through a mix of emissions reduction measures, including regulatory programs, incentives, and market-based approaches.Continue Reading California Air Resources Board Issues Draft Update to AB 32 Scoping Plan

A tentative ruling was issued yesterday in the related cases California Chamber of Commerce v. California Air Resources Board (ARB)  and  Morning Star Packing Co. v. ARB, pending before the Sacramento County Superior Court.  The cases challenge the legality of ARB’s cap and trade auctions under two theories:  (1) the cap and trade auctions…

On April 19, 2013, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) voted to link the California cap and trade program to Québec’s cap and trade system. CARB approved changes to the California cap and trade regulation on Friday to allow for the linkage, which is effective January 1, 2014. In practical terms, the linkage opens a new market for greenhouse gas allowances and offsets for California’s regulated entities and offset generators. As Québec’s cap and trade participants enter the California market, regulated entities in California could face tighter competition in bidding for allowances at CARB’s quarterly auctions. 

CARB is also planning for additional amendments to the California cap and trade regulation this year. Many of the potential changes were teed up for consideration in CARB Resolutions 12-33, 12-51, and 11-32. Topics up for potential amendment include:

  • Refining the definition of resource shuffling and clarifying how CARB will deal with the problem. CARB will base proposed amendments to resource shuffling provisions on the recommended actions presented by staff in October 2012. 
  • Providing transition assistance to electrical generating facilities with legacy power purchase agreements that do not provide for recovery of the cost of compliance with the cap and trade program. 
  • Exemption for steam and waste heat emissions from combined heat and power. 
  • Exemption for emissions from waste-to-energy facilities during the first compliance period (2013-2014).

Continue Reading California Links to Québec’s Cap and Trade System

My collegue Michael O’Connell issued the legal alert below on a recent significant Interior Board of Land Appeals decision concerning the intersection of tribal cultural resources and a BLM geothermal lease application:

The Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA or Board) decision, Earth Power Resources, 181 IBLA 94 (May 12, 2011), deals with BLM action on a geothermal lease application in Nevada. Citing National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) section 304, 16 U.S.C. § 470w-3, BLM withheld from a geothermal lease applicant an ethnographic study of Ruby Valley that identified a tribal traditional cultural property (TCP) important to an Indian Tribe and disapproved the lease application in order to protect the TCP. The Board overturned BLM’s decision and remanded the case for further action.Continue Reading The Bureau of Land Management, Tribal Cultural Resources and Renewable Energy Development

Yesterday, the Executive Director of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), Mary Nichols, announced that CARB is proposing to delay full implementation of California’s cap-and-trade program for a year. In testimony before the California Senate Select Committee on the Environment, the Economy, and Climate Change, Nichols stated that CARB is proposing to “initiate” the cap-and-trade…

After a marathon 10-hour public hearing last Thursday, the California Air Resources Board voted 9-to-1 to adopt the state’s landmark Cap-and-Trade Program. My colleague, Lee Smith, and I spent the day at the packed California EPA auditorium, monitoring the hearing.  Over 150 people strode up to the podium to give testimony during the public comment period, spanning the gambit from staunch environmentalists, to climate change skeptics, environmental justice advocates, and many, many a representative of soon-to-be regulated industries and businesses. The chain of testimony was broken up six hours into the hearing by a feel-good guest appearance by Governor Schwarzenegger, who waxed eloquent on the mission of A.B. 32, California’s green jobs revolution, and the momentous step that the state’s Cap-and-Trade Program represented. Indeed, there were many thank yous from commenters to ARB staff and the Board for their hard work on crafting the extraordinarily complex Program and trying to make it more palatable for those affected. Regulated entities noted the outstanding efforts that staff had taken to work with them during the development process. 

It was clear, however, that many are still not satisfied with the Program, whether as a whole or with the details of its implementation that will affect various sectors. Environmental justice advocates, such as representatives from the Center for Race, Poverty and the Environment, are largely not in favor of the Cap-and-Trade Program as proposed, dissatisfied with the lack of guarantees that the Program will not disproportionately impact low income communities or communities of color. Most people testifying made pleas to have one aspect or another of the Program changed in some manner. 

Lucky for those industries hoping to get some kinks ironed out to make the regulation less painful for their business, staff’s job is not done yet. Many details on implementing the Program remain to be worked out. At the hearing, staff presented several modifications to the Cap-and-Trade regulation that was released in early November for public review, and Board members, based on testimony or questions they had, gave staff a laundry list of additional points to further study. The changes to the regulation and other “conforming modifications” will be released for a 15-day comment period. Staff will then continue to tweak the fine points that do not require further Board action, hopefully having all the details of the Program firmed up by July 2011. Regulated entities certainly canvassed for the implementing details to be finalized as soon as possible before the regulation goes into effect on January 1, 2012, in order to have some certainty as to their compliance obligations. 

The first hour or two of public comment was dedicated to testimony on the forest projects offset protocol that will allow certain forest projects that sequester carbon to create offset credits which emitters can buy to meet a percentage of their compliance obligations. Several foresters and forest industry representatives testified, but the bulk of the comment was an emotional plea from environmentalists and residents of the Sierras to prevent clearcutting and forest monoculture under the proposed protocol. 

How can a program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions involve clearcutting? The protocol requires adherence to California forest management practices, even for out of state projects. These forest management practices may be more stringent or protective of the environment than those of other states, but California practices allow for clearcutting on areas of 40 acres or less and for even-aged stand management. Under the forest projects protocol, such practices could be utilized in connection with an offset project, but staff and members of the working group that developed the protocol emphasized that the overall carbon storage of a forest stand in a project must be maintained or increased in order for it to qualify under the protocol and generate offsets. Even with an overall net storage of carbon, however, environmental groups stridently objected to even-aged stand management because older or more diverse forest stands may be replaced with stands having less biodiversity and such stands may be managed with herbicides.

With the considerable objections to this protocol and the Board’s aversion to appearing to be ‘for’ clearcutting, ARB considered modification of the protocol at the hearing. Board Member D’Adamo pressed for an exclusion of any future forest project that involved clearcutting, with several other Members agreeing. However, in the end, the Board approved the protocol as it was presented. Chairman Nichols noted that it may be beyond the scope of the Board’s job under A.B. 32 to dictate different forest practices from those developed by the state’s agencies charged with forest management. The environmental protections embedded in the protocol and the overall requirement to have a net zero carbon loss within any given project seemed to satisfy the majority of the Board in the end.

Continue reading for an explanation of some the major points of the Cap-and-Trade Program.Continue Reading California Adopts Cap-and-Trade

The California Air Resources Board (ARB) has issued its proposed greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program, pursuant to the California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32). The proposed regulation builds on the conceptual framework for ARB’s cap-and-trade program, released in November 2009. The 45-day public comment period on the regulation opened yesterday and closes on December 15, 2010. Whether by design or happenstance, ARB released this latest on the cap-and-trade program just before Californians will vote today on whether to suspend AB 32 under ballot box Proposition 23. Proposition 23 would suspend AB 32 until California’s unemployment rate dropped to 5.5% or less, for four consecutive quarters. Given that the state’s current unemployment rate is about 12%, and the unemployment rate has been below 5.5% for four consecutive quarters only three times since 1980, Proposition 23 could halt the implementation of AB 32 indefinitely.Continue Reading California’s Proposed GHG Cap-and-Trade Program Out for Public Comment

Here’s an Energy Law Alert prepared by Seth Hilton, John McKinsey and Stephen Hall:

Last Thursday evening, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) unanimously adopted its Renewable Energy Standard (RES), mandating that California’s electric utilities—both public and investor-owned—procure 33% of their electricity from renewable resources by 2020. The RES was adopted pursuant to the authority granted the ARB in AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which vested the ARB with the authority to promulgate regulations to reduce California’s greenhouse gas emissions. The RES requires utilities to submit plans by July 2012 on how they will comply with the new regulations. The regulation includes several multi-year compliance intervals—from 2012 to 2014 the RES is 20%, from 2015 through 2017 it is 24%, from 2018 to 2019 it is 28%, and from 2020 forward the RES remains at 33%. The RES is met through the retirement of Western Renewable Energy Generation Information System (WREGIS) certificates; unlike the current 20% Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) that applies to investor-owned utilities, there is no requirement that any energy be delivered to California. WREGIS certificates may be retained or traded for up to three years, utilities may also bank those certificates for RES compliance indefinitely. The RES also provides that ARB will conduct comprehensive reviews of the program by December 31, 2013, 2016, and 2018, and that those reviews may trigger modifications to the RES.Continue Reading Air Resources Board Adopts 33% Renewable Energy Standard; Four California Energy Agencies Vow to Cooperate on Implementation