cap and trade

Subscribe to cap and trade via RSS

On July 17, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California rendered its decision in U.S. v. California (Case 2:19-cv-02142-WBS-EFB), upholding the agreement between California and the Canadian Province of Québec that links California and Québec’s respective cap-and-trade programs.  In its opinion, the District Court rejected the federal government’s claim that the California-Québec agreement is preempted under the Foreign Affairs Doctrine.  The District Court ruled earlier this year on the federal government’s other claims, finding that the agreement did not violate either the Treaty or Compact Clauses of the U.S. Constitution.  With the decision on July 17, the California-Québec agreement will remain in place, allowing the two jurisdictions to continue to link their cap-and-trade programs.  The federal government has not yet stated whether it will appeal the District Court’s decision.
Continue Reading U.S. District Court Upholds California’s Cap-and-Trade Agreement with Québec

On July 25, 2017, California Governor Jerry Brown signed legislation extending the state’s cap-and-trade program through 2030. The signing ceremony for Assembly Bill (AB) 398 included former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who signed the first state statute authorizing cap-and-trade in 2006, AB 32.  The ceremony cemented the deal that Governor Brown struck with California lawmakers, passing AB 398 with bi-partisan support and a two-thirds majority of the Legislature.  In contrast to the passage of Senate Bill 32 in 2016, which extended California’s greenhouse gas reduction (GHG) targets through 2030 with the enactment of one simple sentence into statute, AB 398 stretched for pages.  AB 398 provided many details to be incorporated into the cap-and-trade regulation by the California Air Resources Board (ARB), the agency in charge of implementing cap-and-trade, and laid out requirements to mitigate the impacts of GHG regulation on regulated industry and increase in-state benefits.

Among the more note-worthy provisions of AB 398 were (1) a price ceiling on cap-and-trade allowances, (2) limitations on the use of offsets, particularly from out-of-state projects, and (3) a continuation of previous allowance allocations to vulnerable industries. ARB will also report to the Legislature by the end of 2025 on statutory changes needed to reduce leakage, including a potential border carbon adjustment.  Outside of the cap-and-trade regulation itself, the bill provides support to regulated entities with relief from sales and use taxes and prohibits local air districts from enacting additional GHG emissions reduction requirements.

In crafting the AB 398 deal, proponents of the bill wisely secured the votes necessary to pass the bill with a two-thirds majority and avoid the question whether cap-and-trade auctions post-2020 would be an unlawful tax under Proposition 26. The most recent cap-and-trade litigation in California Chamber of Commerce v. ARB and Morning Star Packing Co. v. ARB avoided this question, given that the original statute authorizing cap-and-trade, AB 32, was passed before Proposition 26 was voted in.  Proponents also secured support from sources as disparate as the California Chamber of Commerce, California Manufacturers and Technology Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Environmental Defense Fund.  Nevertheless, I would not rule out further judicial tangles on the implementation of AB 398 with amendments to the cap-and-trade regulation.
Continue Reading California Extends Cap-and-Trade Through 2030

Yesterday the California Supreme Court denied a petition for review of the cap-and-trade lawsuits brought by a coalition of business interests, headed by the California Chamber of Commerce and Morning Star Packing Company. The Court of Appeal decision issued in April 2017, which upheld the legality of California’s cap-and-trade auctions in the related cases California…

On Thursday, a 2-1 decision by the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento upheld California’s program to reduce carbon emissions. California’s controversial and signature cap-and-trade program creates a firm limit on carbon emissions and auctions allowances that permit companies to release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Covered entities are generally large emitters of greenhouse gases, who under the program must surrender emissions allowances or offset credits to cover their emissions, or face monetary penalties or other negative consequences. Auctions are a key component of how California expects to meet its targets to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.
Continue Reading California Court of Appeals Upholds California’s Cap-and-Trade Program

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…

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

The Administration’s Clean Power Plan (the "Plan"), released on June 2 and published on June 18, confirms that climate change mitigation goals are now a key driver of both environmental and energy policy. By imposing total power sector CO2 emission reductions of 30 percent (from 2005 levels) by 2030, the Plan is likely to trigger both a wholesale shift of power production fuel usage from coal to natural gas and renewable energy, and a critical debate about energy resource priorities.

The Plan reflects the latest development in a multi-year conflict over climate change legislation and energy policy. Early in the Administration’s first term, a "cap and trade" approach was proposed by Congressional Democrats and opposed by most Congressional Republicans. The opponents prevailed, effectively blocking the legislation.Continue Reading Climate Change Mitigation: The New Energy Policy

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…