In The News

Judge halts implementation of CARB climate change rule

A California judge has halted implementation of one key plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through California Air Resources Board regulations.

In a ruling announced Monday, March 21, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Ernest Goldsmith ruled that CARB must stop implementation of regulations under the state’s 2006 climate change legislation. The court ruled that CARB must follow its own regulatory process, as well as state environmental quality laws when implementing its cap-and-trade program.

Cap and trade creates a marketplace of emissions credits or allowances, which can be bought by businesses that need credits, or sold by businesses based on the government’s requirement that the businesses’ emissions be offset.

CARB’s cap-and-trade regulation sets a statewide limit on emissions from sources “responsible for 80 percent of California’s greenhouse gas emissions and establishes a price signal needed to drive long-term investment in cleaner fuels and more efficient use of energy,” CARB said in December.

The program covers 360 businesses that operate 600 facilities. It is being implemented in two phases. The first phase in 2012 will include all major industrial sources including utilities. A second phase, scheduled to begin in 2015, will include distributors of diesel and other transportation fuels, natural gas and other fuels.

Goldsmith wrote that CARB began implementing its scoping plan during a January 2009 public workshop, before the agency could complete its environmental review process and examine or respond to public comments.

The court also concluded that in its establishment of a cap and trade program, CARB “failed to adequately describe and analyze alternatives sufficient for informed decision-making and public review.”

“Because it did not proceed in a manner required by law, ARB abused its discretion,” the decision reads.

CARB may appeal the decision.

CARB’s version of cap and trade is viewed by many as a potential template for other states, which may choose to adopt California’s regulation in lieu of a federal cap-and-trade program, which has not emerged despite multiple efforts in recent years.

The U.S. House of Representatives approved climate change legislation in summer 2009, although multiple proposals debated in the U.S. Senate never made it to a vote.

Several newspaper reports, including one in the San Jose Mercury News , said plaintiffs in the civil complaint were concerned that CARB’s cap-and-trade system could boost pollution in low-income communities surrounding power plants and oil refineries.

The civil case was filed by the unincorporated Association of Irritated Residents, California Communities Against Toxics, Society for Positive Action, and non-profit groups Communities for a Better Environment, Coalition For a Safe Environment, West County Toxics Coalition, and seven individuals.

Defendants named in the case include CARB, Chairman Mary Nichols, and board members Daniel Sperling, Ken Yeager, Dorene D’Adamo, Barbara Riordan, John Balmes, Lydia Kennard, Sandra Berg, Ron Roberts, John Telles and Ronald Loveridge.

www.LandLineMag.com