AB 32

California’s Cap-and-Trade Program After 2020

ARB publishes draft climate regulations that would extend the program

Against a backdrop of complex Sacramento politics on the future of California’s climate regulation, the state’s Air Resources Board last week issued an initial draft of regulations that would, among other things, extend the cap-and-trade program beyond 2020.  Does ARB currently have the authority to do that? Yes, probably.  But it’s complicated enough to leave room for disagreement. Here’s one version …

CONTINUE READING

The Economic Impact of AB 32 on California

New study suggests that the economic impact of cutting carbon is modest.

What is the economic impact of California’s climate change regulations? Will they reduce actual emissions or just shift them out-of-state? A new study by Resources for the Future addresses an important part of the puzzle. Reasearchers at RFF modeled the effect of compliance costs of $10/ton or $22/ton of CO2 on highly energy-intensive industries such as …

CONTINUE READING

Conference On California’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans for “2030 and Beyond”

California State Bar Environmental Law Section will hold daylong event on April 16th in Downtown Oakland

The California State Bar Environmental Law Section is holding a conference on April 16th entitled “2030 and Beyond: The Next Phase of Greenhouse Gas Reduction in California.” The event is co-sponsored by Berkeley Law’s Center for Law, Energy and the Environment (CLEE). As Legal Planet readers know, AB 32’s 2020 due date is soon approaching …

CONTINUE READING

Referendum Politics: California’s Pioneering Plastic Bag Ban on Hold

Out-of-State Bag Manufacturers Succeed in Qualifying Referendum Measure for 2016 Ballot

California’s recently-legislated ban on disposable plastic bans–the first in the nation–will not take effect on July 1, 2015 as the new law mandates.  That’s because industry opponents of the legislation have  qualified for the November 2016 election a referendum measure that seeks to repeal the new law. Last fall I wrote on this site about …

CONTINUE READING

Let’s Strengthen California’s Climate Goals

Tackling the post-2020 era

A few days ago, I wrote a post taking issue with the idea that AB 32’s emissions limit expires in 2020.  Here’s a follow-up.  Even with AB 32’s influence beyond 2020, California is right to want to do more.  Through the leadership of Senators De Leon, Pavley, and others in the legislature, there’s a package …

CONTINUE READING

AB 32 and post-2020 climate goals

Big Sur California Untitled

What does California’s Global Warming Solutions Act say about emissions after 2020?

I have heard some references, recently, to AB 32 “expiring” in 2020.  It’s easy to understand where this idea comes from: California’s premiere climate change law was passed in 2006 and sets a goal for the state to return to 1990 levels of greenhouse gas emissions by a deadline of 2020.  Moreover, one of the …

CONTINUE READING

Bay Area Tries to Screw the Poor

It’s bad enough when folks from the Bay Area pretend that they are smarter and more sophisticated than everyone else. It’s bad enough that they trash southern California (inaccurately) for “stealing” its water from the Owens Valley while enjoying water from the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir. But trying to undermine environmental justice while pretending to be …

CONTINUE READING

Update: U.S. Supreme Court Denies Review in California Low Carbon Fuel Standard Case

Justices Decline to Address Constitutionality of LCFS

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied certiorari in closely-watched cases in which the constitutionality of California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) was being challenged.  The LCFS is, in turn, an integral part of the state’s multifaceted strategy to reduce California’s aggregate greenhouse gas emissions as required under AB 32, the state’s landmark 2006 climate change …

CONTINUE READING

California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard: Before the Supreme Court

Will the Justices Choose to Decide the LCFS’s Constitutionality?

You might think that the U.S. Supreme Court, having decided the Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA Clean Air Act case on Monday, was done for the current Term when it comes to environmental law and policy. Think again. Today the justices met in conference to decide whether to grant review in a large number of pending …

CONTINUE READING

California, climate change, and 111d

Four things the Golden State will note about EPA’s power plant proposal

Here are four aspects of the 111d proposal of particular note to Legal Planet’s home state. (1) California played a key role in helping to inspire — and to justify as lawful — EPA’s building-blocks approach to setting state goals.  EPA frequently refers to California’s suite of successful greenhouse gas mitigation programs as a partial model for …

CONTINUE READING

TRENDING