Latham & Watkins LLP

Subscribe to Latham & Watkins LLP's Posts

Relief from the mandatory scheme will reduce the administrative burden on non-energy intensive companies.

By Paul A. Davies and Michael D. Green

The Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC) — which first came into operation on 1 April 2010 — will be abolished at the end of the 2018-19 compliance year, pursuant to the CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme (Revocation and Savings) Order 2018 (SI 2018/841) (the Order). The CRC is a mandatory carbon emissions trading scheme that applies to large UK business and public organisations.

The CRC was aimed at increasing energy efficiency and reducing carbon emissions from large non-intensive energy users. These emissions are thought to constitute around 10% of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the UK. The scheme applied to organisations that, over the course of a year, used more than 6,000 megawatt-hours (MWh) of certain electricity and had at least one half-hourly meter settled on the half-hourly electricity market.

Updates underscore China’s commitment to reducing carbon emissions despite government agency reshuffling.

By Paul A. Davies and R. Andrew Westgate

The Climate Change Department (CCD) of the newly formed Ministry of Ecology and Environment (MEE) has announced its official updates in relation to China’s low carbon-development strategy generally and the National Emissions Trading System (ETS) in particular. This announcement took place at the sixth Low Carbon Day celebration (13 June, 2018) and marked the CCD’s first public event since it was transferred to the MEE from the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), the state agency originally tasked with developing the ETS.

President Xi recently took the opportunity at the National Ecology and Environmental Protection Conference to stress the importance of a national climate change strategy through a governance system, in order to demonstrate China’s commitment to the cause.

Polluters of one of China’s most polluted waterways are increasingly facing prosecution through coordinated local and national efforts.

By Paul A. Davies and R. Andrew Westgate

Chinese authorities have been increasing their efforts to prosecute environmental offenders along the Yangtze River, the third-longest river in the world and the longest in Asia. The crackdown reflects China’s goal to make 70% of its surface water safe to consume by 2020.

Water Pollution: A Serious Problem for China

China’s government has good reason to take the problem of water pollution seriously. In 2012, a senior official from the water ministry acknowledged that 20% of China’s waterways were classified as toxic, while 40% were seriously polluted. The World Bank has further noted that water pollution could have “catastrophic consequences for future generations,” and that the problem is compounded by the fact that China does not have enough water for its population to safely consume. (For more information on China’s water supply, see Latham’s previous blog post).

The plan’s stricter and more targeted requirements will impact a broader range of provinces, including the Fen-Wei Plains.

By Paul A. Davies and R. Andrew Westgate

China has released a new three-year action plan for 2018 to 2020 to combat air pollution. The previous air pollution action plan, published in 2013, has played a significant role in improving air quality in major cities. China’s updated plan, which was released on July 3, draws on additional information and research to provide more targeted requirements.

Success of the 2013 plan

The former plan set a coal cap across China with varying limits in different provinces. For example, the plan required Beijing to reduce its coal consumption by half from 2015 to 2018. The plan’s success was due in part to the state’s ownership of a large number of China’s worst polluters, making them easier to control. Furthermore, because half of China’s pollution comes from coal-burning power stations, the country needs a less varied range of policies to order to target pollution compared with other countries.

Upstream entities will need to shoulder more responsibility in the warning process after August 30th.

By Michael G. Romey and Lucas I. Quass

As discussed in Latham’s previous post, August 30, 2018 will mark a significant change in the enforcement of the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, also known as Proposition 65 (Prop 65). California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), which is responsible for the implementation of Prop 65, published new regulations in 2016 (2016 Regulations) that will adjust how businesses provide what OEHHA deems “clear and reasonable” warnings to consumers about products that may result in an exposure to a chemical listed by the State as potentially causing cancer and/or reproductive harm. Among other obligations, the 2016 Regulations will require businesses to provide consumers with more information about chemicals listed under Prop 65 in consumer products, whether bought online or in person. The 2016 Regulations also explain which entities in the chain of commerce are primarily responsible for compliance with particular Prop 65 requirements.

Specifically, the 2016 Regulations impose more responsibility on upstream entities, such as manufacturers, distributors, packagers, importers, producers, and suppliers (Upstream Entities), shifting the primary burden away from retailers. See CAL. CODE REGS. tit. 27, § 25600.2(a) (2016). This increase in responsibility is based on OEHHA’s understanding that Upstream Entities possess superior knowledge about which chemicals are involved in producing consumer products. The 2016 Regulations also provide retailers with the opportunity to secure legal indemnity via written agreement with Upstream Entities. Id. § 25600.2(i).

This blog post is part of a continuing series on Prop 65 compliance issues aimed at entities within the California chain of commerce, as the 2016 Regulations become effective on August 30, 2018. The 2016 Regulations are applicable to products manufactured on or after August 30, 2018.

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California leadership increases the possibility of much-needed relief for California’s aging water-supply infrastructure.

By Paul N. Singarella, Daniel P. Brunton, and Lucas I. Quass

The California WaterFix is the most expensive, important, and controversial water infrastructure project in California, and perhaps the country, in decades. At a price tag of US$16.3 billion, WaterFix is designed to restore reliability to an aging water-supply infrastructure that serves 25 million Californians and more than three million acres of California farmland. WaterFix can be thought of as an insurance policy for the California economy, and indeed society at large, against possible — and potentially catastrophic — further loss of this critical water supply. An historic July 10 vote by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) was a major step forward, and vote of confidence, for WaterFix, increasing the likelihood that the promise of WaterFix will be realized.

The Evolution of California WaterFix

Together, the State Water Project (SWP) and the Central Valley Project (CVP) form the largest water supply system in the country. This system diverts water from the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta (Delta) and conveys it hundreds of miles to places like Silicon Valley, Southern California, and otherwise parched farmland that cannot survive on local supplies alone. The Delta is the lynchpin of this system, the gateway through which virtually all water conveyed from the Northern California rivers to the rest of the state must pass. The Delta is used this way because the SWP/CVP system was never completed. Original planning decades ago proposed to run fresh river water around the Delta. Instead the water enters the Delta where it mixes with brackish Delta water before it is diverted.

CEQA Case Report: Understanding the Judicial Landscape for Development[i]

By Christopher W. Garrett, Daniel P. Brunton, Diego Enrique Flores, and Samantha K. Seikkula

In an unpublished opinion issued May 18, 2018, Responsible Development for Water Tank Hill v. County of San Mateo, Case No. A150883, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment denying Responsible Development for Water Tank Hill’s (Petitioner’s) petition for writ of mandate, finding that the County of San Mateo (County) had properly analyzed the potential environmental impacts of San Mateo Real Estate, Inc.’s (Developers’) proposed housing development (Project) and that the County’s determinations were supported by the substantial evidence. In summary, the court determined:

  • An EIR’s analysis of noise impact should be site-specific and should consider qualitative factors as well as technical factors
  • When an EIR finds, based on substantial evidence, that an impact would be less-than-significant, further mitigation is not required.
  • An agency may rely on statewide emissions-reduction goals when determining mitigation measures to reduce a project’s significant GHG impacts.

Background for Appeal

After several rounds of public comment, the San Mateo County Planning Commission (Commission) approved the Project. The County Board of Supervisors denied an appeal of the approval and upheld the Commission’s decision. Petitioner then filed a petition for writ of mandate seeking to set aside the Project approvals as inadequate under CEQA. Petitioner argued that the approvals were inadequate because:

  • The environmental impact report (EIR) failed to adequately analyze impacts
  • The County failed to adopt feasible mitigation measures
  • The County’s findings were not supported by substantial evidence
  • The County failed to recirculate the final EIR after making changes that constituted significant new information

The trial court rejected Petitioner’s specific challenges to the County’s environmental analysis of air quality, aesthetics, hydrology, and noise, finding that the County had properly analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the Project and that the County’s determinations were supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner appealed the decision with respect to air quality and noise.

CEQA Case Report: Understanding the Judicial Landscape for Development[i]

By Christopher W. Garrett, Daniel P. Brunton, James A. Erselius, John D. Niemeyer, and Samantha K. Seikkula

In an unpublished opinion issued February 20, 2018, Advocates for Better Cmty. Dev. v. City of Palm Springs, Case No. E066193, the California Court of Appeal dismissed as moot an appeal from the trial court’s judgment and upheld the City of Palm Springs’ (City’s) decision to approve changes to a planned development in downtown Palm Springs. In summary, the court determined:

  • On appeal, a CEQA challenge is moot where, due to events that occur while the appeal is pending, the court is no longer able to grant effective relief

Advocates for Better Community Development (Petitioner), had filed an unsuccessful petition for writ of mandate seeking to invalidate the City’s addendum to an environmental impact report (EIR) for the changes to the planned development. Petitioner argued that that the City’s approval was inconsistent with the Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan (Specific Plan) and that the approval violated CEQA because the changes were substantial and required additional environmental review. The court held that these issues were moot due to an ordinance that the City passed modifying the Specific Plan before Petitioner filed its notice of appeal.

The California Assembly is expected to vote this summer to establish increased renewable energy targets and set a target of 100% clean energy by 2045.

By Marc T. Campopiano, Jennifer K. Roy, Diego Enrique Flores

SB 100, Senator Kevin De Leon’s renewable energy bill, would increase California’s already ambitious renewable energy standards by 2030 with an ultimate goal of 100% clean energy by 2045. On July 3, the California Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy passed the bill out of committee. In 2017, the bill was approved in the Senate but did not progress through the Assembly before the term ended. In 2018, SB 100 is expected to again reach the Assembly floor for consideration.

As currently drafted, SB 100 would increase California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) requirement from 50% to 60% by 2030, and set a goal of 100% clean energy by December 31, 2045 through RPS-eligible and zero-carbon resources. Clean energy could be defined more broadly than the current definition of renewable energy, to include energy resources such as large-scale hydro power that qualify as zero-carbon.