California

Subscribe to California via RSS

The state must dramatically expand its energy infrastructure and renewable energy sources to satisfy growing demand for electricity while meeting ambitious climate goals, according to California Independent System Operator’s Draft 2022-2023 Transmission Plan.

By Marc Campopiano, Joshua Bledsoe, Julie Miles, and Shawna Strecker

California has committed to ambitious carbon reduction targets and pledged to become carbon neutral no later than 2045.[1] However, to meet these lofty goals while providing reliable energy for millions, the state must commit to an unprecedented degree of renewable power and transmission line development.

The challenge is highlighted by the Draft 2022-2023 Transmission Plan (Draft Transmission Plan) published on April 3, 2023, by the California Independent System Operator (CAISO), the independent energy grid operator that serves approximately 80% of California and a small part of Nevada. As of 2018, California had about 80 gigawatts (GW) of total electric generating capacity.[2] CAISO predicts that California will need to almost double that total capacity in the next decade with new renewable generation and greatly expand the transmission grid in order to achieve clean power targets and vast electrification programs as California attempts to phase out fossil fuel usage. This scale of infrastructure buildout will require unprecedented investments, vastly expedited environmental permitting and review by regulatory agencies, and sustained political will to substantially incentivize and streamline priority projects.

This blog post examines the ambitious roadmap outlined in the Draft Transmission Plan, and CAISO’s long-term transmission planning more broadly, to advance California’s climate goals by undertaking 46 transmission projects and adding at least 40 GW, mostly from renewable sources, to the CAISO grid over the next 10 years.

A federal court heard motions for summary judgment in challenge to first-in-nation rule requiring warehouses to adopt clean technologies.

By Joshua Bledsoe, Nick Cox, and Jennifer Garlock

On April 17, 2023, a US federal judge heard arguments in a lawsuit challenging the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD or the District) adoption of Rule 2305 and will now decide whether to grant summary judgment to the plaintiffs and vacate the rule.

Rule 2305 is the Warehouse Indirect Source Rule (ISR) — Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) Program. As described in this June 2021 blog post, the WAIRE Program applies to certain warehouses in the South Coast Air Basin and imposes a compliance obligation based on the number of truck visits to that warehouse per year. Warehouse operators can meet that obligation by taking any number of emissions-reducing actions, either from the “WAIRE Menu” or through a custom plan approved by the District.

The plan accelerates already ambitious climate goals for California and charts a course to carbon neutrality by 2045.

By Joshua Bledsoe, Jen Garlock, and Brian McCall

On December 15, 2022, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted its Final 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (Final Scoping Plan). Assembly Bill (AB) 32 requires CARB to develop and update every five years a scoping plan that describes the approach California will take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) to combat climate change. AB 32 originally set a target of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. After California met this goal, Senate Bill (SB) 32 strengthened the state’s GHG reduction target to at least 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. California committed to even greater targets this year with adoption of AB 1279, which directs the state to become carbon neutral no later than 2045.

California’s first upcoming offshore wind lease sale, scheduled for December 6, 2022, is the next major step forward for clean energy in the Golden State.

By Nikki Buffa, Jennifer K. Roy, Janice M. Schneider, Daniel P. Brunton, Nathaniel Glynn, and Brian McCall

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and the State of California have taken significant steps to advance offshore wind development in the lead-up to BOEM’s upcoming auction for the first renewable energy lease sale in federal waters offshore California. The BOEM lease sale will involve a number of new facets not seen in other recent lease sales in New York and North Carolina, including revised bidding credits and lease stipulations. In anticipation of the lease sale, California is developing a permitting roadmap to streamline the state approvals process for any resulting offshore wind projects.

On the federal side, the Biden Administration is deploying significant resources and funding to boost development of floating offshore wind technologies that will be essential off the Pacific Coast. While BOEM’s upcoming lease sale and California’s actions to support offshore wind development represent an important moment for the offshore wind industry, many challenges remain to capture the full resource potential off California’s coast.

The 2020 wildfire season alone released more carbon dioxide than what California reduced through years of emission cuts.

By Marc Campopiano and Joshua Bledsoe

California is a recognized leader in climate policy, but a wildfire crisis is threatening to unwind progress towards the state’s ambitious climate goals. In 2006, with the passage of AB 32, California set a then-unprecedented target of reducing the state’s greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) to 1990 levels by the year 2020. Having achieved this goal, California dramatically upped the ante with the passage of SB 32, requiring a 40% reduction of GHGs, and again earlier this year with AB 1279, which requires the state to become carbon neutral by 2045 or earlier. Despite notable progress to date, a recent university study found that GHGs emitted from California’s 2020 wildfire season alone equated to more than double of all the GHG reductions the state achieved since 2003.[1]

California continues to push toward its statewide carbon-neutrality goals.

By Arthur F. Foerster and Joshua Bledsoe

On August 25, 2022, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) unanimously approved regulations that require all new 2035 and later passenger vehicles to be zero-emission vehicles. The agency’s “Advanced Clean Cars II” regulations require manufacturers to deliver an increasing percentage of zero-emission vehicles each year, starting with 35% of new vehicle sales for cars, pickup trucks, and SUVs in 2026, and ramping up each year to reach 100% new vehicle sales by 2035.[1]

Governor Newsom introduces five ambitious proposals that could alter California’s climate policy for years to come.

By JP Brisson, Nikki Buffa, Marc Campopiano, Jennifer Roy, Michael Dreibelbis, Aron Potash, and Alicia Robinson

On August 12, 2022, California Governor Gavin Newsom submitted five climate proposals (the Climate Proposals) to the California legislature in the waning days of California’s legislative cycle. In his statement following the transmittal, Newsom explained that “[w]e’re taking all of these major actions now in the most aggressive push on climate this state has ever seen because later is too late.”[1]

A controversial new law gives the California Energy Commission authority over clean energy projects and authorizes the Department of Water Resources to fund new energy sources and extend the life of existing power plants.

By Marc Campopiano, Nikki Buffa, Michael Navarrete-Carroll, Josh Bledsoe, and Kevin Homrighausen

Last week, Governor Gavin Newsom and lawmakers negotiated and approved several “trailer bills” to the state’s $300 billion budget. One of these bills, Assembly Bill (AB) 205, which Governor Newsom signed into law on June 30, 2022, expands the California Energy Commission’s (CEC) authority under the Warren-Alquist Act to now cover solar, wind, and other select clean energy projects. The governor and lawmakers hope the expanded authority will streamline the environmental review and authorization process.

The proposal had contemplated clarifications to when short-form warnings should be used and had aimed to introduce new requirements for information about harmful chemicals.

By Michael Romey, Christopher Martinez, and Lucas Quass

Several amendments that the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) had proposed to rules on short-form product warnings failed to move forward because OEHHA was unable to advance the rulemaking process within the legally allotted period.

Public agencies prevailed in 71% of CEQA cases analyzed.

By James L. Arnone, Daniel P. Brunton, Nikki Buffa, Marc T. Campopiano, Peter J. Gutierrez, John C. Heintz, Lauren E. Paull, Aron Potash, Lucas I. Quass, Natalie C. Rogers, Jennifer K. Roy, and Winston P. Stromberg

Latham & Watkins is pleased to present its fifth annual CEQA Case Report. Throughout 2021 Latham lawyers reviewed each of the 51 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) appellate cases, whether published or unpublished. Below is a compilation of the information distilled from that annual review and a discussion of the patterns that emerged.

In 2021, the California Courts of Appeal issued 51 opinions that substantially considered CEQA while the US District Court for the Northern District of California issued one opinion. Notably, 2021 saw an increased focus on CEQA wildfire analysis. In cases like Sierra Watch v. County of Placer, the Court of Appeal ruled that the County of Placer failed to adequately analyze wildfire risks by wrongly assuming first responders would provide traffic control in the event of an emergency. And in Newtown Preservation Society v. County of El Dorado, the Court upheld a mitigated negative declaration in the face of public concerns that a bridge reconstruction project would result in significant impacts on resident safety and emergency evacuation in case of a wildfire.

Also notable in 2021 was the rare occurrence of a Court of Appeal partially affirming the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion following a CEQA lawsuit. In Dunning v. Johnson, the Court found that a project developer had established a probability of demonstrating lack of probable cause for the underlying CEQA petition, as well as a probability of demonstrating that the petitioners pursued the CEQA litigation with malice.