AB 32

Subscribe to AB 32 via RSS

By Joshua T. Bledsoe and Christopher W. Garrett

The strongly worded opinion in Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Case Number B245131)(CBD v. CDFW) by the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District has confirmed that analyzing a project’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) via a threshold-of-significance derived from California’s GHG emissions reduction goals is appropriate.[1]  This approach commonly has been referred to as “break-from-Business As Usual,” though that or similar terminology has been used for other approaches as well.  Public agencies and developers should take guidance from the Court’s comprehensive endorsement of this threshold-of-significance as a legally appropriate approach under CEQA.[2]

By Andrew H. Meyer

The United States has no comprehensive climate legislation for regulating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.  But in recent years, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has acted under its existing Clean Air Act (CAA) authority to regulate GHG emissions from mobile sources, and is in the process of formulating and finalizing a number of regulations for major stationary sources.  At the same time, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is in the process of implementing AB 32, the first comprehensive state climate legislation in the United States.  As climate regulation moves from theory to practice, it is critical for potentially regulated entities and their counsel to understand the complexities of this emerging dual-tracked regime.

By Joshua T. Bledsoe and Christopher W. Garrett

In Friends of Oroville v. City of Oroville, 218 Cal. App. 4th 1352 (2013) (Friends of Oroville), the Court of Appeal of California, Third Appellate District, recently confirmed that analyzing a project’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) via a threshold-of-significance derived from California’s GHG emissions reduction goals is appropriate.[1]  However, the Court held that this threshold-of-significance was applied improperly and remanded the case to the trial court to grant the requested writ of mandate.  This case contains lessons for the analysis of GHG emissions under CEQA that project proponents should be sure to keep in mind.

Please join us today (Wednesday, November 14) at 11:30am pacific/1:30 pm eastern for a discussion of the lawsuit filed on Tuesday, November 13, by the California Chamber of Commerce seeking to invalidate ARB’s auction of allowances under AB32. There will be an opportunity for participants to submit questions via the webcast. 

Speakers
Jean-Philippe Brisson, New York
Claudia O’Brien, Washington, D.C
Michael Romey, Los Angeles

Click here to register for the webcast.

By Joshua T. Bledsoe

As discussed in our May 24, 2011 entry, California’s proposed greenhouse gas (GHG) cap and trade program suffered a setback on May 20, 2011 when a San Francisco Superior Court issued a writ of mandate enjoining the California Air Resources Board (ARB) from any further cap and trade rulemaking until ARB complies with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by analyzing alternatives to cap and trade (e.g., a carbon tax/fee).  Then, as now, many significant…

By Robert A. Wyman, Jr., Daniel V. Van Fleet, and Aron Potash

California’s proposed greenhouse gas (GHG) cap and trade program suffered an expected setback on May 20 when a San Francisco Superior Court issued a writ of mandate enjoining the California Air Resources Board (CARB) from any further cap and trade rulemaking until CARB complies with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by analyzing cap and trade alternatives such as a carbon fee.  ARB has surely been…