By Arthur Foerster and Jamie Friedland

On January 12, 2018, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) will conduct a public workshop regarding CARB staff’s potential amendments to California’s heavy-duty vehicle (HDV) emission warranty requirements. According to CARB staff, the workshop will focus on potential changes to Title 13, California Code of Regulations, Section 2036, and specifically, amendments to required emission warranty periods and manufacturer-scheduled maintenance. CARB staff will present the workshop as a webcast (available here).

Background

Under United States law, the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) generally preempts individual states from adopting their own emission standards. The Act, however, grants California the ability to seek authorization to set the state’s own more stringent standards. See 42 U.S.C. § 7543(b). Manufacturers generally prefer a single national standard and, as a practical matter, often follow CARB standards when they are stricter.

By Claudia O’Brien, Bob Wyman, Joel Beauvais, Stacey VanBelleghem, Bridget Reineking, and Kimberly Leefatt

On March 28, 2017, President Donald Trump signed an executive order (EO) directing executive departments and agencies to review regulations that potentially burden the development or use of domestically-produced energy resources. This EO sets the stage for what could become a series of sweeping reversals of the Obama Administration’s greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction and climate change polices. In particular, the order lays the groundwork for reform of the Clean Power Plan (CPP) and the new source pollution standards for new, modified and reconstructed power plants (NSPS).

The issuance of this EO kicks off a long and complex process for EPA to review both the CPP and NSPS, draft and publish proposals to revise or rescind the rules, accept notice and comment on the proposals, address comments on the proposals, and then issue final rules. Regardless of whether EPA proposes to suspend, revise, or rescind the rules, legal challenges are sure to follow. The outcome of these rulemakings and subsequent litigation will be consequential for the future of federal regulation of GHGs under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

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 Claudia O’Brien and Karl Karg

In the wake of EPA’s proposed rule to force 36 states to revise their state implementation plans (SIPs) to control emissions during periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM Rule), a number of states filed comments objecting to EPA’s approach as heavy-handed and contrary to the cooperative federalism scheme of the Clean Air Act (the Act).  Claudia O’Brien and Karl Karg have written a blog entry describing the rule, the controversial rulemaking process, and

By Buck B. Endemann and Taiga Takahashi

In a previous report, we discussed United States v. Brigham Oil & Gas, L.P.,[1] where the court dismissed several misdemeanor charges under the MBTA against three oil and gas companies that conducted drilling operations in North Dakota, because the underlying activities were lawful, commercial activities. In United States v. CITGO Petroleum Corp., however, a district court in Texas recently distinguished Brigham Oil and denied a motion to dismiss a conviction

by David Pettit

On August 1, 2012, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Resolving Environmental and Grid Reliability Conflicts Act of 2012 (H.R. 4273) with broad bipartisan support to address the unenviable position of power plants that could become subject to liability under the Clean Air Act for complying with an order to operate and ensure reliability under the Federal Power Act. 

This tension between the Department of Energy’s (DOE) authority under the Federal Power Act to order power