Tag: CARB

California to delay carbon trading program to 2013, but targets remain the same

On June 29, 2011, chairwoman of California’s Air Resources Board (CARB), Mary Nichols, announced that the state will delay enforcement of California’s cap-and-trade program until 2013. The announcement was made at a hearing on the status of California’s cap-and-trade system, which had been called to explore the implications of a law suit brought by environmental justice groups advocating policies other than cap-and-trade to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In that law suit, a judge ruled in March that CARB had not sufficiently analyzed alternatives to cap-and-trade as required under the state’s Environmental Quality Act. CARB has appealed the decision and an appeals court ruled recently that officials could continue working on cap-and-trade regulations pending the court’s decision.  Ms. Nichols indicated that the law suit was not a deciding factor in her decision to delay the first carbon trading program in the U.S.

The delay in the cap-and-trade program, which was originally scheduled to come into force on January 1, 2012, was proposed because of the need for “all necessary elements to be in place and fully functional”. In particular, Ms. Nichols cited the need to protect the cap-and-trade system from potential market manipulation. The decision came after Ms. Nichols conferred with the state attorney general’s office as well as experts on California’s ill-fated foray into deregulated electricity sales which led to widespread fraud and rolling blackouts in 2000 and 2001. However, Ms. Nichols said that the postponement would not affect the stringency of the program or the amount of greenhouse gas reductions required to be made by industries.  Under the cap-and-trade program, 600 industrial facilities (including cement manufacturers, power plants and oil refineries) would be required to cap their emissions in 2012, with that limit gradually decreasing over eight years. The one-year delay will enable CARB to test the system and carry out simulation models.

Ms. Nichols said that quarterly auctions of emissions allowances that each regulated emitter must turn in would begin in the second half of 2012, rather than February 2012 as originally planned. Entities emitting more than 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year will begin trading credits at the end of 2012 to cover their emission reduction obligations for 2012 and later. Hence, the first three-year compliance period, which originally covered the years 2012 to 2014, will be shortened to two years. CARB has indicated that it will release draft regulations covering allowance distribution and details on offset protocols within the next two weeks. In addition, CARB has said that it is still on track to finish its cap-and-trade regulations by the end of October 2011.

It is likely that BC and Québec, California’s anticipated carbon trading partners, will follow California’s lead and delay their carbon markets until 2013 as well.

 

Implementation of California’s Cap & Trade Program Faces Potential Delay after Court Ruling

In a decision issued on March 18, 2011, a California Superior Court judge threw up a roadblock to the implementation of California’s cap-and-trade program by suspending the implementation of A.B. 32, the state’s landmark climate change law on the grounds that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) failed to properly consider alternatives to a cap-and-trade system.

In a decision issued on March 18, 2011, a California Superior Court judge threw up a roadblock to the implementation of California’s cap-and-trade program by suspending the implementation of A.B. 32, the state’s landmark climate change law on the grounds that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) failed to properly consider alternatives to a cap-and-trade system. While the Court upheld the validity of CARB’s Scoping Plan for implementing A.B. 32, thus saving CARB from having to revise the Scoping Plan, it found flaws with CARB’s environmental review of the Scoping Plan under the California Environmental Quality Act. As a result, not only has the proposed cap-and-trade program been put on hold, but at risk are other elements of the Scoping Plan, including the state’s low-carbon fuel standard and a 33% renewable portfolio standard for electricity by 2020. In his ruling, Judge Ernest Goldsmith of San Francisco Superior Court said that the CARB “seeks to create a fait accompli by premature establishment of a cap-and-trade program before alternatives can be exposed to public comment and properly evaluated.”

The ruling by Judge Goldsmith does not prohibit the CARB from adopting cap-and-trade or require the delay of the scheduled start of date of January 1, 2012, but Judge Goldsmith said that CARB must first analyze other options (such as a carbon tax) and explain why it did not choose such options. Given the tight timeline this year for finalizing the details of California’s climate change plan, the ruling represents a potentially significant hurdle in the timely implementation of the state’s greenhouse gas emission reduction initiatives.  The CARB’s spokesperson, Stanley Young, expressed dismay at the scope of the ruling, which requires the board to conduct an environmental review and invite public comment before taking further steps to implement the law. Mr. Young has indicated that the CARB will appeal the decision, which could result in pushing back the cap-and-trade program’s January 1, 2012 start date.  An alternative is for the CARB to seek a stay on the ruling that will allow it to implement the climate policies as planned until a final verdict is issued.  Also, the CARB could complete the necessary analyses as quickly as possible, but the results of this approach would be uncertain. For example, if the CARB is unable to satisfy the court’s concerns by October 2011 – which is the key deadline for adopting cap-and-trade regulations – this would most likely put the January 1, 2012 start date at risk.  If California’s cap-and-trade program is delayed, it is likely that other WCI jurisdictions such as B.C., Ontario and Québec, will also delay the implementation of their cap-and-trade programs until such time as California begins trading.

A.B. 32 was passed in 2006 and requires the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The legal challenge to California’s cap-and-trade program was brought by environmental justice groups (the Association of Irritated Residents and other groups) that consider the plan too weak. In particular, they argued that the cap-and-trade program would result in increased pollutants in poor and non-white communities.  More mainstream environmental groups, however, have supported cap-and-trade and stayed out of the legal action.

The next likely step is that a Writ of Mandate will be filed within 10 days of the March 18 decision. The Writ is the plaintiffs’ interpretation of the decision and will include their preferred remedies. The judge will then decide on the final remedy. Any appeal to that decision would have to be filed within 60 days from the date the decision was entered.

At this stage, it is unclear what the court-ordered remedy will consist of and whether it will affect all work on measures to reduce greenhouse gas pollution – observers indicate that it most likely it will not. Following the decision, the Environmental Defense Fund issued a conciliatory statement that perhaps best captures the intent of the parties: “It is clear from examining arguments of both parties before the Court that CARB and the environmental justice groups bringing the action against the State are committed to improving California’s environment and fighting climate change and do not intend to bring AB 32 work to a halt.” Stay tuned as this story evolves.