Energy Exchange

A Superior Court in San Francisco issued a final judgment today in a lawsuit filed in 2009 by environmental justice (EJ) groups concerning California’s groundbreaking 2006 law, the Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32), which sets limits on global warming pollution in the state.

As expected, the ruling establishes a new timeline and preconditions for continued implementation and final approval of the AB 32 cap-and-trade regulation. The ruling confirms the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) ability to use cap-and-trade and should not force a delay in the planned launch of the program on January 1, 2012, as long as the agency meets its California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements laid out by the court.

The judge found that CARB did not adequately complete its legally mandated review of alternatives to cap and trade and must do so, then gain approval by its board and the judge prior to proceeding with implementation. Even before today’s ruling was issued, CARB had assured the public that it was significantly bolstering its analysis. EDF is eager to be part of the public process to review and comment on the updated analysis and believes the new documents will further illustrate the proven, far-reaching benefits of using market forces to limit pollution.

It’s worth noting that the California Department of Public Health evaluated the potential impacts of a cap-and-trade program and found that the regulation was not likely to cause any adverse impacts to public health and welfare – especially if money raised from the program gets reinvested in California communities to help protect against the impacts of climate change, an essential element of the state’s plan.

In a press release issued shortly after the ruling was announced, CARB said that it will appeal the ruling, a legal procedure that will likely allow it to continue working on the regulatory design and finishing touches before the new analysis is final.

Earlier today, a federal court rejected a legal attack on new clean car standards that will help protect our air quality and our pocketbooks.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Washington, D.C. ruled in favor of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) green light for clean car standards adopted by California and 13 other states and the District of Columbia.

Environmental Defense Fund intervened in defense of EPA’s action, supporting California’s pioneering leadership.

“This is a major victory not only for California but for the millions of Americans who are working together to unleash smart policies that will save families money at the gas pump, reduce dangerous pollution and break our dependence on imported oil,” said EDF president Fred Krupp.

California adopted the new standards in 2004. They were later adopted by Arizona, Connecticut, Washington D.C., Florida, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

The federal government, the involved states, the U.S. auto industry and the United Auto Workers Union reached an agreement on the standards last year. The EPA finalized a national clean car program on April 1, 2010 that built on the foundation forged by the state clean car standards, creating integrated national standards to provide benefits across the country.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Automobile Dealers Association sued to to block EPA’s green light for the California clean car standards but the court ruled that neither have legal standing to challenge EPA’s action.

According to the Court’s decision, “[b]ecause the Chamber has not identified a single member who was or would be injured by EPA’s waiver decision, it lacks standing to raise this challenge.”

The Court also relied on the overarching national standards, writing, “[e]ven if EPA’s decision to grant California a waiver for its emission standards once posed an imminent threat of injury to the petitioners — which is far from clear — the agency’s subsequent adoption of federal standards has eliminated any independent threat that may have existed.”

“It is time for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to stop obstructing made in America clean air solutions that are a trifecta for saving money, energy security, and a safer environment,” Krupp added.

“This is a major victory for Americans who are tired of pouring out their hard-earned money at the gas pump,” said Vickie Patton, EDF’s General Counsel. “Cleaner cars will save their owners money – as much as $3000 over the life of their vehicles. Cleaner cars also reduce dangerous air pollution, and help break our nation’s dependence on imported oil.”

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has just released a report on the Clean Air Act that would make any investor proud. It shows that for every dollar spent on regulations to cut air pollution over the last 30 years, we’ve earned more than $30 in savings to go along with tremendous public health benefits.

Members of Congress have spent much of the last two months trying to roll back clean air protections. They’ve argued that the Clean Air Act is bad for the economy. This report shows otherwise. As EDF’s president Fred Krupp notes, “If anyone still doubts that America can afford to do the right thing, this report should settle the matter. Cleaner air will unquestionably improve our health, our economy, and our lives.”

California still ranks among the states with the worst air pollution. Just this week, Forbes released a list of the ten most toxic cities in America. Four of them are California cities: Bakersfield (2nd place), Fresno (3rd place), Los Angeles (6th place) and Riverside-San Bernardino (10th). Poor air quality was a major reason they qualified.

Ironically, all of those cities have improved their air quality in the last decade. The trouble is that they’ve also grown dramatically, which has only added to the number of vehicles and other sources of pollution. Can you imagine how much pollution—and lung disease—we’d have in those cities and around the country if tailpipe and power plant pollution controls had not been in place these last 30 years?

California needs the Clean Air Act for many reasons, but the economic benefits particularly stand out. An earlier peer-reviewed study found that dirty air in the Los Angeles Air Basin costs local residents nearly $22 billion a year in health costs, premature death, lost days at work and lost days at school. In the San Joaquin Valley, the annual costs amount to about $6 billion.

Think about it: that’s $28 billion in costs each and every year—nearly as much as it would take to resolve the state’s budget deficit this year.

Now add EPA’s new study showing that we get $30 worth of value on every dollar invested in clean air and another thing becomes clear: those who are working to weaken the Clean Air Act and reduce EPA’s authority are effectively selling an investment that’s returned billions of dollars to our economy.

A poll released last month by the American Lung Association found that three out of four Americans support the EPA setting tougher standards on specific air pollutants, including mercury, smog and carbon dioxide. It also found that 68 percent of voters oppose Congressional action that impedes the EPA from updating clean air standards generally and 64 percent oppose Congressional efforts to stop the EPA from updating standards on carbon dioxide. If you want to protect these economic benefits and help prevent putting tens of thousands of lives at risk, you can voice your support for the Clean Air Act and the EPA by clicking here.

The parties involved in the lawsuit “Association of Irritated Residents v. California Air Resources Board (CARB)” filed objections yesterday to the judge’s tentative ruling that could lead to a temporary suspension of the state’s landmark climate change plan.

Given the breadth of the materials filed in this suit and the scope of the  ruling, the arguments in the objections were both expected and appropriate. In fact, they shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. 

As our post explained last week, the AB 32 Scoping Plan is a unique document that defines how California will cut global warming pollution to 1990 levels by 2020 while protecting our economy and attracting billions of investment dollars in companies with innovative clean energy technologies.

Petitioners, representing environmental justice interests, sued the state more than a year ago to block the plan’s implementation. On January 24^th, the San Francisco Superior Court judge hearing the case issued a tentative ruling telling CARB that the package of measures in the plan was legal but that the analysis of the alternatives to those measures, and the process used to pass the plan, was defective. 

So what happens now? Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1590, the court may order a hearing from which a final ruling would follow a maximum of 10 days later.  Without a hearing, we expect to see a ruling within 50 days from the date the tentative decision was filed or before March 15^th.

One of the most important aspects of the state’s objections, as EDF sees it, is the request for more clarity on what the court found was wrong with the process, and what part of the plan it intends to stop or ‘enjoin’ in its decision. 

More certainty on these issues is vital. For California to cut pollution as required, improve its air quality and protect and grow its economy, CARB and other state agencies need to use all of the tools at their disposal. They also need certainty that important initiatives—such as the Million Solar Roofs program, the 33% renewable portfolio standard, and energy efficiency standards—can proceed. 

While we aren’t going to prejudge whether the state met its burden to study alternative approaches to cap-and-trade, we are confident that whatever final decision the court makes, the state can and will take the steps needed so that it can continue implementing the Scoping Plan’s wide range of measures, including its emissions-trading program that’s scheduled to start in January 2012.

Though the parties are on opposite sides of the court, there is one common thread running through this case: both sides appear to be committed to making sure the state’s decision-making process, and the implications of those decisions, are analyzed in an open forum.  California’s Environmental Quality Act demands it, as does the environment, and all California citizens and communities deserve it.