ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL BLOGS

California Air Resources Board increases reporting obligations

    As many as 800 new chemicals will have to be reported by industry under new regulations approved on November 19, 2020 by the California Air Resources Board.

  See https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-2588-air-toxics-hot-spots/hot-spots-inventory-guidelines.  

 

FEDERAL COURT REFUSES REMAND OF CLIMATE-CHANGE LITIGATION

People of State of California v. BP p.l.c.--Oakland and San Francisco brought claims against fossil-fuel producers re climate change; defendants removed the case to federal court and Oakland and San Francisco asked for a remind to state court. The federal court denied the request, stating among other things,"Plaintiffs’ claims for public nuisance, though pled as state-law claims, depend on a global complex of geophysical cause and effect involving all nations of the planet (and the oceans and atmosphere). It necessarily involves the relationships between the United States and all other nations. It demands to be governed by as universal a rule of apportioning responsibility as is available.”

https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2017cv06011/318403/134

EPA IS WITHDRAWING POLLUTION RULE FOR TEXAS POWER PLANTS

    From the San Antonio Express News (http://www.expressnews.com/business/eagle-ford-energy/article/EPA-plans-to-withdraw-pollution-rule-for-7-Texas-10645121.php):

    "The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said it plans to withdraw a rule that would require seven Texas coal-fired power plants to reduce pollution coming from their stacks, providing at least a short-term reprieve for power companies fearful that the costs of ever stricter regulations would doom their plants."

STUDY CONTENDS THAT IPCC MISSES FACT THAT CEMENT ABSORBS CO2

    According to a study by the China Emissions Accounts and Datasets, the calculations by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of worldwide CO2 emissions overlook the fact that cement structure's absorb a good deal of CO2 emissions.  Thus, the study contends, the IPCC has substantially overestimated the amount of CO2 emissions occurring around the world.

     The study finds that  "Cement, the ubiquitous material used to build roads, buildings and other infrastructure, absorbs about one billion tons of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO²) annually."  The study also estimates that, between 1930 and 2015, "cement reabsorbed 4.5 gigatons of carbon...worldwide...." http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/study-ipcc-doesnt-account-1-billion-tons-co2-absorbed-annually.

    Thus, the study appears substantially to undercut the IPCC's continuous alarm bells about the impact of CO2 on the climate.  Even though the study appears to have been lead  by reputable scientists, given the IPCC's almost religious belief in climate change it is doubtful that the organization will seriously consider this study, let alone amend any already-reached conclusions.

  You can find an abstract of the study at http://www.ceads.net/ and additional reference to the study in the journal Nature (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v524/n7565/full/nature14677.html)  and Nature Geoscience (https://www.dropbox.com/s/vyo03iec31zb0re/ngeo2840-aop%20%281%29.pdf?dl=0).

    

 

NEW SO CAL SMOG CONTROL PROPOSALS GETTING LITTLE TRACTION

According to an article by David Danelski in the Riverside California Press Enterprise, http://www.presstelegram.com/article/20161002/NEWS/161009932, smog is getting worse in Southern California but there is no consensus on what if any additional measure's should be instituted to fix the situation.

 One proposal is for Congress to create a fund, akin to the "Superfund" under CERCLA for polluted land and water contamination clean up, to fund air clean-up measures.  Another proposal is for appropriate government entities at the State and Local levels to enact vehicle registration surcharges to raise such funding.

Neither proposal, according to the article, has generated much favorable interest.  There has been no movement in Congress on the special fund proposal; and both a Republican Assembly Member and the Democratic head of the State Senate have denounced the surcharge proposal, saying the surcharge would put an unfair additional burden on the public.

The Democratic leader adds that the "polluters' should pay to clean up their pollution.  A superficially attractive thought.  However, the leader fails to take into account that companies who are fined or otherwise charged for creating pollution are not natural person who would be hurt personally by such impositions; rather, these entities are fictional persons who would do everything possible to pass those charges on to consumers--the very public that politicians claim they want to protect from such higher costs.

The proper question is whether, if we want to increase regulation of air-pollution control, the cost of the regulation should be imposed on the entre public or on the consumers who use the "polluters'" products.   That inquiry requires a much more sophisticated analysis than our politicians are likely to provide. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Environmental Legal Blogs - Now on YouTube

Have you seen our Environmental Legal Videos on YouTube? Here's one, regarding how you should react if a government agency or individual makes an environmental claim against you or your business:

More Environmental Legal Blogs videos are available by clicking the link to YouTube, on the left.

Federal EPA dealt yet another judicial blow

The EPA, as this blog has documented, has been on the losing end of a number of recent federal court decisions about the extent of the agency’s powers.  Now comes yet another judicial decision challenging the EPA.

            The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has rejected EPA’s aggressive approach to implementing what is known as the “Cross-State Air Pollution Rule”, which requires States to cut pollution emissions where there are other States downwind which are being subjected to the wafting pollution.  The Rule, as pursued by EPA, among other things allowed EPA to impose federally-mandated pollution-reduction plans on upwind States without giving the States the opportunity to reduce pollution on their own.

            Consistent with a prior appellate court ruling, the Court in this case said that the Clean Air Act requires thatStates devise their own implementation plans to curb air pollution and that the federal government has the authority only to judge the success of the State plans—not to step in and write a federal implementation plan.

The case is EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11-1302. You can find the opinion at http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/19346B280C78405C85257A61004DC0E5/$file/11-1302-1390314.pdf.

 

Adapted from my column for the Valley News Group.

EPA DECLARES HAY A POLLUTANT

“Has the Environmental Protection Agency declared hay a pollutant?” an audience member asked.  Callicrate responded affirmatively and explained that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently initiated a formal enforcement action against his Kansas feedlot for, among other things, failure to store his hay in a pollution containment zone. “Now that EPA has declared hay a pollutant, every farmer and rancher that stores hay, or that leaves a broken hay bale in the field is potentially violating EPA rules and subject to an EPA enforcement action,” Callicrate said. “How far are we going to let this agency go before we stand up and do something about it?”    

source:  http://r-calfusa.com/news_releases/2011/110901-epa.htm

SB 827 IS LAW

    Governor Schwarzenegger has signed the bill into law (on Sunday, October 11).  See post below for a discussion of the bill.

AQMD-RELATED RELIEF IS ON THE GOVERNOR'S DESK

SB 827 is on the Governor’s desk

    Readers may remember that, recently, I wrote about the problem for many businesses and government entities as a result of a State Court ruling holding that the AQMD’s issuance of “offset” credits violates the California Environmental Quality Act, or “CEQA” and imposing a moratorium on the issuance of such credits.  Since such credits are, as a practical matter, required in order for such places to operate under California pollution laws, and since with the moratorium the only place to obtain such credits would be on the open market at incredibly expensive prices, the continued operations of several thousand facilities within the AQMD jurisdiction was threatened.

    I also noted that Senator Roderick D, Wright (D-Inglewood) had introduced legislation that would, despite the Court ruling, provide at least interim relief (while the long-term effects of the Court ruling are sorted out) by re-authorizing the AQMD offset credit allowance.  The legislation has passed both houses of the Legislature and now awaits the Governor’s signature.

    As you may be aware, however, the Governor has threatened not to act on the approximately 700 bills awaiting his decision by a Sunday, October 11, 2009 deadline unless the Legislature first deals with the State’s water supply crisis.  So the fate of SB 827 is far from certain as this column is published.

This post is adapted from a portion of my most recent weekly column for The warner center News, The Valley vantage and The Las Virgenes Enterprise, a group of local papers published in the San Feranndo Valley, California.