Renewable Energy Siting Bill By Manuel Pérez Signed Into Law

Posted on August 29, 2011
Print E-mail
Written by Green Liver, Imperial Valley News

Sacramento, California – A new law by Assemblymember V. Manuel Pérez (D-Coachella) to spur clean-energy development and green job creation in the state was signed today by the Governor.

“By expediting renewable energy permitting and siting processes, we can achieve our state’s renewable energy goals and create jobs in California,” said Pérez, chair of the Assembly Committee on Jobs, Economic Development, and the Economy. “Smart policy choices such as this new law will help encourage a climate that spurs business investment and innovation and promotes a sustainable economic recovery.”

ABx1 13 streamlines the siting and permitting process for renewable energy projects within the state’s Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP). It adds wind and geothermal energy projects to a program currently in place for large-scale solar projects, whereby the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) may offer project developers the option of paying mitigation fees in-lieu of the traditional permitting process. The in-lieu fees are then used by DFG to acquire and restore habitat lands for species impacted by the projects. Included in the bill are also a number of fee accountability and transparency provisions to ensure that DFG has the staff capacity and manpower to expedite project reviews. These renewable energy developer fees are scheduled to sunset in 2016.

The new law also authorizes grants, upon legislative appropriation, of up to $7 million for Imperial and Riverside counties, as well as for counties in the San Joaquin Valley, to revise their general plans and zoning ordinances to encourage local renewable energy development.

“These grants will go far to facilitate the development and construction of local renewable energy projects,” said Pérez.

To read the text of the new law, please visit the state’s legislative information website at: www.leginfo.ca.gov.

 

Posted in Current News | Comments Off on Renewable Energy Siting Bill By Manuel Pérez Signed Into Law

Air Resources Board Reapproves AB 32 Scoping Plan

Posted on August 25, 2011

BY BEN ADLER, CALIFORNIA CAPITOL NETWORK

August 25, 2011

The California Air Resources Board has signed off on an updated plan to comply with the goals of A-B 32. That’s the state’s landmark global warming law, which requires California to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020.

The plan is called a “scoping plan” and it includes everything from the state’s cap-and-trade program to low carbon fuel standards for vehicles. The cap-and-trade efforts hit a bump in the road earlier this year when a judge ruled the state hadn’t fully evaluated environmental alternatives. So the Air Resources Board updated its environmental analysis and approved that, along with an updated scoping plan.

 

Posted in Current News | Comments Off on Air Resources Board Reapproves AB 32 Scoping Plan

Court says asbestos removal is act of pollution and excluded from insurance coverage.

Posted on August 18, 2011

Villa Los Alamos Homeowners Ass’n v. State Farm General Insurance Co., 198 Cal.App.4th 522 (2011) (Aug. 18, 2011)

Asbestos removal is excluded from insurance coverage.

The homeowner’s association contracted to have acoustical ceilings removed which they knew contained asbestos. The contractor removed the ceiling and disturbed the asbestos. The air board cited the association and ordered abatement of the asbestos. The association sought coverage under its property insurance.

The trial court ruled in favor of the insure, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. Asbestos is commonly known to be a toxic substance which is subject to the policy exclusion. The association tried to describe the release of asbestos as negligence and to avoid the exclusion. The Court concluded there are myriad laws regulating asbestos and its removal would not constitute negligence.

The association had tried to develop its argument to fit the language used by the California Supreme Court in MacKinnon v. Truck Ins. Exch., 31 Cal.4th 635 (2003). There, the Court held that ordinary but negligent application of a household pesticide was not a typical act of pollution and did not fit within a pollution exclusion.

 

Posted in Appellate Case Summaries | Comments Off on Court says asbestos removal is act of pollution and excluded from insurance coverage.

“WHAT’S GOING ON WITH ETHANOL SUBSIDIES IN CONGRESS?”

Posted on July 8, 2011

LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD:

Getting renewables on a level playing field with fossil fuels should be a top priority for Congress. Last month, we covered the need to end oil subsidies. This month, we discuss what is happening with ethanol subsidies.

DECOUPLE CORN FROM OIL:

Scientists agree corn-based ethanol does little to curb greenhouse-gas emissions because it consumes nearly as much fossil fuel in its production as the energy produced. It also ties up food sources (and water) for fuel while linking corn prices to oil. That drives up corn and everybody’s food prices, while hurting the poorest and hungriest in the world. A better policy would be to boost advanced biofuels like cellulosic ethanol which has no impact on food supplies and prices.

MANDATES AND SUBSIDIES:

Mandates and subsidies are both a problem. Federal law requires production of large amounts of corn-based ethanol. Congress amended the Clean Air Act in 2007 by endorsing the Energy Independence and Security Act, which increased the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) to an annual 36 billion gallons of biofuels by 2022, of which up to 15 billion gallons must be corn-based ethanol. This year, the RFS requires the use of nearly 14 billion gallons of biofuels with conventional transportation fuels. Even if subsidies are pared, corn-based ethanol will grow without legislative change to the RFS mandate.

SYMBOLIC VOTES?

Now the recent legislative activity: On June 16, 2011, the Senate voted 73-27 to end two key subsidies for corn ethanol: 1) a 45-cent per gallon tax credit to gasoline refiners to mix ethanol with their fuel, and 2) a 54-cent per gallon tariff on imported ethanol such as sugar-based ethanol from Brazil. The measure would have ended the subsidies, worth about $6 billion a year, at the end of June, 2011, yet both are set to expire at the end of the year anyway. Was this just a symbolic vote?

The vote was offered by Sen. Feinstein (D-CA) and Sen. Coburn (R-OK) by amendment to another measure. The Senate is continuing to debate that underlying bill which one insider believes is unlikely to pass. Moreover, the White House has said it opposes full repeal of subsidies for ethanol. Also, it remains to be seen if the House will schedule something to address the above subsidies.

On the same day as the Senate vote, June 16, the House voted 238-128 to approve an amendment by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) to the 2012 Agriculture Appropriations bill to prohibit federal funding of ethanol blender pumps and ethanol storage infrastructure.

Together, the Senate and House actions suggest Congress is testing the waters to remove some subsidies for corn-based ethanol, and perhaps that will translate into removal of some of them as a compromise during the current debt ceiling debate. Indeed, such discussions are currently underway in July. It is clear, however, that Congress and the Administration have not signaled any interest in removing all requirements for corn-based ethanol to meet RFS mandates, so a poor policy will remain in effect without further action.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:

Please consider contacting your member of Congress and urging the removal of the RFS requirement for corn-based ethanol and all associated subsidies.

John H. Reaves, Policy Director for the U.S. Green Chamber of Comerce

Posted in Legislative Posts to the U.S. Green Chamber of Commerce | Comments Off on “WHAT’S GOING ON WITH ETHANOL SUBSIDIES IN CONGRESS?”

Letter to the Editor (SD U-T) re Fireworks (7-3-11)

Posted on July 3, 2011

In response to “Fireworks over fireworks” (Dialog, June 26): It is indisputable that fireworks produce smoke and hazardous wastes. Claiming there is no “real harm” or “significant threat” (“No evidence to back demand for costly studies”) – without even discussing the hazards – is misleading and suggests that dilution makes it acceptable. The same rationale has justified dumping partly treated sewage off Point Loma for decades.

San Diego’s air pollution is “moderate” almost every day, mostly because of vehicles. Year-round fireworks add to that. Our state’s asthma epidemic results from many contributors to air pollution, no doubt. I don’t know if a lawsuit is the best way to address the issue, but it is reasonable to have a debate regarding how fireworks impact our health and environment. Nobody’s patriotism needs to be questioned. — John Reaves, San Diego

 

Posted in Reaves' Opinions and Letters to the Editor | Comments Off on Letter to the Editor (SD U-T) re Fireworks (7-3-11)

Supreme Court’s Global-Warming Decision Keeps The Cause Alive

Posted on June 27, 2011

Reprinted from Forbes

Jun. 27 2011 – 7:56 am | 752 views | 0 recommendations | 1 comment

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in AEP v. Connecticut was a clear-cut victory for the utilities who were being sued by Connecticut and several other states over their greenhouse gas emissions. The court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency occupies this particular field of battle and the states couldn’t sue. The decision turns on the tricky area of “federal common law,” however, a rarely-invoked branch of the law that governs things like environmental disputes between states. As my guest commentator below, Stanley N. Alpert of Constantine Cannonexplains, the high court left plenty of ammunition for environmentalists in its ruling. Alpert’s worth listening to: For 13 years he was an assistant U.S. Attorney, specializing in environmental cases for much of that time.

Getting warmer: The Supreme Court rejects global-warming suit while reaffirming need for action.

On June 20 the U.S. Supreme Court decided against the rights of six States, New York City and three private land trusts to sue under federal common law to prevent global warming. American Electric Power Co., et al. v. Connecticut, et al., No. 10-174 (“AEP”).  The case is far more notable for the support it gave to advocates of U.S. action to fight climate change than for the very limited victory it gave to a few polluting electric utilities.

The States sued in 2004 in an entirely different legal environment. The Bush administration argued that the Clean Air Act did not permit EPA to issue regulations addressing climate change and that it would be unwise to do so anyway.  To accomplish broad reductions in carbon reductions, the plaintiffs needed to turn to common law, which they did in the AEPlawsuit.

In 2007, the quite conservative Supreme Court changed the legal landscape, ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), that EPA had a duty under the Clean Air Act to determine whether GHGs were an endangerment to the environment, and, if so, to regulate them.  Subsequently, Obama’s EPA came down conclusively on the side of regulation, determining that climate science was well settled and that mankind’s impacts on a dangerously shifting climate could not be denied.  EPA is now proceeding slowly but steadily toward GHG regulation.  This already includes regulations requiring the reporting of GHGs, regulations on GHGs from light duty vehicles, and movement toward implementing a scheme for regulating major industrial plants.

Last week’s AEP decision specifically re-affirmed Massachusetts v. EPAand gave EPA the kick in the pants that it may need to overcome political opposition to its legal duty to regulate GHGs under the Clean Air Act.  While the Supreme Court refused to express any view on the science, theAEP court noted that EPA has already determined that the consequences of excessive GHG emissions include more heat-related deaths, coastal flooding, more intense and frequent hurricanes, destruction of ecosystems supporting animals and plants, and potential significant disruptions of food production.

The only issue lost to the States’ legal rights in the new decision was the ability to proceed under federal common law to demand GHG reductions of the power plant emitters.  The Congress gave EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act and that “displaces” any right to pursue a federal common law nuisance claim.  States do have a right, generally, to sue under federal common law for pollution disruptions from another State, such as Missouri suing Chicago to prevent untreated sewage discharges into shared waters.  The defendants in AEPasked the Supreme Court to overrule that long-accepted principle but the Court stuck with its precedent and stated that the subject of this case is a proper one for federal common law.  However, because Congress has legislated in the Clean Air Act in a manner that “speaks directly to the question at issue,” federal common law is displaced by the statute’s grant of authority to EPA.

Not decided at all by the new decision is whether the Clean Air Act preempts State law (as opposed to federal common law), something that is much harder to find. Also left undecided is the appropriate use of state common law tort systems to seek damages for climate-disruption damages.  For example, Native Village of Kivalina, et al. v. ExxonMobil Corp., (N. D. Cal.), is a case filed in 2008 for an Inupiat Eskimo tribe against major oil and electric power companies and the nation’s largest coal company. The case seeks monetary damages to relocate the village because global warming melted the sea ice that formerly protected Kivalina from storms.  The cost of relocating the village is estimated to be as much as $400 million or more.  The AEP decision actually provides some assistance to the lawsuit brought by the Kivalina plaintiffs in that, by tying 4-4, the Court affirmed the Second Circuit New York appeals court that allowed plaintiffs standing for global warming issues and rejected the argument that climate change is a political question that the courts cannot address.

Stanley N. Alpert is the former Chief Environmental Prosecutor for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New York and is an environmental and sustainability attorney at Constantine Cannon, LLP


 

Posted in Current News | Comments Off on Supreme Court’s Global-Warming Decision Keeps The Cause Alive

Congress, put country first: End oil subsidies (SD U-T 6-26-11)

Posted on June 26, 2011

Congress, put country first: End oil subsidies

By John H. Reaves
midnight, June 26, 2011

Reprinted from the San Diego Union Tribune

Finally, here is something Democrats, Republicans, Tea Partiers, libertarians and independents should all be able to agree on: Eliminate oil subsidies.

Our country is more than $14 trillion in debt and crawling from recession. “Big Oil” continues to rake in supersize profits. Media claim Exxon Mobil, with profits of $45.2 billion, and Chevron, with $19 billion, reported paying little or no taxes to the IRS in 2010 (which they dispute). The Big Five posted profits of more than $900 billion last decade.

So why did their execs whine so loudly when Democrats sought to remove some tax benefits? More importantly, why did so many Republicans kill two efforts?

In April, Speaker John Boehner said he would consider cutting oil subsidies. But on May 5, House Republicans and seven Democrats voted against a Democratic motion to end oil tax and royalty breaks of $12 billion over a decade. House members who voted against removing the subsidies received $8.7 million in campaign contributions from oil and gas companies in 2010, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Those in favor received $1.2 million. Big contributions sway votes.

On May 9, Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., introduced the Close Big Oil Loophole Act, targeting $21 billion in savings over a decade. The bill failed to clear the Senate on May 16, following largely party-line votes. Many opposing Republicans previously supported cutting oil subsidies. Why the “correction”?

On May 12, the Senate Finance Committee questioned executives from Big Oil. ConocoPhillps’ James Mulva bristled, calling the cuts “un-American,” while Exxon Mobil’s Rex Tillerson criticized the bill as “misinformed and discriminatory.”

Yet John Hoffmeister, former Shell Oil CEO, recently said Big Oil does not need subsidies in light of “sustained high oil prices,” just as President George W. Bush had said in 2005 when oil was $55 a barrel. Prices are around $100 now.

A 2011 poll by NBC/Wall Street Journal found 74 percent of people support removing the subsidies to reduce the deficit.

Where is America’s outrage over most Republicans’ and some Democrats’ defense of Big Oil welfare? It is indisputable our country’s security and economic health are acutely vulnerable because of our oil addiction.

Republicans’ explanation for their May votes defies logic. Elimination of subsidies is not a tax hike and it won’t kill jobs. The Congressional Joint Economic Committee said energy prices won’t rise as a result. Studies show investment in clean energy actually creates two to four times more jobs than in the fossil fuel industry.

Moreover, the price of oil is artificially cheap because it does not reflect the high price of factors such as air and water pollution, political repercussions of supporting repressive regimes for oil, and military interventions to protect access to oil.

Congress must put this great country first. End oil subsidies now and encourage homegrown clean energy to address our oil addiction and climate change.

Reaves is a business and environmental lawyer based in San Diego and a director with Citizens Climate Lobby.

 

Posted in Reaves' Opinions and Letters to the Editor | Comments Off on Congress, put country first: End oil subsidies (SD U-T 6-26-11)

Romney: ‘Important’ To Reduce Emissions To Counter Climate Change

Posted on June 3, 2011

Romney: ‘Important’ To Reduce Emissions To Counter Climate Change

Former Gov. Mitt Romney, who officially announced his presidential campaign Thursday, participated in a town hall at the University of New Hampshire in Manchester, N.H., Friday. (AP)Former Gov. Mitt Romney, who officially announced his presidential campaign Thursday, participated in a town hall at the University of New Hampshire in Manchester, N.H., Friday. (AP)

BOSTON — Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was on the campaign trail once again Friday, this time talking to voters in Manchester, N.H. Romney traveled to the University of New Hampshire for the first town hall of his campaign.

…

And so voters, presumably, were trying to figure out Romney’s stance on things Friday. Did he elaborate on any of his policy positions or reveal any new policy positions?

He actually did. Generally, in this beginning presidential campaign here, you’re seeing Republican presidential candidates try to stay away from supporting the idea of climate change. Romney did not do that Friday. He staked out a position admitting that there really is climate change.

I don’t speak for the scientific community, of course, but I believe that the world is getting warmer, and No. 2, I believe that humans contribute to that. And so I think it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and the global warming that you’re seeing.

So he didn’t shy away from that?

Not at all.

Taken from: http://www.wbur.org/2011/06/03/romney-voters

Posted in Articles | Comments Off on Romney: ‘Important’ To Reduce Emissions To Counter Climate Change

HOUSE AND SENATE EFFORTS TO REPEAL OIL SUBSIDIES FAIL IN MAY, 2011.

Posted on June 2, 2011

Eliminating oil subsidies is a first step in leveling the playing field for clean energy.

According to Friends of the Earth, “(The oil and gas industry) is set to receive at least $33 billion in handouts from taxpayers over the next five years. These companies stand to gain at least $23.2 billion from tax loopholes, $3.8 billion in royalty rollbacks, $1.6 billion in direct subsidies for research and development, and $4.3 billion through accounting gimmicks.” (www.foe.org/green-scissors) For instance, Congress passed legislation in 1995 that provided “royalty relief” at a time when oil sold for $18/barrel for leases sold from 1996 to 2000. (www.foe.org/sites/default/files/GreenScissors2010.pdf)

FOE describes specific breaks and amounts in “Green Scissors 2010.”

On May 5, 2011, House Republicans and seven Democrats voted against a Democratic motion to bring the Big Oil Welfare Repeal Act of 2011 (H.R. 1689) to the floor for consideration. (List of sponsors at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d112:1:./temp/~bdfmZN:@@@P|/home/LegislativeData.php|.)     H.R. 1689 sought to amend the tax code to prohibit the five major oil companies from receiving oil tax and royalty breaks of $32 billion over a decade.

On May 9, Senator Menendez (D-NJ) introduced S.940, the Close Big Oil Loophole Act, targeting $21 billion in savings over a decade. The bill failed to clear the Senate on May 16. Following largely party lines, 52 voted in favor (48 Democrats), and 48 voted against (45 Republicans).

John Hoffmeister, former Shell Oil CEO, recently said Big Oil does not need subsidies in light of “sustained high oil prices,” just as President Bush had said in 2005 when oil was $55 a barrel. Prices are around $100 now. A 2011 poll by NBC/Wall Street Journal found 74% of people support removing the subsidies to reduce the deficit.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce lobbied to preserve the subsidies. In both House and Senate, the opposition was not isolated to members from oil producing states. Interestingly, many opposing Republicans previously supported cutting oil subsidies.

Republican explanation for their May votes defies logic. Elimination of subsidies is not a tax hike, and it won’t kill jobs. The Congressional Joint Economic Committee said energy prices would not rise as a result. Studies show investment in clean energy actually creates 2-4 times more jobs than in the fossil fuel industry (2009 University of Massachusetts’ study).

The price of oil is artificially “cheap” because it does not reflect the high price of “externalities” such as air and water pollution, political repercussions of supporting repressive regimes for oil, and military interventions to protect access to oil.

Democrat plan to try again, and some Republicans who opposed the above actions have indicated they will consider removing oil subsidies as part of a broader tax reform package.

CALL YOUR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO INSIST OIL SUBSIDIES ARE REMOVED!

The 48 Senators who voted against ending oil subsidies are : Alexander (R-TN), Ayotte (R-NH), Barrasso (R-WY), Begich (D-AK), Blunt (R-MO), Boozman (R-AR), Brown (R-MA), Burr (R-NC), Chambliss (R-GA), Coats (R-IN), Coburn (R-OK), Cochran (R-MS), Corker (R-TN), Cornyn (R-TX), Crapo (R-ID), DeMint (R-SC), Enzi (R-WY), Graham (R-SC), Grassley (R-IA), Hatch (R-UT), Heller (R-NV), Hoeven (R-ND), Hutchison (R-TX), Inhofe (R-OK), Isakson (R-GA), Johanns (R-NE), Johnson (R-WI), Kirk (R-IL), Kyl (R-AZ), Landrieu (D-LA), Lee (R-UT), Lugar (R-IN), McCain (R-AZ), McConnell (R-KY), Moran (R-KS), Murkowski (R-AK), Nelson (D-NE), Paul (R-KY), Portman (R-OH), Risch (R-ID), Roberts (R-KS), Rubio (R-FL), Sessions (R-AL), Shelby (R-AL), Thune (R-SD), Toomey (R-PA), Vitter (R-LA), Wicker (R-MS)

The link to the House members who supported removing subsidies is noted above.

It is vitally important that you write and/or call your members of Congress today (both those who support and oppose the subsidies, in the House and Senate) and demand they end oil subsidies and encourage homegrown clean energy to address our oil addiction, national security, and climate change. Also, write OpEds and letters to the editor to your local paper. As a member of the U.S. Green Chamber of Commerce, your voice matters and is needed as a counterpoint to the opposing U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

John H. Reaves, Policy Director for the U.S. Green Chamber of Commerce

Posted in Legislative Posts to the U.S. Green Chamber of Commerce | Comments Off on HOUSE AND SENATE EFFORTS TO REPEAL OIL SUBSIDIES FAIL IN MAY, 2011.

World GHG rise 5% in 2010 compared to 2008

Posted on May 31, 2011

May 31, 2011

World GHG Emissions Hit Record Level

Greenhouse gas emissions reached their highest point ever last year, making it “extremely challenging” to prevent global temperature rising to dangerous levels, the International Energy Agency said this weekend.

The IEA said that 30.6 gigatons of carbon dioxide were emitted in 2010, up five percent from 2008’s level of 29.3 Gt.

This increase means world leaders will struggle to keep to their goal of preventing a temperature rise of more than two degrees Celsius, described by many scientists as the threshold to potentially dangerous climate change, IEA chief economist Fatih Birol said. The two degree limit was agreed at UN climate change talks in Cancun last year.

“I am very worried. This is the worst news on emissions,” Birol told the Guardian. “It is becoming extremely challenging to remain below two degrees. The prospect is getting bleaker. That is what the numbers say.”

But Birol added that government action could still prevent disaster. “If we have bold, decisive and urgent action, very soon, we still have a chance of succeeding,” he said.

The IEA says that for a two degree increase to be averted, global energy-related emissions in 2020 must not be greater than 32 Gt. This means that over the whole of the next decade, emissions must rise by less than they did between 2009 and 2010.

The agency also estimates than 80 percent of projected emissions from the power sector in 2020 are “locked in” – that is, they will come from existing power plants or those currently under construction. This will make it even harder to meet the two degree target, Birol says.

The latest figures buck projections based on the state of the world economy. The recession did cause emissions from energy to fall slightly between 2008 and 2009, from 29.3 Gt to 29 GT, the Guardian reports. The IEA had expected a small rise in 2010 due to economic recovery, but nothing like the increase seen.

About three-quarters of the 2009-2010 emissions rise came from developing countries, although they only accounted for 60 percent of global emissions last year. In terms of fuels, 44 percent of the estimated CO2 emissions in 2010 came from coal, 36 percent from oil, and 20 percent from natural gas.

World leaders will meet in Bonn next week for the latest round of UN climate talks, but the Guardian says that little progress is expected.

Picture credit: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

Taken from:http://www.environmentalleader.com/2011/05/31/world-ghg-emissions-hit-record-level/

Posted in Articles | Comments Off on World GHG rise 5% in 2010 compared to 2008