The California Air Resources Board challenged a May 20 San Francisco Superior Court ruling that prohibits it from implementing its carbon cap-and-trade program. “We respectfully disagree with the court’s determination that [the Air Board] did not adequately analyze alternatives to a cap and trade program in the scoping plan,” stated Stanley Young, CARB spokesperson. The Air Board filed a notice of appeal May 23. The court writ issued three days earlier by Judge Ernest Goldsmith voids the agency’s carbon emissions trading scheme, which is part of the Air Board’s climate change reduction strategy under AB 32, the state’s climate protection law. Goldsmith’s ruling directs the Air Board to set aside the section of its AB 32 scoping plan laying out ground rules for a carbon dioxide trading scheme and voids the supporting documentation. The court reiterated its tentative finding issued in early February that the Air Board’s analysis of alternatives to a carbon trading scheme fell short of California Environmental Quality Act mandates. “I am pleased that the judge’s ruling will not interfere with the core of AB 32 implementation involving clean cars, renewables, and energy efficiency among other positive measures and that they can proceed as planned,” State Senator Fran Pavley (D-Santa Monica), stated May 21. Pavley, AB 32’s author, plans to hold a June 15 legislative hearing on the Air Board’s implementation of the climate law to date. * * * * * Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory scientists are peering into the future to see how California can cut greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent below their 1990 levels by 2050. That’s the goal under the state’s climate change law, AB 32. .”California can achieve emissions roughly 60 percent below 1990 levels with technology we largely know about today if such technology is rapidly deployed at rates that are aggressive but feasible,” says the report released May 24. Another 20 percent of emission cuts can come from a mix of measures, including increasing renewable resources, fusion energy, biofuels, hydrogen, energy storage, and successfully capturing and storing carbon emissions long term. “California’s Energy Future--The View to 2050,” also points out the need to modernize the state’s grid to accommodate expected growth and changes in energy demand. The authors specifically push for all electric buildings in which gas stoves, ovens, and space and water heaters are replaced with electric models and in which appliances--even water heaters--are integrated into grid intelligence to accommodate an ever growing amount of renewable energy. For transportation, they call for advanced biofuels, more electric vehicles, and more public transportation. * * * * * In Washington, Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Bobby Rush (D-IL) have asked Republicans for a hearing on two recent reports--one by the National Academy of Sciences and the other by the Vatican Pontifical Academy of Sciences--concluding that human activity is causing dangerous climate change. They wrote May 23 to Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), chair of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, that holding a hearing with the authors “would help members [of Congress] understand the urgent need for action and the serious consequences of inaction” on climate change. * * * * * Tightening federal fuel economy standards post 2016 would leave more jingle in consumers’ pockets after paying for fuel, meaning more jangle to grow the state’s economy, Next 10 stated in a May 25 report. Raising fuel economy standards by 4-6 percent/year through 2025 could add up to 236,000 jobs in the state and boost the gross state product by up to 1.3 percent, according to the report. At the same time it could cut state greenhouse gas emissions up to 19 percent.
