Friday, December 30, 2011
Federal Judge Puts Hold On Portion of California CO2 Reg
The decision puts on hold a major portion of California's effort to cut greenhouse-gas emissions, at a time when the most-populous state's stance has taken on extra importance nationwide because of a stalemate in Washington over greenhouse-gas legislation.
Judge O'Neill hasn't issued a final decision on the case, but on Thursday he barred California from enforcing the rules while the lawsuit continues.
In setting out the rules, the California Air Resources Board calculated a "carbon intensity" score for different types of fuel, favoring biofuels over carbon-heavy crude, and also assigning imported fuels a higher "carbon intensity" score. To comply with the rules, companies could in some cases be forced to buy credits for fuel scoring high on the carbon intensity scale.
California said the rules on importing were justified because suppliers burn fuel and emit carbon when they transport fuels into the state.
The California Air Resources Board, which put the rules in place in 2010, said it would appeal the ruling and ask the court to "stay its preliminary injunction order in the shortest time possible."
The low-carbon rules on transportation fuels were approved by the California Air Resources Board as part of a sweeping initiative to limit greenhouse-gas emissions, signed in 2006 by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. The Republican governor had allied himself with Democratic lawmakers in Sacramento in seeking to make California a world leader in the fight against carbon emissions.
Under the legislation, the state aims to cut its total emissions by 174 million metric tons by 2020, with most of the reduction intended to come from a cap-and-trade program on carbon credits. About 15 million metric tons, or 9% of the total, would come from the low-carbon fuel requirements such as mandating more use of ethanol and biodiesel in vehicles.
The rules have come under broad attack, legally and politically. A ballot measure in 2010 known as Proposition 23 would have kept provisions of the legislation from going into effect until California's unemployment rate dropped by more than half. That measure was defeated by voters, but Judge O'Neill's order adds new uncertainty. (WSJ, 12/30/2011)