California’s mandated cap-and-trade system is on pause, for the moment:
A Superior Court in San Francisco issued a final judgment Friday 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.
Pia Lopez and Ben Boychuk explained last week in the Sacramento Bee why we should be fearful of whatever new idea they come up with:
A Superior Court judge ruled last week that state air regulators must stop carrying out a cap-and-trade plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Judge Ernest Goldsmith’s ruling requires the Air Resources Board to examine alternatives to emissions trading to meet targets under a 2006 law, Assembly Bill 32.Ben Boychuk: Yes – New rules won’t fix a misguided law
Californians will rue the day Judge Goldsmith ordered the Air Resources Board to rethink plans for imposing a cap-and-trade scheme on the Golden State.
No, not because cap-and-trade will miraculously clean our air or halt climate change. As the Europeans have discovered, cap-and-trade for carbon is a bureaucracy-bloating boondoggle.
Goldsmith’s ruling is dangerous because as bad as cap-and-trade might be, the alternatives sought by the environmentalist opponents of the new system are much worse.
The rest here.