BILL ANALYSIS SB 579 SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Senator S. Joseph Simitian, Chairman 2009-2010 Regular Session BILL NO: SB 579 AUTHOR: Lowenthal AMENDED: August 24, 2009 FISCAL: Yes HEARING DATE: August 26, 2009 URGENCY: Yes CONSULTANT: Randy Pestor SUBJECT : EMISSION REDUCTION CREDITS SUMMARY : Existing law : 1) Provides the California Air Resources Board (ARB) with primary responsibility for control of mobile source air pollution, including adoption of rules for reducing vehicle emissions and the specification of vehicular fuel composition. (Health and Safety Code 39000 et seq. and 39500 et seq.). The ARB must coordinate efforts to attain and maintain ambient air quality standards. (39003). 2) Provides that air pollution control districts (APCDs) and air quality management districts (AQMDs) have primary responsibility for controlling air pollution from all sources, other than emissions from mobile sources, and establishes certain powers, duties, and requirements for those districts. (40000 et seq.). 3) Creates certain AQMDs, with related authority, including the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) under the Lewis-Presley Air Quality Management Act. SCAQMD covers portions of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties within the South Coast Air Basin. (40400 et seq.). 4) Requires every air pollution control district in a federal nonattainment area for any national ambient air quality standard to establish by regulation a system by which air contaminant emission reductions that are to be used to SB 579 Page 2 offset future emission increases can be banked prior to use to offset future emission increases. The system must provide that only those emission reductions not otherwise required by any federal, state, or district requirement are approved by the district before they may be banked and used to offset future emission increases. (40709). The system must meet certain requirements (e.g., identification of tracking sources possessing emission credit balances, periodic analysis of increases or decreases in emissions occurring when credits are used, procedures for emission reductions credited to the bank or accruing to internal accounts). (40709.5). 5) Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), requires lead agencies with the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a proposed project to prepare a negative declaration, mitigated declaration, or environmental impact report (EIR) for this action, unless the project is exempt from CEQA (CEQA includes various statutory exemptions, as well as categorical exemptions in the CEQA guidelines). (Public Resources Code 21000 et seq.). This bill : 1) Provides that nothing in this bill affects the adoption, readoption, amendment, or environmental review of SCAQMD Rule 1315 ( Note : In Natural Resources Defense Council v. South Coast Air Quality Management District (Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, 2007, No. BS 110792), the court declared SCAQMD actions in promulgating SCAQMD Rule 1315 (seeking to create emission reduction credits from previous air quality gains and placed into SCAQMD administered accounts) and amending SCAQMD Rule 1309.1 (allowing power plants to access credits in these accounts) violated CEQA). 2) Allows Rule 1304 exempt facilities, and Rule 1309.1 (as amended May 3, 2002 - prior to the 2007 litigated amendment) Priority Reserve essential public services, to continue to operate if they are operating under a permit in reliance on those rules. SB 579 Page 3 3) Authorizes SCAQMD to issue permits in reliance on Rule 1304 and Rule 1309.1 (as amended May 3, 2002). 4) Requires SCAQMD to track offsets or credits relating to the above actions and to make this information available to the public, and requires SCAQMD to ensure internal offset or credit accounts account for all of the offsets or credits for the above actions. 5) Requires the above provisions to be inoperative if: a) a final outcome has been reached in Natural Resources Defense Council v. South Coast Air Quality Management District , including exhaustion of all appeals; or b) SCAQMD completes all environmental reviews required by that decision. 6) Sunsets the above provisions May 1, 2012. 7) Contains related legislative intent. 8) Contains an urgency clause. COMMENTS : 1) Purpose of Bill . According to the author, "As a result of [ Natural Resources Defense Council v. South Coast Air Quality Management District] , the SCAQMD has been unable to issue permits for credit applications from its internal bank. The District has over 1,300 permit applications from small business, government agencies and a variety of business interests unrelated to the power plants that the District is unable to process." The author believes that "SB 579 provides an interim solution to allow the parties not directly related to the litigation, to obtain permits from the District while the court case makes its way through the judicial system." 2) SCAQMD rule changes . Emission Reduction Credits (ERCs) can be created when pollution is reduced in certain ways, and those ERCs can later be sold or used to allow other pollution to occur at a later time or in a different place - a practice referred to as "offsetting" pollution. SB 579 Page 4 Several years ago, under SCAQMD Rule 1309.1, SCAQMD exempted essential public services (e.g., schools, hospitals, fire stations) from the need to obtain ERCs, allowing offsets to instead be provided through a Priority Reserve without charge. SCAQMD adopted Rule 1315 a second time on August 3, 2007, after a Court found that the rule must undergo CEQA analysis, to establish a process for adding additional credits to their internal accounts. These credits could then be distributed to facilities under Rule 1304 (exempt facilities) and 1309.1. SCAQMD also amended Rule 1309.1 on August 3, 2007, so that new electrical generating facilities could also access credits from the Priority Reserve. 3) Challenging rule changes - Natural Resources Defense Council v. South Coast Air Quality Management District (Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, 2007, No. BS 110792) . Certain environmental justice and environmental organizations subsequently challenged the adequacy of SCAQMD's project description, analysis, and mitigation measures under CEQA when adopting Rule 1315 and amending Rule 1309.1. The Superior Court found on July 28, 2008, that SCAQMD violated CEQA by failing to adequately describe, analyze, and mitigate the impacts of this action. According to the court, "Rule 1315 is much more than a simple codification of the District's existing tracking system. As acknowledged by the District, the passage of Rule 1315, with the interplay of 1309.1, results in the anticipated emission of hundreds of tons of pollution into the Basin every day . . . Rule 1315 has expanded exponentially the universe of pollution credits available to entities needed to increase emissions into an already polluted Basin . . . How big to make the Priority Reserve, whether to allow certain credits historically unavailable for use as credits to be captured and re-sold, and whether to take credits retroactively from clean air improvements already attained have real, foreseeable and substantial consequences." The Court also noted that "The environmental effects of Rule SB 579 Page 5 1315, in conjunction with the current and future amendments to Rule 1309.1 are real, capable of being quantified and not remote or speculative." 4) SCAQMD response to Court decision . SCAQMD responded to the decision in three ways. First, SCAQMD appealed the case - although on June 9, 2009, parties stipulated to an extension of the briefing schedule with an August 11, 2009, deadline for the Appellant. Second, SCAQMD issued a notice of preparation for a new environmental document on March 17, 2009, and a consulting firm is preparing the document - although that document is not yet complete. Third, SCAQMD sponsored SB 696 to abrogate the Court decision and exempt the issuance and use of offsets from CEQA - thereby seeking to avoid the Court's direction while also involving the Legislature in pending litigation. 5) SCAQMD and plaintiffs seek to resolve concerns over essential public services and small businesses following Energy, Utilities, and Commerce Committee hearing on SB 696 (Wright) . When SB 696 was heard by the Energy, Utilities, and Commerce Committee, some committee members discussed whether essential public services and small businesses relying on SCAQMD ERCs should proceed while issues relating to SCAQMDs compliance with state and federal requirements are under review by the courts. SCAQMD and the plaintiffs exchanged letters on these issues between June 19, 2009, and July 7, 2009. SCAQMD also wanted to address existing permits. According to the plaintiffs, "Our position is, and always has been, that nothing in Judge Jones' Writ and Injunction requires the district to revoke permits issued between the time the District adopted Rule 1315 and the date of final issuance of the Writ and Injunction." Nevertheless, SCAQMD and the plaintiffs agreed on language to clarify this issue. With regard to essential public services and small businesses, disagreement focused on two issues. First, plaintiffs referred to "small business" as those facilities qualifying for assistance offered by SCAQMD's Small Business SB 579 Page 6 Assistance Office as defined in Rule 102 (total gross receipts of $5 million or less, or a business with 100 or fewer employees) and public agencies. SCAQMD disagreed, believing this to be too narrow. Second, SCAQMD wanted to rely on Rule 1315 in accounting for the ERCs. According to the plaintiffs, "Rule 1315 is the subject of ongoing litigation, and a vital, non-severable part of the project the District must analyze under CEQA. The District's proposal to rely on Rule 1315 as the vehicle to 'account for' credits in the internal bank during this interim period is unacceptable." The SCAQMD and plaintiffs could therefore not agree on a way to address the essential public services and small businesses while issues relating to SCAQMD's compliance with state and federal requirements are under review by the courts. Nevertheless, there is continuing interest by various parties in addressing essential public services and small businesses, rather than powerplants, in a manner that does not affect the NRDC decision, pending litigation, or federal litigation. There are also concerns that allowing credits for these powerplants will adversely affect efforts to encourage renewable energy sources - and place the Legislature in a decision-making role with litigation pending. SB 579 seeks to respond to these concerns. 6) Federal court actions . The plaintiffs also filed a complaint in federal court on August 18, 2008, for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief under the federal Clean Air Act, arguing that the SCAQMD credits violate requirements that credits be real, surplus, enforceable, quantifiable, and permanent - and are therefore invalid. SCAQMD filed a Motion to Dismiss this action on October 8, 2008, asserting that the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the Complaint. The parties made various appearances before the federal court on the SCAQMD's motion. SB 579 Page 7 Plaintiffs informed the Court on July 9, 2009, that they do not intend to amend the complaint and would appeal a final decision to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction, and the Judge indicated it would take about 90 days to issue a final decision on the matter. The Plaintiffs assert that the decision does not mean the proposed Rule 1315 is legal and does not mean SCAQMD has legal credits in its bank. A status conference in the case is scheduled for August 31, 2009. 7) Related legislation . SB 696 (Wright) abrogates the Natural Resources Defense Council v. South Coast Air Quality Management District decision, requires SCAQMD to transfer credits up to specified limits for a powerplant meeting certain requirements (i.e., Sentinel powerplant) and essential public services, and exempts these actions from CEQA; requires SCAQMD Rules 1309.1 and 1315, relating to, among other things, creation of internal accounts for essential public services, small sources, exempt sources, and eligible powerplants to be continued in full force and effect without interruption; exempts adoption and implementation of SCAQMD Rules 1309.1, 1315, and 1304, and any amendments to these rules required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, from CEQA; establishes offset credit accounts and sets account balances; and authorizes amendments to an account to increase emission credits for powerplants. AB 1318 (V. Manuel Perez) abrogates the Natural Resources Defense Council v. South Coast Air Quality Management District decision, requires SCAQMD to transfer credits up to specified limits for a powerplant meeting certain requirements (i.e., Sentinel powerplant) and essential public services, and exempts these actions from CEQA. 8) Clarification needed . Clarification is needed regarding: a) permits already issued by SCAQMD relating to Rule 1304 and 1309.1 (e.g., dates those permits were issued, include in legislative intent since many believe that these permits are not affected by the NRDC decision); b) the types of exempt facilities covered by this bill if all 1304 SB 579 Page 8 facilities are not to be covered; c) the determinations made in 40440.13(c); d) circumstances under which this bill becomes inoperative (e.g., striking reference to the NRDC case since there is a decision, requiring CEQA certification with no challenges); and e) related technical and clarifying amendments. SOURCE : Senator Lowenthal SUPPORT : None on file OPPOSITION : None on file