Not so Fast! Bay Area Regulators Hold Off on Adoption of GHG Emissions Caps on Refineries
Time 2 Minute Read
Categories: Air, Climate, Utilities, Waste

In a surprising turn of events, the Board of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) voted to delay adoption of first-of-its-kind caps on refinery greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As we reported just three weeks ago, the Board was slated to adopt Regulation 12, Rule 16: Petroleum Refining Facility-Wide Emissions Limits (Rule 12-16), a regulation that would establish refinery-specific, facility-wide caps on GHG emissions from the five Bay Area refineries and three support facilities.  At a public hearing last week, in what initially looked to be a sure thing, the Board pivoted.  Signaling unease about legal vulnerabilities surrounding procedure, the Board voted to delay adoption of the regulation until at least September 2017.

As proposed on May 31, 2017, Rule 12-16 would have imposed facility-specific caps based on recent operating levels (baseline emissions) and a built-in operating flexibility of seven percent. In its fourth iteration since May 31, the June 21 proposal featured caps based on an alternative method wherein baseline emissions include already permitted but under-utilized/not yet built processes.  In addition, rather than build in a seven percent operating allowance, the revised proposal allowed for two standard deviations from the baseline.  The addition of already permitted processes into the baseline and the allowance for two standard deviations garnered significant attention from board members, several of whom had not seen the proposed version of the regulation until arrival at the public hearing.  Board members cited both the short notice and lack of discussion on the revised methodology as swaying them to vote to hold off on adoption until further analysis and discussion could occur.

As with the May 31, 2017 public hearing, numerous industry representatives as well as individual members of the public provided comment. No matter what their perspective on the rule, commenters overwhelmingly agreed on one thing: they all had concerns over the process.  Even California Attorney General Xavier Becerra weighed in via letter calling the last minute nature of the revisions insufficient for a full and transparent analysis.

While the Board did not set a firm date, Rule 12-16 will likely be considered for adoption at BAAQMD’s September hearing. For more information on Rule 12-16, please see the Board’s website.

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 4 Minute Read

In 2025, California, Massachusetts, New York, and Washington proposed fashion accountability bills to impose environmental due diligence requirements on high-earning businesses in the fashion industry.

Time 6 Minute Read

Recent developments could impact implementation timing and compliance obligations under California’s landmark climate emissions disclosure and financial risk reporting laws that were enacted last year.

Time 8 Minute Read

The European Commission (EC)–the executive branch of the European Union (EU)–recently proposed a comprehensive regulatory framework for batteries (the proposal). The finalized proposal would replace the existing Battery Directive, which currently covers only the end-of-life stage of batteries. The proposal is the first action taken by the EC under its new Circular Economy Plan and is viewed as a necessary step towards meeting the European Green Deal’s goal of zero net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050. The proposal will have significant implications for companies manufacturing and importing batteries (or products with batteries) in the EU and may influence the future policies of the incoming Biden administration.

Time 7 Minute Read

Joining a growing chorus of states, several Northeastern states, including Massachusetts, Maine and Rhode Island, have recently announced their intentions to impose a ban on the use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). The looming regulatory actions by these states are generally anticipated to follow an HFC ban rulemaking model established by the members of the US Climate Alliance.[1] It remains to be seen, however, whether the states will look to additional regulatory options, as it was a worldwide product ban in the late 1980s that inadvertently set the stage to now limit alternatives containing HFCs due to their climate forcing potential as a greenhouse gas (GHG).

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page