Latest news with #CaliforniaAirResourcesBoard
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Results of the May 21, 2025 Québec and California Carbon Markets Auction
QUÉBEC, May 29, 2025 /CNW/ - The results of the 43rd greenhouse gas (GHG) emission units auction held jointly with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) on May 21 were released today. During the sale, 43,865,000 current vintage emission units, including 77,507 Québec's consigned emission units, were sold for $36.05 CA ($25.87 US), and 6,847,750 2028 vintage emission units went for $36.44 CA ($26.15 US). For Québec, the sale generated gross revenues in the order of 230 million Canadian dollars that will be deposited into the Electrification and Climate Change Fund, which finances the measures of the 2030 Plan for a Green Economy, and 2,7 million Canadian dollars in revenue, under the emission unit consignment mechanism. These reserved amounts for eligible emitters will be used primarily to finance GHG emission reduction projects. Quick facts: To date, the carbon market has generated more than $10.3 billion in revenue for Québec, all of which is used to support Québec businesses, municipalities, institutions and citizens in their transition to a lower-carbon world. The next auction will take place on August 20, 2025. An official notice will be posted on the Ministry's website 60 days prior to the auction, as required by regulation. The registration period will open on the same day. Québec has adopted a GHG emissions reduction target of 37.5% below 1990 levels by 2030. As announced in the 2030 Plan for a Green Economy, the government intends to make a longer-term commitment to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. Associated links: A summary of the results of the May 21, 2025 auction is available on the Ministry's website at: For more details on the payment from the funds determined and reserved for an emitter, see Projects eligible for payment from consigned funds. Source and information Media Relations Ministère de l'Environnement, de la Lutte contre les changements climatiques, de la Faune et des Parcs Tel.: 418 521-3991 SOURCE Ministère de l'Environnement, de la Lutte contre les changements climatiques, de la Faune et des Parcs View original content:
Forbes
3 days ago
- Business
- Forbes
California Board Gives Update On Climate Reporting, Wont Meet July Deadline
In 2023, California passed legislation requiring large companies to file climate disclosures beginning in 2026 for FY 2025. A year later, Governor Gavin Newsom signed legislation that delayed the releasing of the implementation guidelines for climate reporting until July 1, 2025. As the deadline quickly approaches, the California Air Resources Board is still in the early stages of rulemaking, making the July 1 deadline unobtainable. A virtual workshop held on May 29 addressed concerns and floated early staff proposals for key aspects of the law. In September 2023, California approved the Climate Accountability Package, a pair of bills aimed at creating sustainability reporting requirements. Senate Bill 253 required companies that do business in California and have an excess of $1 billion in revenue, defined as 'reporting entities', to submit an annual report for Scope 1 and Scope 2 starting in 2026. Scope 3 reporting will begin in 2027. Senate Bill 261 required companies that do business in California and have an excess of $500 million in revenue, defined as 'covered entities', to submit a biennial climate-related financial risk report. The report is based on the work of the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures, established by the Financial Stability Board. The responsibility of drafting specific regulations and implementing the reporting standards was delegated to the California Air Resources Board. CARB was initially given until January 1, 2025 to draft the rules and processes. However, the process of drafting such complex regulations required more time. As a result, the Legislature gave CARB an additional six months to complete the drafting. Now, it is clear that deadline will also not be met. On May 29, CARB held a virtual workshop to update stakeholders on the progress of the rulemaking. Over 3,000 people from five continents attended the presentation. Senator Scott Wiener and Senator Henry Stern, the sponsors of the original Climate Accountability Package spoke on progress. Wiener made a point that, despite speculation in the media, reporting requirements will not be delayed and will go into effect in 2026. Under the current timetable, Scope 1 & Scope 2 reporting begin in 2026 for FY 2025. Scope 3 reporting will begin in 2027 for FY 2026. However, CARB used its authority to not enforce reporting requirements in 2026, as no reporting requirements exist. Stern acknowledged ongoing litigation and headwinds on sustainability reporting. He noted that it was his intent to work collaboratively with the European Union and their Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive. He also noted they are watching the proposed changes by the International Sustainability Standards Board, the organization that drafted the international standards for sustainability reporting and filled the void after the TCFD was dissolved. The EU is currently engaged in a massive rewrite and simplification of the reporting requirements of the CSRD and its sister regulation, the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive. A strong green push back in the EU and internationally is causing the EU and other jurisdictions to rollback gains made in the past few years. Changes in the EU are expected by the end of the year. CARB is still in the informal pre-rulemaking phase. Once if moves to formal rulemaking, CARB will have one year to complete the process. It will include a 45-day comment period. If amendments are adopted, a second comment period will run for 15-days. Initial solicitation for comments opened in December 2024 and closed in March. CARB received 261 responses during that period. The themes of those responses focused on who qualifies as a 'reporting entity' in SB 253 or 'covered entity' in SB 261. "Reporting entity means a partnership, corporation, limited liability company, or other business entity formed under the laws of this state, the laws of any other state of the United States or the District of Columbia, or under an act of the Congress of the United States with total annual revenues in excess of one billion dollars ($1,000,000,000) and that does business in California. Applicability shall be determined based on the reporting entity's revenue for the prior fiscal year." "Covered entity means a corporation, partnership, limited liability company, or other business entity formed under the laws of the state, the laws of any other state of the United States or the District of Columbia, or under an act of the Congress of the United States with total annual revenues in excess of five hundred million United States dollars ($500,000,000) and that does business in California. Applicability shall be determined based on the business entity's revenue for the prior fiscal year. 'Covered entity' does not include a business entity that is subject to regulation by the Department of Insurance in this state, or that is in the business of insurance in any other state." Themes were focused on the definition of 'doing business in California', revenue, and corporate relationships between parent and subsidiary companies. In the development and interpretation of law, words matter. Codes, ordinances, laws, and regulations typically begin with a list of definitions of key terms. Frequently, those definitions are prefaced with the phrase 'for purposes of this section.' This allows lawmakers to define a term for limited use in that section of the law preventing new legislation from negatively impacting established law. Definitions bring clarity, allowing those subjected to the law, regulators, attorneys, and judges to know the exact intent of the lawmakers. In the Climate Accountability Package, the phrases 'covered entity' and 'reporting entity' are both defined in their respective sections. The only notable distinction between the definitions is the annual revenue threshold. Both include the phrase 'that does business in California.' However, that phrases is not defined and was quickly identified as an issue. Initial proposals pointed to Article 1, Section 23101(a) of the California Revenue and Taxation Code definition of 'doing business.' The California Franchise Tax Board interprets the definition to mean meeting one of five conditions. The board updates the dollar thresholds annually. A company is considered doing business in California if In the initial solicitation, stakeholders were asked 'Should CARB adopt the definition of 'doing business in California' found in the Revenue and Tax Code section 23101?' The presentation did not give the breakdown on responses, most likely because CARB admitted they had not fully reviewed all of them. The workshop included an initial staff concept. They propose using the tax board's definition, but with one change. Companies would need to meet requirement 1 AND any of requirements 2 - 5. This establishes a clearer standard for companies that would fall under the reporting requirements, but is so low that most companies will qualify. The workshop identified three questions that need to be addressed: The distinction in reporting requirements under SB 253 ad SB 261 are based on 'total annual revenue.' However, as was the issue with 'doing business in California', questioned remained as to what is used to calculate revenue. Specifically, if the thresholds are for the parent company or the subsidiary. Comments The initial staff concept defines revenue as 'For the purposes of determining whether an entity meets the annual revenue threshold in SB 253 and SB 261, 'total annual revenue' would be defined as gross receipts as set forth in California Revenue and Taxation Code § 25120(f)(2).' That section defines gross receipts as 'the gross amounts realized (the sum of money and the fair market value of other property or services received) on the sale or exchange of property, the performance of services, or the use of property or capital (including rents, royalties, interest, and dividends) in a transaction that produces business income, in which the income, gain, or loss is recognized (or would be recognized if the transaction were in the United States) under the Internal Revenue Code , as applicable for purposes of this part. Amounts realized on the sale or exchange of property shall not be reduced by the cost of goods sold or the basis of property sold.' The definition includes a list of exemptions. However, that still leaves unanswered the question as to if revenues are for the parent or the subsidiary. This is an important distinction that needs to be addressed. A subsidiary may only meet the lower reporting requirement, while the parent based in another jurisdiction may trigger the higher reporting requirements. In a simple world, a company is only liable for the actions of the company. However, companies are frequently established as subsidiaries, have institutional investors, and various other factors that make defining a company often times legally murky. This is posing an issue for CARB as they look at the relationship between a parent company and a subsidiary. The workshop pointed to three main questions that need to be addressed relating to corporate relationships. The initial staff concept is to leverage the Cap-and-Trade approach defining corporate relationships: CARB engaged the Montrose Environmental Group to conduct a comprehensive study on existing GHG accounting and reporting programs around the world. The study was presented by Mariah Gehle and Alexa Ambroseo. The presentation looked at the reporting requirements by Scope, if third party verification is required, and data availability. They noted that "Voluntary programs publish more emissions methodologies for Scope 2 and 3 emissions sources and allow flexibility in how they calculate and report the indirect emissions. Regulatory frameworks tend to cover Scope 1 emissions and may not provide guidance or methodologies for Scope 2 and 3 emissions." Yhe California Air Resources Board will continue to operate in the informal stage of rulemaking, holding discussions with stakeholders to address issues before the official process begins to make climate disclosure standards. Now is the time for interested parties to weigh in. Once the formal process begins, the template will be set. Expect the formal process to begin by fall, with a target of final approval by the end of 2025.
Cision Canada
3 days ago
- Business
- Cision Canada
Results of the May 21, 2025 Québec and California Carbon Markets Auction Français
QUÉBEC, May 29, 2025 /CNW/ - The results of the 43 rd greenhouse gas (GHG) emission units auction held jointly with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) on May 21 were released today. During the sale, 43,865,000 current vintage emission units, including 77,507 Québec's consigned emission units, were sold for $36.05 CA ($25.87 US), and 6,847,750 2028 vintage emission units went for $36.44 CA ($26.15 US). For Québec, the sale generated gross revenues in the order of 230 million Canadian dollars that will be deposited into the Electrification and Climate Change Fund, which finances the measures of the 2030 Plan for a Green Economy, and 2,7 million Canadian dollars in revenue, under the emission unit consignment mechanism. These reserved amounts for eligible emitters will be used primarily to finance GHG emission reduction projects. Quick facts: To date, the carbon market has generated more than $10.3 billion in revenue for Québec, all of which is used to support Québec businesses, municipalities, institutions and citizens in their transition to a lower-carbon world. The next auction will take place on August 20, 2025. An official notice will be posted on the Ministry's website 60 days prior to the auction, as required by regulation. The registration period will open on the same day. Québec has adopted a GHG emissions reduction target of 37.5% below 1990 levels by 2030. As announced in the 2030 Plan for a Green Economy, the government intends to make a longer-term commitment to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. Associated links:
Time of India
5 days ago
- Automotive
- Time of India
Republican vote against EV mandate felt like an attack on California
There is little question that California leaders already see fossil fuels as a relic of the past. At the Southern California headquarters of the state's powerful clean-air regulator, the centerpiece art installation depicts in limestone a petrified gas station. Fuel nozzles lie on the ground in decay, evoking an imagined extinction of gas pumps. For more than a half-century, the federal government has allowed California to set its own stringent pollution limits, a practice that has resulted in more efficient vehicles and the nation's most aggressive push toward electric cars. Many Democratic-led states have adopted California's standards, prompting automakers to move their national fleets in the same direction. With that unusual power, however, has come resentment from Republican states where the fossil fuel industry still undergirds their present and future. When Republicans in Congress last week revoked the state's authority to set three of its mandates on electric vehicles and trucks, they saw it not just as a policy reversal but as a statement that liberal California should be put in its place. "We've created a superstate system where California has more rights than other states," Rep. Morgan Griffith, R-Va., who represents rural southwestern Virginia, said in an interview. "My constituents think most folks in California are out of touch with reality. You see this stuff coming out of California and say, 'What?'" Federal law typically preempts state law under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. But in 1967, the federal government allowed smoggy California to receive waivers from the Environmental Protection Agency to enact its own clean-air standards that were tougher than federal limits, because the state historically had some of the most polluted air in the nation. Federal law also allows other states to adopt California's standards as their own under certain circumstances. California has used that authority to build one of the world's most powerful environmental agencies, the California Air Resources Board . The board now regulates the airborne emissions released by everything from perfumes to power plants. Products that repeatedly fail to comply with its standards can be barred from sale in the state. So many consumers live in California or in states such as New York and Pennsylvania that adopt the same standards that manufacturers see little to be gained by making their products in two versions, one to satisfy those states' rules and another for the rest of the country. So, California's requirements often become de facto national standards. The policy that has drawn the most Republican opposition has been California's mandate to ban the sale of new gasoline-powered vehicles starting in 2035. Republicans, whose party has strong ties to the oil industry, spoke last week about why EVs would be impractical for their constituents. Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, said on the floor that EVs' limited range made them unsuitable for farmers, ranchers and others in his rural state who must drive long distances each day. Although California's rules would not bar the sale of gasoline-powered vehicles anywhere else, Barrasso and other Republicans suggested that without the California market, manufacturers would curb their production. "Every American would lose options -- whether you live in California or not," Barrasso said. "California's EV mandates ban the sale of gas-powered cars and trucks. No more in America. Can you imagine that in Oklahoma or my home state of Wyoming?" Their arguments also ventured into the ideological realm. In floor arguments and in statements to The New York Times, Republican lawmakers spoke of what the technology -- and California -- represented to the wider populace. "The American public on Election Day rejected the liberal agenda of California, whether it comes to EVs, whether it comes to open borders, whether it comes to sanctuary cities, a sanctuary state, their efforts to defund police," Barrasso said in his floor speech. Other Republican lawmakers condemned what they called California's "extreme environmental agenda." Rep. Troy Nehls, R-Texas, said in a statement that the "radical liberal state of California" should not be governing for the "hardworking patriots in my district." Nehls is the House author of the Stop California from Advancing Regulatory Burden Act of 2025. It is otherwise known as the Stop CARB Act, an indication of just how large California's air board -- known by its initials, CARB -- looms in the eyes of Republicans. That bill, which would repeal the section of the Clean Air Act that lets California get waivers to set its own regulations, is pending in the House, as is a similar measure in the Senate. In the 1960s and 1970s, the smog in Los Angeles was so thick that the giant Hollywood sign often could not be seen from just a few miles away. Over the years, CARB sharply reduced the state's pollution problem by enacting stringent rules, many of which were eventually adopted nationwide. California's regulatory climate encouraged technical innovations such as the low-emission engine that Honda produced in the 1970s; the three-way catalytic converter with an oxygen sensor that Volvo pioneered later that decade; and Tesla's popularization of EVs.
Japan Today
7 days ago
- Politics
- Japan Today
Governors leading fight against climate change and deforestation around the world, filling a void left by presidents
Forests like the Amazon play vital roles in balancing the environment, from storing carbon to releasing oxygen. By Mary Nichols When the annual U.N. climate conference descends on the small Brazilian rainforest city of Belém in November, it will be tempting to focus on the drama and disunity among major nations. Only 21 countries had even submitted their updated plans for managing climate change by the 2025 deadline required under the Paris Agreement. The U.S. is pulling out of the agreement altogether. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Chinese President Xi Jinping and the likely absence of – or potential stonewalling by – a U.S. delegation will take up much of the oxygen in the negotiating hall. You can tune them out. Trust me, I've been there. As chair of the California Air Resources Board for nearly 20 years, I attended the annual conferences from Bali in 2007 to Sharm el Sheikh, Egypt, in 2023. That included the exhilarating success in 2015, when nearly 200 nations committed to keep global warming in check by signing the Paris Agreement. In recent years, however, the real progress has been outside the rooms where the official U.N. negotiations are held, not inside. In these meetings, the leaders of states and provinces talk about what they are doing to reduce greenhouse gases and prepare for worsening climate disasters. Many bilateral and multilateral agreements have sprung up like mushrooms from these side conversations. This week, for example, the leaders of several state-level governments are meeting in Brazil to discuss ways to protect tropical rainforests that restore ecosystems while creating jobs and boosting local economies. What states and provinces are doing now The real action in 2025 will come from the leaders of states and provinces, places like Pastaza, Ecuador; Acre and Pará, Brazil; and East Kalimantan, Indonesia. While some national political leaders are backing off their climate commitments, these subnational governments know they have to live with increasing fires, floods and deadly heat waves. So, they're stepping up and sharing advice for what works. State, province and local governments often have jurisdiction over energy generation, land-use planning, housing policies and waste management, all of which play a role in increasing or reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Their leaders have been finding ways to use that authority to reduce deforestation, increase the use of renewable energy and cap and cut greenhouse gas emissions that are pushing the planet toward dangerous tipping points. They have teamed up to link carbon markets and share knowledge in many areas. In the U.S., governors are working together in the U.S. Climate Alliance to fill the vacuum left by the Trump administration's efforts to dismantle U.S. climate policies and programs. Despite intense pressure from fossil fuel industry lobbyists, the governors of 22 states and two territories are creating policies that take steps to reduce emissions from buildings, power generation and transportation. Together, they represent more than half the U.S. population and nearly 60% of its economy. Tactics for fighting deforestation In Ecuador, provinces like Morona Santiago, Pastaza, and Zamora Chinchipe are designing management and financing partnerships with Indigenous territories for protecting more than 4 million hectares of forests through a unique collaboration called the Plataforma Amazonica. Brazilian states, including Mato Grosso, have been using remote-sensing technologies to crack down on illegal land clearing, while states like Amapá and Amazonas are developing community-engaged bioeconomy plans – think increased jobs through sustainable local fisheries and producing super fruits like acaí. Acre, Pará and Tocantins have programs that allow communities to sell carbon credits for forest preservation to companies. States in Mexico, including Jalisco, Yucatán and Oaxaca, have developed sustainable supply chain certification programs to help reduce deforestation. Programs like these can increase the economic value in some of foods and beverages, from avocados to honey to agave for tequila. There are real signs of success: Deforestation has dropped significantly in Indonesia compared with previous decades, thanks in large part to provincially led sustainable forest management efforts. In East Kalimantan, officials have been pursuing policy reforms and working with plantation and forestry companies to reduce forests destruction to protect habitat for orangutans. It's no wonder that philanthropic and business leaders from many sectors are turning to state and provincial policymakers, rather than national governments. These subnational governments have the ability to take timely and effective action. Working together to find solutions Backing many of these efforts to slow deforestation is the Governors' Climate and Forests Task Force, which California's then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger helped launch in 2008. It is the world's only subnational governmental network dedicated to protecting forests, reducing emissions and making people's lives better across the tropics. Today, the task force includes 43 states and provinces from 11 countries. They cover more than one-third of the world's tropical forests. That includes all of Brazil's Legal Amazon region, more than 85% of the Peruvian Amazon, 65% of Mexico's tropical forests and over 60% of Indonesia's forests. From a purely environmental perspective, subnational governments and governors must balance competing interests that do not always align with environmentalists' ideals. Pará state, for example, is building a 13 kilometer road to ease traffic that cuts through rainforest. California's investments in its Lithium Valley, where lithium used to make batteries is being extracted near the Salton Sea, may result in economic benefits within California and the U.S., while also generating potential environmental risks to air and water quality. Each governor has to balance the needs of farmers, ranchers and other industries with protecting the forests and other ecosystems, but those in the task force are finding pragmatic solutions. This week, two dozen or more subnational leaders from Brazil, Mexico, Peru, Indonesia and elsewhere gathered in Rio Branco, Brazil, for a conference on protecting tropical rainforests. They'll also be ironing out some important details for developing what they call a 'new forest economy' for protecting and restoring ecosystems while creating jobs and boosting economies. Protecting tropical forest habitat while also creating jobs and economic opportunities is not easy. In 2023, data show the planet was losing rainforest equivalent to 10 soccer fields a minute, and had lost more than 7% since 2000. But states and cities are taking big steps while many national governments can't even agree on which direction to head. It's time to pay attention more to the states. Mary Nichols is a Distinguished Counsel for the Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, University of California, Los Angeles. The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts. External Link © The Conversation
