The Department of Environmental Quality proposed amendments to regulations governing fees for environmental operating permits, licenses, and inspection services. The amendments would consolidate environmental fees into a single chapter, beginning with wastewater treatment facilities, while also considering fees for the Department’s recycled water program to offset associated costs. A hearing will be held April 17, 2024. Comments are due May 1, 2024.
The Department of Environmental Protection proposed amendments to regulations governing on-site sewage treatment and disposal systems. The amendments would clarify auditing and enforcement requirements for the installation of certain septic sewer systems. Comments are due April 19, 2024. See https://www.flrules.org/Gateway/View_notice.asp?id=28212467.
The Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control proposed amendments to regulations governing the Title V State Operating Permit Program. The amendments would remove emergency affirmative defense provisions and references to maintain consistency with current federal requirements. A hearing will be held April 25, 2024. Comments are due the same date.
The Structural Pest Control Board proposed amendments to regulations governing fumigation and pesticide use standards and record requirements. The amendments would streamline reporting requirements for structural pest control applications by relocating information into a new standardized form, incorporating industry standards such as time of application and pesticide identification, clarifying supervision requirements for non-certified applicators, and making non-substantive edits for clarity. Comments are due May 14, 2024.
The Energy Commission proposed amendments to regulations governing building energy efficiency standards. The amendments would, among other things, introduce and update prescriptive heat pump requirements for various building types, update standards for solar photovoltaic systems and energy storage, increase efficiency standards for building envelopes and conditioning systems, improve indoor air quality requirements, establish electric-ready requirements for domestic water heating systems, and increase efficiency standards for laboratories.
The Air Resources Board proposed amendments to the Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) regulation and the Zero Emission Powertrain Certification test procedure.
Concerned by methane’s potent climate-altering emissions, a growing number of states and municipalities have embraced the phaseout of natural gas as a tool to mitigate climate change. But in April 2023, the California Restaurant Association successfully petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to overturn the city of Berkeley’s ban on natural gas infrastructure in new buildings. The three-judge panel found the ban preempted by the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act, and in January 2024, the Ninth Circuit denied Berkeley’s petition for rehearing.
Over the last three decades, numerous studies have concluded that African American, Hispanic, Native American, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, and working-class White communities are disproportionately exposed to environmental harms and risks. More recent studies have concluded that although the adverse effects of climate change are being felt throughout the United States, they are not evenly distributed. This Article explores how several states have initiated climate justice litigation to address this issue.
On October 7, 2023, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the most far-reaching corporate climate disclosure (CCD) requirements in the United States. This so-called California Climate Accountability Package consists of the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act (Senate Bill (SB) 253), which requires certain companies to disclose greenhouse gas emission data, and the Climate-Related Financial Risk Act (SB 261), which requires certain companies to disclose climate-related financial risks.
On January 17, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce.