United States: Court Upholds Use Of Offset Credits In California’s Cap-And-Trade Program

Last Updated: February 4 2013
Article by Kevin Poloncarz and Ben Carrier


On January 25, 2013, the San Francisco Superior Court, Judge Ernest Goldsmith presiding, denied a challenge to the California Air Resources Board's (CARB) Cap-and-Trade Regulation. Citizens Climate Lobby and Our Children's Earth Foundation v. CARB, Cal. Super. Ct., No. CGC-12-5195544 (Jan. 25, 2013). The lawsuit sought to invalidate the use of a standards-based approach for determining whether projects should be awarded offset credits, which can be used by entities subject to the Cap-and-Trade Program to meet a portion of their obligation. While the Court's decision represents a significant victory for CARB, it does little to assure that a robust supply of offsets will be available to meet demand, at least during the early years of program implementation.


The Cap-and-Trade Regulation establishes an overall limit on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from capped sectors in California, and entities subject to the cap (covered entities) must surrender "compliance instruments" equivalent to their GHG emissions to CARB. Compliance instruments include both allowances, which are tradable permits that are equal to the cap, and offset credits, which represent GHG reductions achieved in sectors that are outside of the cap. Each offset credit is equal to one allowance (i.e., one metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e)) and can only be issued by CARB for achieving emissions reductions through implementation of an offset project pursuant to one of CARB's approved compliance offset protocols. Currently, there are four approved offset protocols: Livestock Projects, Ozone Depleting Substances Projects, Urban Forest Projects, and U.S. Forest Projects. Covered entities can meet up to 8% of their compliance obligation through use of offsets.

The Legal Challenge

The state law authorizing CARB to create a cap-and-trade program-AB 32--requires GHG reductions under any cap-and-trade program to be "in addition to...any other [GHG] emission reduction that would otherwise occur." California Health & Safety Code § 35862(d)(2). This case, brought by two environmental groups philosophically opposed to emissions trading programs, concerns how CARB satisfied this statutory mandate. In particular, Petitioners Citizens Climate Lobby and Our Children's Earth Foundation challenged the Cap-and-Trade Regulation's offset protocols, alleging that AB 32 foreclosed CARB's use of a standards-based approach.

As the Court observes, demonstrating the "additionality" of reductions has proven difficult under other GHG reduction programs, most notably the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change's (UNFCC) Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), because it is inherently a counter-factual question: would a project achieving reductions have gone forward without the additional revenue obtained through sale of an offset?1

CARB's Cap-and-Trade Regulation defines emissions reductions as additional if they "exceed any [GHG] reductions or removals that would otherwise occur in a conservative business-as-usual scenario." Cap-and-Trade Regulation, 17 Cal. Code Reg. § 95802(a)(4). In turn, a business-as-usual scenario is "the set of conditions reasonably expected to occur within the offset project boundary in the absence of the financial incentives provided by offset credits..." (id. § 95802(a)(34)) and "[c]onservative means, in the context of offsets, utilizing project baseline assumptions, emission factors, and methodologies that are more likely than not to understate net GHG reductions...for an offset project..." Id. § 95802(a)(58).

Petitioners did not challenge these definitions, but rather contended that the four approved offset protocols, each in their own way, failed to ensure that the reductions will, in fact, be additional. Statement of Decision, at 12, 21. CARB's protocols-and the Climate Action Reserve protocols that served as their basis-use a standardized approach to determine whether a type of offset project is additional and then employ project-by-project mechanisms to quantify the actual reductions from particular projects. Id. at 12. Petitioners argued that this "standards-based approach" transgressed CARB's authority under AB 32 because it allowed non-additional reductions, e.g., trees that would have been planted by utilities in any event or digesters that would have been installed by dairies to avoid nuisance claims or water pollution, to qualify for offset credits. Id. at 21. As the Court put it, the heart of Petitioners' objections was that, by allowing non-additional reductions to qualify as offsets, the price of offsets would plummet, causing capped industries to rely upon illusory reductions rather than make real reductions, thereby defeating AB 32's goals. Id. at 6.2

The Standard of Review and Decision

The Court decided that, in light of the importance of additionality to assuring AB 32's goals of achieving emissions reductions, it would apply the less deferential de novo standard to the question of "whether the legislature delegated to [CARB] the authority to use a standards-based approach to determine additionality." Id. Despite applying this standard, the Court ultimately found that CARB's use of a standards-based approach is consistent with AB 32. Id. at 25. As the Court states, "[t]he Legislature gave no indication as to a preferred additionality mechanism, only that there must be one." Id. at 23. Dismissing Petitioners' reliance on precedent concerning a ban on importing products containing "any" kangaroo, the Court essentially found that, while it is easy to determine whether a product contains any kangaroo, it is not so easy to determine whether a reduction is additional and AB 32 provided CARB the latitude to make this determination. Id.

The Court also dismissed Petitioners' attempts to call into question the additionality of specific projects; according to the Court, "[w]hether a particular digester, ODS program, or tree is additional has no bearing on whether the Legislature delegated to respondent the power to use a standards based approach." Id. at 24. Underscoring the importance of what was at stake, the Court said that, if it were to decide that CARB transgressed its authority every time a credited reduction proved to be non-additional, "[CARB] would have to abandon any use of offsets, and perhaps the entire cap-and trade program." Id. At bottom, according to the Court, what Petitioners sought was for the Court to "[r]ewrite the statute to forbid the use of offsets" (id.), which it could not do.3

The Court's decision to apply the less deferential do novo standard to the fundamental question and to nevertheless find, after a close examination of the record, that CARB's standards-based approach was consistent with AB 32 may better insulate the decision from an appeal. On the contrary, it might also provide Petitioners hope that appealing-which they will have until March 26, 2013 to do-will result in a more sympathetic set of eyes and a reversal on this central holding.

It should not be lost on Petitioners, however, that this decision was issued by the same judge who previously dealt CARB a major setback in halting development of the Cap-and-Trade Program (in a case concerning whether CARB had adequately considered alternatives to cap-and-trade in its initial Scoping Plan and largely concerning the problems with emissions trading programs and offsets).4 Given that Judge Goldsmith had previously shown little sympathy to CARB's development of the program, his decision to uphold CARB's approach in this case should only serve to underscore its own rootedness in application of the appropriate legal standard to the facts.


The decision in Citizens Climate Lobby is a victory-both for CARB and for its supporting Intervenors-because allowing covered entities to satisfy their compliance obligation with up to 8% offsets represents one of the Cap-and-Trade Program's primary cost-containment mechanisms. Coupled with the successful first auction for allowances in November 2012 (in which all of the 2013 allowance were sold), this decision upholding a central element of the Cap-and-Trade Program should provide a welcome shot in the arm to CARB's efforts, notwithstanding other pending litigation challenging the authority of CARB to hold an auction in the first place.5

The decision does little, however, to assure the existence of a robust offsets supply. Even before the lawsuit was filed, a shortfall was projected, at least for the first few years of the Cap-and-Trade Program's implementation. While this ruling should at least remove the uncertainty that clouded the nascent offsets market over the past several months, as both project developers and covered entities may have found it difficult to invest in offsets while their validity remained in doubt, CARB still has much work to do to develop additional offset protocols, begin issuing offset credits and fully realize their cost-containment potential within the program.


1 The Court pointed out the elusive nature of additionality under even the CDM's project-by-project approach, where satisfying the so-called "barrier" test or "investment" test involves inherently subjective and vague questions, such as whether a given internal rate of return would be inadequate to cause a project to be built, but for the additional revenue stream provided by the sale of offsets. See Statement of Decision, at 8-11. Given the problems with the CDM's project-by-project approach, the Court found, in a finding that strongly presages its ultimate decision to uphold CARB's approach, that CARB's rejection of the CDM approach was both warranted, in light of the associated administrative complexity, delay and cost, and consistent with CARB's legislative grant of discretion. Id., at 11.

2 The Court noted that, even if Petitioners' concerns were valid, CARB designed its program so that offsets could not be relied upon for more than 85% of the required reductions, eliminating the risk that the standards-based approach would completely displace actual reductions within capped sectors. Id.

3 Applying the highly deferential arbitrary and capricious standard, the Court also rejected several specific challenges to each offset protocol's capacity to effectuate AB 32's goals. Id. at 26-27. The Court refused to wade into the detailed factual questions of whether, for example, cities would continue planting trees or appliance manufacturers would continue recovering and destroying ODS in the absence of offset revenue, and instead "defer[red] to [CARB's] expertise, experience, and sweeping grant of law-making powers." Id., at 30.

4 Association of Irritated Residents v. CARB, No. CPF-09-509562 (Cal Super. Ct., Jan. 24, 2011); No. A132165 (Cal. App. 1st Dist., Jun. 19, 2012).

5 California Chamber of Commerce v. CARB, No. 34-2012-80001313 (Cal. Super. Ct., filed Nov. 13, 2012) (challenging CARB's authority to conduct allowance auctions in which it is a participant).

The content of this article does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on in that way. Specific advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions