EPA Proposes to Require Petroleum and Natural Gas Facilities To Report GHG Emissions
On March 22, 2010, EPA signed a proposed rulemaking that would require petroleum and natural gas facilities emitting 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent or more to report GHG emissions including methane, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide. The proposed rule amends the GHG Mandatory Reporting Rule that was issued on October 30, 2009, which excluded the petroleum and natural gas facilities from the reporting requirements pending further study.
On March 15, the California Supreme Court in Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District ruled that the South Coast Air Quality Management District violated the California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA when it failed to prepare an environmental impact report before approving a major refinery project in the Los Angeles area. (
Interestingly, PG&E gets at least 51 percent of its power from no-emissions hydroelectric and nuclear power sources, but unlike wind and solar power facilities those sources aren't considered renewable under California law.
A story from the New York Times, published March 3rd underscores what we have been saying for over a year: green leases -- or commercial leases that draw on the benefits of sustainability -- are attracting the attention of both tenants and investors. 
The story, "Seeing the Investor Value in Being Green," reports that a German real estate investment company, Jamestown Properties, has proclaimed that it will go "green" in its entire $4 billion portfolio of buildings here in the U.S. According to the New York Times, Jamestown will overhaul its existing properties by installing low-flow water fixtures and better lighting, by revamping heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems, and even by adding bike-share stations to some of its buildings. Jamestown expects to spend between $3 million and $10 million to retrofit its properties, the Times reported. (
The proposal is controversial because some critics say that with Los Angeles facing a $484 million budget deficit this year and with the potential for layoffs and huge cuts to city services, it's not a good time to charge consumers for new services -- no matter how well intentioned. But Villaraigosa contends that a majority of citizens (64 percent) in a recent poll agree with the proposed surcharge and would welcome it.
