Energy Exchange

The parties involved in the lawsuit “Association of Irritated Residents v. California Air Resources Board (CARB)” filed objections yesterday to the judge’s tentative ruling that could lead to a temporary suspension of the state’s landmark climate change plan.

Given the breadth of the materials filed in this suit and the scope of the  ruling, the arguments in the objections were both expected and appropriate. In fact, they shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. 

As our post explained last week, the AB 32 Scoping Plan is a unique document that defines how California will cut global warming pollution to 1990 levels by 2020 while protecting our economy and attracting billions of investment dollars in companies with innovative clean energy technologies.

Petitioners, representing environmental justice interests, sued the state more than a year ago to block the plan’s implementation. On January 24^th, the San Francisco Superior Court judge hearing the case issued a tentative ruling telling CARB that the package of measures in the plan was legal but that the analysis of the alternatives to those measures, and the process used to pass the plan, was defective. 

So what happens now? Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1590, the court may order a hearing from which a final ruling would follow a maximum of 10 days later.  Without a hearing, we expect to see a ruling within 50 days from the date the tentative decision was filed or before March 15^th.

One of the most important aspects of the state’s objections, as EDF sees it, is the request for more clarity on what the court found was wrong with the process, and what part of the plan it intends to stop or ‘enjoin’ in its decision. 

More certainty on these issues is vital. For California to cut pollution as required, improve its air quality and protect and grow its economy, CARB and other state agencies need to use all of the tools at their disposal. They also need certainty that important initiatives—such as the Million Solar Roofs program, the 33% renewable portfolio standard, and energy efficiency standards—can proceed. 

While we aren’t going to prejudge whether the state met its burden to study alternative approaches to cap-and-trade, we are confident that whatever final decision the court makes, the state can and will take the steps needed so that it can continue implementing the Scoping Plan’s wide range of measures, including its emissions-trading program that’s scheduled to start in January 2012.

Though the parties are on opposite sides of the court, there is one common thread running through this case: both sides appear to be committed to making sure the state’s decision-making process, and the implications of those decisions, are analyzed in an open forum.  California’s Environmental Quality Act demands it, as does the environment, and all California citizens and communities deserve it.

A Superior Court in San Francisco issued a tentative ruling last week in a lawsuit filed in 2009 by environmental justice (EJ) groups. The groups are asserting that the state’s Air Resources Board (CARB) failed to comply with statutory requirements of AB 32 and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) when it adopted the law’s Scoping Plan—the blueprint for cutting pollution to 1990 levels by 2020—in late 2008.

The tentative ruling affirms CARB’s authority, under AB 32, to pursue a market-based cap-and-trade program combined with an extensive list of other emissions reduction measures. The court’s finding aligns with arguments EDF made about AB 32’s broad grant of authority in an amicus brief filed for the case last July. The ruling also states that CARB should have more fully assessed alternatives to emissions trading in its companion CEQA document. In response to this finding, the court requests that state regulators halt implementation of AB 32 and complete further analysis. The court also raised a larger question about whether one of CARB’s long-standing procedures for regulatory adoption is potentially flawed at meeting the ‘spirit of the [CEQA] law,’ an issue that will likely warrant further attention.

What happens next will be determined once the state and plaintiffs file another round of paperwork in the coming days. Under California Rule of Court 3.1590, CARB has 15 days after the release of the tentative ruling to file an objection. While the court said that CARB should not implement the Scoping Plan (which includes roughly 70 measures) until the deficiencies are fixed, it is hard to imagine that putting in place other measures—ranging from using more renewable energy to improving building efficiency—would be barred by the order.

A likely outcome of the tentative ruling is that CARB will release more analysis of regulatory program alternatives to reduce greenhouse gases in the context of the Scoping Plan, something the agency did extensive work on while this case was moving forward. The judge will determine what procedure CARB must use to make the alternatives analysis public. As it releases this additional analysis, CARB can simultaneously appeal the court’s decision (once it becomes final).

It’s worth noting that both CARB and the California Department of Public Health evaluated the potential impacts of a cap-and-trade program and found that the regulation was not likely to cause any adverse impacts to public health and welfare—especially if money raised from the program is reinvested in California communities to help protect against the impacts of climate change.

Though the ultimate outcome of the lawsuit and precise next steps are uncertain at this point, EDF believes the process will be completed in plenty of time to allow California’s ground breaking cap-and-trade program to start on schedule next January. Given the urgency of transitioning to cleaner sources of energy and unlocking the potential for economic and job growth, this would be good news for California.