Description: Challenge to California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard.
-
POET, LLC v. California Air Resources Board
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 05/30/2017 Opinion Download Modified opinion issued reversing discharge of writ of mandate. The California Court of Appeal issued a slightly modified opinion regarding the California Air Resources Board's (CARB) lack of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act in relation to CARB's issuance of the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. CARB and Natural Resources Defense Council sought rehearing to clarify ambiguities in the April 10, 2017 opinion and also asked the court to reconsider its determination that CARB had not acted in good faith in responding to the court's 2013 directive. In its modified opinion, the court clarified that the "freeze" that kept the 2017 standards in place pending CARB's compliance with CEQA applied only to carbon intensity standards for diesel fuel and its substitutes. The court also indicated that its conclusions regarding the appropriate scope of the "project" to be considered in the CEQA review was limited to the circumstances of this case. The court did not modify the language regarding CARB's lack of good faith. 04/10/2017 Opinion Download California Court of Appeal Found Fault (Again) with CARB’s Assessment of Increased Nitrogen Oxide Emissions Associated with Low Carbon Fuel Standard. On April 10, 2017, the California Court of Appeal ruled that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) had failed, for a second time, to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in its promulgation of a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). In 2013, the court identified CEQA violations in CARB’s original LCFS and directed CARB to correct the violations. The primary issue that CARB was to consider was the potential increase in nitrogen oxide emissions associated with increased biodiesel consumption. In its April 2017 decision, the Court of Appeal concluded that CARB had failed to comply with the court’s 2013 directive because CARB had improperly used 2014 emissions of nitrogen oxides as a baseline for its review of the LCFS adopted in 2015, rather than emissions levels prior to the adoption of the original LCFS in 2009. The appellate court determined that it would be appropriate and in the public interest, however, to leave the remainder of the LCFS regulations in place and to allow the 2017 standards for diesel fuel and its substitutes to remain in effect until CARB remedied the CEQA violations. 03/20/2017 Tentative Ruling Download Tentative ruling issued. California Appellate Court Indicated CARB Would Have to Redo CEQA Review for Low Carbon Fuel Standard. The California Court of Appeal issued a tentative ruling in its review of the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) compliance with a 2013 ruling that CARB had not complied with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) when it first adopted its Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). The court—which provided the tentative ruling to guide counsel at oral argument on March 23—indicated that CARB had failed to comply with its earlier directives concerning the CEQA review. The appellate court said that on remand CARB had misinterpreted the scope of the “project” under review in a way that was “not objectively reasonable” and had used an inappropriate baseline for nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions. (NOx emissions associated with potential increased biodiesel use under the LCFS were the primary substantive concern of the court’s 2013 ruling.) The appellate court said that CARB had resolved the question of whether increased biodiesel usage would result in increase NOx emissions in the affirmative but said that questions regarding whether the LCFS would cause increased biodiesel usage remained open and would have to be resolved on remand. The court indicated that the parties should assume that the order discharging the 2013 writ would be reversed, and that parties should be prepared to address the functional impacts of severing the biodiesel provisions from the remainder of the LCFS and what standards should remain “frozen in place” while CARB undertook the additional CEQA review. -
POET, LLC v. California Air Resources Board
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 11/20/2013 Order Download Petition for review denied. The California Supreme Court denied the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB's) petition for review of the appellate court decision. The court also denied CARB’s depublication request for the appellate court’s decision. -
POET, LLC v. California Air Resources Board
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 08/08/2013 Order Rehearing denied. The California Court of Appeal denied CARB’s petition for rehearing of the court’s July 15 decision that found procedural and substantive defects in CARB’s approval of the state’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard. The court also certified the entire opinion filed on July 15 for publication.
07/15/2013 Opinion Download Final disposition issued. The California Court of Appeal issued a final disposition reversing the trial court’s denial of the challenge to the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). While stating that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) “satisfied a vast majority of the applicable legal requirements,” the court concluded that CARB had committed procedural errors in its consideration of the LCFS by, among other things, prematurely approving the LCFS prior to completion of the environmental review. The court also ruled that CARB had improperly deferred the formulation of mitigation measures for potential increases in nitrogen oxide emissions from biodiesel without committing to specific performance criteria for judging the efficacy of the future mitigation measures. The appellate court directed the trial court to issue a writ of mandate directing CARB to set aside its approval of the LCFS but permitting the LCFS to remain in effect while CARB took action to rectify the errors identified in the appellate court’s decision. 06/03/2013 Memorandum Opinion Download Tentative disposition issued. The appellate court issued a tentative disposition reversing the superior court’s granting of judgment in favor of the defendants. With respect to the procedural challenges, the appellate court’s tentative disposition found that the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) was approved for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) purposes on April 25, 2010 and that the decision-making function had been improperly split between the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and its executive officer. With respect to the substantive challenge, the tentative disposition determined that CARB violated CEQA by deferring the formulation of mitigation measures to address potential increases in NOx emissions from the increased use of biodiesel fuels caused by the LCFS. The appellate court noted that its tentative disposition would not suspend operation of the LCFS and requested input from the parties as to the terms of its disposition of the proceeding, including as to deadlines for CARB actions, whether the LCFS should remain in effect pending CARB’s actions in response to the disposition, whether the court should dictate that public comment be permitted on the issue of carbon intensity values attributed to land use changes, the proper framework for considering NOx emissions, and whether CARB should be required to file an initial return setting forth how it will comply with the writ to be issued by the superior court. The parties were required to respond by June 11, 2013. -
POET, LLC v. California Air Resources Board
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 11/27/2018 Order Order issued discharging writ of mandate. 12/18/2017 Response Respondents filed initial return to modified writ of mandate. 11/02/2012 Decision Petition denied. In a companion case to several lawsuits filed in federal court challenging California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), a corn ethanol producer filed a lawsuit in California state court challenging the LCFS. Among other things, the lawsuit alleged that CARB violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the California Health and Safety Code in establishing the standard. The superior court denied the petition and complaint and granted judgment for the defendants. Plaintiff appealed.