Description: Lawsuit alleging that provisions of 2017 scoping plan under the Global Warming Solutions Act are unlawful, unconstitutional, and exacerbate poverty.
The Two Hundred v. California Air Resources Board
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 11/21/2018 Complaint Download First amended complaint filed. 10/26/2018 Order Download Order issued sustaining demurrer in part and overruling in part. California Court Allowed Plaintiffs Challenging Greenhouse Gas Scoping Plan to Pursue Some Claims, Amend Others. On October 26, 2018, a California Superior Court found that a group of civil rights leaders had sufficiently alleged claims that the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) Scoping Plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions violated substantive due process and the California Clean Air Act and was ultra vires. For claims under the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), the court said it would not sustain CARB’s demurrer based on CARB’s argument that the Scoping Plan contained only optional recommendations; the court also found that the plaintiffs had alleged “sufficient facts to raise an inference of causation between the Scoping Plan and the alleged disparate impact on minority communities.” The court further found, however, that the FHA and FEHA claims were not ripe but allowed the plaintiffs leave to amend these claims. The court also found that the plaintiffs had failed to allege an equal protection claim or claims under the Administrative Procedure Act, but allowed leave to amend these claims as well. 04/27/2018 Petition for Writ of Mandate Download Verified petition for writ of mandate and complaint filed. Civil Rights Leaders Challenged Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures. A group of civil rights leaders filed a lawsuit in April 2018 in California Superior Court to challenge measures in the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) 2017 Scoping Plan under the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The petitioners said the measures were unlawful, unconstitutional, and would exacerbate a housing-induced poverty crisis. Their petition asserted that CARB’s “cumulative gap” reduction metric, which required a “straight line trajectory” to reach the 2030 greenhouse gas emissions reductions target, was unlawful. The petition also identified four housing measures that the petitioners alleged would be counterproductive and would disproportionately harm minorities: (1) a “standalone” vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction requirement, (2) a “net zero” greenhouse gas threshold for all projects subject to CEQA, (3) per-capita greenhouse gas targets for local climate action plans, and (4) “Vibrant Communities” policies that incorporate the foregoing standards. The petition asserted violations of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, the Federal Housing Act and Department of Housing and Urban Development regulations, CEQA, the California Administrative Procedure Act, the California Health and Safety Code, and the Congestion Management Plan Law. The petitioners also asserted violations of due process and equal protection and that CARB acted outside its authority.