Association of Irritated Residents v. California Air Resources Board

A California appellate court held that CARB did not violate the statutory requirements of the Global Warming Solutions Act, otherwise known as AB 32, in approving a strategy to implement the statute.  In particular, the court held that CARB did not disregard the law or act arbitrarily or capriciously in adopting the scoping plan.

A California state appellate court granted CARB’s request for a stay of a May 2011 injunction that had stopped its work implementing the state’s cap-and-trade program.  The court lifted the injunction imposed by the trial court following that court’s holding that CARB had not adequately weighed alternatives to the cap-and-trade system and other measures when it adopted a strategy to implement AB 32.  [Editor’s note: Shortly after this decision was issued, CARB announced that it was nonetheless postponing the start of the cap-and-trade program by one year.]

The California Court of Appeal temporarily lifted the May 20 order enjoining the California Air Resources Board from taking steps to implement its AB 32 cap-and-trade program until opposition briefs could be filed.

Filing Year For Action

On September 28, 2011, the California Supreme Court rejected the petition by plaintiffs to grant a temporary stay of CARB’s implementation of AB 32 pending the plaintiffs’ appeal of the June 2011 decision.  Thus the program may go into effect.

Environmental justice advocates filed a petition with the California Supreme Court seeking to prevent CARB from continuing to implement its GHG cap-and-trade program.  The petitioners are requesting that the court review an appellate court decision that allowed the program to proceed after a trial court injunction had blocked its implementation, and claim that the appellate court erred when it stayed enforcement of the injunction pending the state’s appeal of the trial court’s decision.

Filing Year For Action

The court approved an expanded environmental analysis of alternatives to a cap and trade program for implementing AB 32.

On May 23, 2011, CARB appealed the order.

On May 20, 2011, a California state court issued an order holding that CARB must not take any additional steps to implement its greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program until it completes an adequate environmental analysis of the program.

A California state court issued an order enjoining the state from implementing its recently adopted GHG emissions cap-and-trade program pursuant to AB 32. A blog entry describing the decision and its effect is available here.