Association of Irritated Residents v. California Air Resources Board

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.

A California Superior Court issued a tentative ruling setting aside CARB’s certification of the scoping plan for implementing AB 32.  In its ruling, the court concluded that CARB failed to adequately consider alternatives to cap-and-trade and other climate programs under the law.  The court rejected plaintiffs’ claims that the scoping plan failed to comply with the statutory requirements of A.B. 32 and that under CEQA, CARB was required to provide a detailed environmental analysis of each of the measures and programs prescribed by the scoping plan.  However, the court accepted plaintiffs’ claims that the analysis CARB provided was lacking facts and data to support the agency’s conclusions in its environmental document.

Environmental justice advocates filed a lawsuit challenging the plan of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to implement the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (also known as AB 32).  The complaint alleged that the plan failed to minimize greenhouse gas emissions and protect vulnerable communities as required by the Act.  Plaintiffs also alleged that CARB violated CEQA in approving the plan.  The complaint sought an injunction preventing implementation of the plan until CARB brought it into compliance with AB 32.