Skip to content
The Climate Litigation Database

California Chamber of Commerce v. California Air Resources Board

About this case

Filing year
2012
Status
Opinion issued upholding cap-and-trade program.
Docket number
C075930, C075954
Court/admin entity
United StatesState CourtsCal. Ct. App.
Case category
Carbon Offsets and CreditsRegulatoryState Law ClaimsIndustry Lawsuits
Principal law
United StatesCalifornia Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32)United StatesState ConstitutionsCalifornia Constitution
At issue
Challenge to auction of greenhouse gas allowances.
Topics
, ,

Documents

Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics 
Beta
Search results
04/06/2017
Opinion issued upholding cap-and-trade program.
In a split opinion, the California Court of Appeal upheld California’s cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gas emissions. The court ruled that the state legislature had given the California Air Resources Board “broad discretion” to design a system for reducing emissions and that the auction of emissions allowances did not exceed the scope of CARB’s delegated authority. The court further found that the legislature’s subsequent specification of how to spend the auction proceeds ratified use of the auction system. The court also held that auction sales of the emissions allowances were not a tax (which would have been barred unless approved by a two-thirds supermajority of the legislature) because purchase of the allowances was voluntary and because the allowances were “valuable, tradable commodities, conferring on the holder the privilege to pollute.” The purchase of allowances therefore did not bear the “hallmarks” of a tax. One justice dissented from the holding that the sale of the allowances did not constitute a tax. The dissenting justice contended that the purchase of allowances was not voluntary, that the allowances did not confer property rights, and that the court should have considered the use of the auction proceeds as relevant to the question of whether the sales were a tax. The dissenting justice further indicated that he was not convinced by the State’s labeling of “wide and varied uses” of the auction proceeds as “uses that address (not necessarily reduce), however tangentially, greenhouse gas emissions.” Counsel for one set of plaintiffs indicated that its clients would appeal to the California Supreme Court.
Decision

Summary

Challenge to auction of greenhouse gas allowances.

 Topics mentioned most in this case  
Beta

See how often topics get mentioned in this case and view specific passages of text highlighted in each document. Accuracy is not 100%. Learn more

Group
Topics
Target
Policy instrument
Risk
Impacted group
Just transition
Renewable energy
Fossil fuel
Greenhouse gas
Economic sector