High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
FILE.D
SuperiorCourtofCah~ormacountyofSanFrancIsco
1
2
3
MAR182011
CLERKOFTHECOURT
BY-
--£_;..Q.~
.utyClerk
4
5
6
7
8
SUPERIORCOURTOFCALIFORNIACOUNTYOFSANFRANCISCO
9
10ASSOCIATIONOFIRRITATEDRESIDENTS,anunincorporatedassociation;CALIFORNIACOMMUNITIESAGAINSTTOXICS,anunincorporatedassociation;COMMUNITIESFORABETTERENVIRONMENT,anonprofitcorporation;COALITIONFORASAFEENVIRONMENT,anonprofitcorporation;SOCIETYFORPOSITIVEACTION,anunincorporatedassociation;WESTCOUNTYTOXICSCOALITION,anonprofitcorporation16ANGELAJOHNSONMESZAROS;CAROLINEFARRELL;HENRYCLARK;JESSEN.17MARQUEZ;MARTHADINAARGUELLO;SHABAKAHERD;TOMFRANTZ;
in
theirindividualcapacities,
)
))
))
))
)
)
)
))
)
))))))
21CALIFORNIAAIRRESOURCESBOARD,).-MARY-D~NICHOLS~innen)fficiaJ.ciipacity
as-..
T
22ChairmanoftheBoard;andDANIELSPERLING,)KENYEAGER,DORENED'ADAMO,)BARBARARIORDAN,JOHN
R.
BALMES,M.D.,)LYDIA
H.
KENNARD,SANDRABERG,RON)ROBERTS,JOHNG.TELLES,RONALDO.)LOVERIDGE,intheirofficialcapacitiesas)MembersoftheAirResourcesBoard,)
)
RespondentsandDefendants..)
----------------~----~------)
CaseNo.CPF-09-509562
11
STATEMENTOFDECISION:
12
13
ORDERGRANTINGINPARTPETITIONFORWRITOFMANDATE
1415Judge:Hon.ErnestH.GoldsmithDept:61318PetitionersandPlaintiffs,1920vs.23
24
25262728
Assn.ofIrritatedResidents,etalv.CaliforniaAirResourcesBoard--CGC-09-509562-STATEMENTOFDECISION:ORDERGRANTINGINPARTPETITIONFORWRITOFMANDATE
1
2
1ThisPetitionforWritofMandatecameonregularlyforhearingpursuanttonoticebefore2Hon.ErnestH.GoldsmithonDecember·19,2010.PetitionerswererepresentedbyAlegriaDeLa3Cruz,Esq.andBrentNewell,Esq.oftheCenteronRace,PovertyandtheEnvironment,and4AdrienneBloch,Esq.ofCommunitiesforaBetterEnvironment.Respondentswererepresented5byMark-Poole,Esq.andDavidZonana,Esq.oftheOfficeoftheAttorneyGeneralofCalifornia.6TheCourtissuedaTentativeStatementofDecisiononJanuary24,2011,towhichPetitionersand7Respondentssubmittedobjections.TheCourthasconsideredtheoralargumentandthepleadings8andobjectionssubmittedbytheparties,andissuesthisStatementofDecisiongrantinginpart9PetitionforWritofMandate.10'.
BACKGROUND
11
In
2006,theCaliforniaLegislaturepassedtheGlobalWarmingSolutionsActof200612("AB32")inresponsetothedangersposedtoCalifornia'senvironmentbythereleaseofman-13madeGreenhouseGases("GHGs").HealthandSafetyCode("HSC")§38500
etseq.
The14LegislaturedesignedthislandmarkstatutetoplaceCalifornia"attheforefrontofnationaland15internationaleffortstoreduceemissionsofgreenhousegases."
Id
at§38501(c).AB32tasksthe16CaliforniaAirResourcesBoard("ARB")withpreparingandapprovingaClimateChange17ScopingPlantocreatearegulatorypathforreducingGHGemissionsto1990levelsbytheyear182020.
Id
at§§.38501(a),38550.AB32describestheprocesstobefollowedbyARBincreating19andimplementingtheScopingPlan,andincludesprovisionsforenforcement.
Id
at§§38560-2038574,38580.21PetitionerschallengeARB'simplementationofAB32,assertingthatARBfailedtomeet22themandatorystatutoryrequirementsofAB32andtheCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct2324("CEQA")byessentiallytreatingtheScopingPlanasa
posthoc
rationalizationforARB'salreadychosenpolicyapproaches.
In
thefirstportionofthiscase,PetitionersarguethatinapprovingtheScopingPlan,ARBviolatedAB32by:(1)excludingwholesectorsoftheeconomyfromGHGemissionscontrolsandincludingacapandtradeprogramwithoutdeterminingwhetherpotential252627reductionmeasuresachievedmaximumtechnologicallyfeasibleandcosteffectivereductions;(2)28
Assn.ofIrritatedResidents,etalv.CalifomiaAirResourcesBoard--CGC-09-509562-STATEMENTOFDECISION:ORDERGRANTINGINPARTPETITIONFORWRITOFMANDATE
31failingtoadequatelyevaluatethetotalcostandtotalbenefitstotheenvironment,economyand2publichealthbeforeadoptingtheScopingPlan;and(3)failingtoconsiderallrelevant3informationregardingGHGemissionreductionprogramsthroughouttheUnitedStatesandthe4World,asrequiredbyAB32,priortorecommendingacapandtraderegulatoryapproach.5TheCEQAportionofthiscaseinvolvesPetitioners'challengetotheFunctional6EquivalentDocument("FED")preparedbyARBpursuanttoitscertifiedregulatoryprogram.The7FEDwaspreparedtoevaluatetheenvironmentalconsequencesassociatedwiththeScopingPlan.8PetitionersclaimthatARBviolatedbothCEQAandARB'sowncertifiedregulatoryprogramin9preparingandcertifyingtheFEDby:(1)failingtoadequatelyanalyzetheimpactsofthe10measuresdescribedintheScopingPlan;(2)failingtoadequatelyanalyzealternativestothe11ScopingPlan;and(3)impermissiblyapprovingandimplementingtheScopingPlanpriorto12completingitsenvironmentalreview.13
In
responsetoPetitioners'allegations,ARBassertsthatitscrupulouslycompliedwitheach14ofitsstatutorydutiesunderAB32and'eachofitsobligationsunderitscertifiedregulatory15programandCEQAbyconductingaprogrammaticreviewoftheScopingPlan.ARB16characterizesPetitioners'claimsasanattackonpolicydecisionsmadebyARB,particularlythe17.decisiontoincludecapandtradeaspartofthepreferredsuiteofchosenmeasures.18PetitionershaveoptedtomergetwoseparateanddistinctchallengestoARB's19implementationofAB32.First,PetitionersallegethatARBjmproperlyinterpretedandfailedto20complywithAB32.ARBactsinaquasi-legislativecapacityininterpretingandeffectuating21legislation.Accordingly,theCourthasappliedanarbitraryandcapriciousstandardofreviewCourtdeniesthePetitionforWritofMandatetodirectARBtorevisetheScopingPlanforthe23
24
reasonsstatedherein.25'Second,Petitioners'allegationsthatARBviolatedCEQAarereviewedbytheCourt
26
pursuanttoanabuseofdiscretionstandardofreview.TheCourtgrantsthePetitionandissuesa27PeremptoryWritofMandatecommandingARBtosetasideitscertificationoftheFEDand28
Assn.ofIrritatedResidents,etalv.CaliforniaAirResourcesBoard--CGC-09-509562-STATEMENTOFDECISION:ORDERGRANTINGINPARTPETITIONFORWRITOFMANDATE
Add a Comment