Sep 18: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit,   Case No. 12-15131 & 12-15135. Appeal from the   United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. In this   partially split decision, the panel affirmed in   part and reversed in part the district court's summary judgment, and vacated the   district court's preliminary injunction and remanded in an action which alleged   that California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard, violated the dormant Commerce Clause   and was preempted by Section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o).   There were many parties in the case and a number of states including   Michigan filed an amicus brief opposing the California standard.   The court staff summarized   the opinion as follows:   
      The panel held that the Fuel Standard's ethanol provisions were   not facially discriminatory, and reversed that portion of the district court's   decision and remanded for entry of partial summary judgment in favor of   California Air Resources Board ("CARB"). The panel also reversed the district   court's decision that the Fuel Standard was an impermissible
  extraterritorial regulation and the panel   directed that an order of partial summary judgment be entered in favor of CARB   on those grounds. The panel remanded the case for the district court to   determine whether the ethanol provisions discriminate in purpose or effect and,   if not, to apply the balancing test established in Pike v. Bruce Church,   Inc.,   397
  U.S. 137 (1970).
   
      The panel affirmed the   district court's conclusion that the Fuel Standard's crude oil provisions (the   2011 Provisions), were not facially discriminatory, but reversed the district   court's holding that the 2011 Provisions were   discriminatory in purpose and effect. The panel   directed the district court to enter an order of partial summary judgment in   favor of CARB on those issues. The panel remanded to the district court to apply   the Pike balancing test to the 2011   Provisions.
   
      The panel affirmed the   district court's conclusion that Section 211(c)(4)(b) of the Clean Air Act does   not insulate California from scrutiny under the dormant Commerce Clause.
   
      The panel remanded to the   district court with instructions to vacate the preliminary injunction. The panel   expressed no opinion on plaintiffs' claim that the Fuel Standard is preempted by the federal Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). The panel   also expressed no opinion on CARB's claim that the savings clause in the Energy   Independence and Security Act of 2007 precludes   implied preemption by the RFS.
   
      Concurring in part and   dissenting in part, Judge Murguia agreed with the majority's conclusions   concerning the crude oil regulations and preemption under the Clean Air Act. She   dissented from the majority's conclusion that ethanol   regulations do not facially discriminate against interstate   commerce.
   
      In part, the Appeals   Court stated: "California should be encouraged to continue and to expand its   efforts to find a workable solution to lower carbon emissions, or to slow their   rise. If no such solution is found, California residents and people worldwide   will suffer great harm. We will not at the outset block California from   developing this innovative, nondiscriminatory regulation to impede global   warming. If the Fuel Standard works, encouraging the development of alternative   fuels by those who would like to reach the California market, it will help ease   California's climate risks and inform other states as they attempt to confront   similar challenges."
    Tim O'Connor, Director of   Environmental Defense Fund's (EDF's) California Climate Initiatives commented on   the decision saying, "This is a great day for public health and the economy of   California. The court clearly upheld a groundbreaking policy that will protect   consumers and the environment by diversifying our fuel mix and providing more   choices for a clean energy future."
    Natural Resources   Defense Council (NRDC) Senior Attorney, David Pettit said, "Today's victory   ensures Californians are given better, cleaner choices at the fuel pump, which   is something everyone can support. This policy will spur American ingenuity to   produce cleaner fuels with fewer impacts to our environment. The standard is   working to reduce pollution while decreasing the state's reliance on oil. "We're   already on track to achieve these goals, and today's ruling reaffirms California   as a national leader for common sense actions to curb climate   change."
   
      Access the complete   opinion and partial dissent (click   here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access a   release from EDF (click   here). [#Energy/Fuel, #Climate, #MIEnergy/Fuel, #MIClimate,   #CA9]  
 
No comments:
Post a Comment