{"id":1551,"date":"2012-07-06T18:58:00","date_gmt":"2012-07-06T23:58:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?p=1551"},"modified":"2012-07-10T15:48:19","modified_gmt":"2012-07-10T20:48:19","slug":"california-court-of-appeals-finds-scoping-plan-for-greenhouse-gas-reduction-compliant-with-ab-32","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2012\/07\/06\/california-court-of-appeals-finds-scoping-plan-for-greenhouse-gas-reduction-compliant-with-ab-32\/","title":{"rendered":"California Court of Appeals Finds Scoping Plan for Greenhouse Gas Reduction Compliant with AB 32"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

By: Kathleen Kline, Intern<\/p>\n

On June 19, the California Court of Appeals upheld the Superior Court\u2019s decision dismissing a challenge to the state Air Resources Board (CARB or Board) by environmental justice advocates.\u00a0 Appellants, led by the Association of Irritated Residents (AIR), claimed the scoping plan CARB developed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is inadequate.\u00a0 The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, or AB 32, mandates a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and in order to reach this goal the scoping plan was developed in 2009.\u00a0 AIR\u2019s criticisms of the plan concern the use of a cap-and-trade program as its main regulatory scheme.<\/p>\n

Under cap-and-trade, a statewide limit on emissions is set, and emission allowances are divided and distributed among utilities, refineries, and other significant polluters, who can then make reductions in emissions themselves or purchase others\u2019 allowances through the market.\u00a0 Environmental justice advocates\u2019 main concern with this scheme is that it allows larger industries to avoid reducing their emissions by purchasing additional credits and offsets, and that this would have a disproportionate impact on low-income communities located near these pollution sources.\u00a0 These advocates asserted that other regulatory schemes should have been considered before the adoption of cap-and-trade, such as a tax on all carbon emissions, or a more consistent emissions limit, and that non-greenhouse gas pollutants should also be subject to regulation.\u00a0<\/p>\n

AB 32 mandated that CARB develop its scoping plan in order to \u201cachieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions in greenhouse gases\u201d through regulation and market mechanisms.\u00a0 Before implementing any scheme, the Board is required to assess the costs and benefits to the state\u2019s economy, environment, and public health.\u00a0 Particular concerns are equity between regulated entities and the impact on low-income communities.\u00a0 Appellants argued that CARB ignored these requirements in developing the plan by failing to compare the expected cost-effectiveness of cap-and-trade with that of similar regulatory schemes or emissions limits.\u00a0 Appellants believe that such comparisons would reveal cap-and-trade to be inefficient and less effective in controlling emissions than other schemes, such as a carbon tax.\u00a0 CARB responded that available modeling tools are insufficient to properly compare regulatory or market-based approaches to GHG reduction; therefore, only rough comparisons are possible and the resulting plan is designed to be updated as further data becomes available.<\/p>\n

AIR also claimed that CARB did not assess measures for the regulation of agricultural GHG emissions, and \u201climited its examination of air quality benefits to four sectors: electricity, fuel combustion, transportation fuels, and industry.\u201d\u00a0 This leaves the amount of emissions from other sectors unaddressed, and therefore increases the difficulty of reducing emissions statewide.\u00a0 From an environmental justice standpoint, and also in the context of AB 32\u2019s mandates, a disproportionate burden is placed on these four sectors if agriculture and other sources of GHG are not regulated. \u00a0CARB responded that the sectors it focused on account for roughly 85% of emissions; therefore, other sources are insignificant and its analyses conformed to the mandate.\u00a0 AIR also faulted the Board\u2019s analysis of emissions for being limited in its scope and \u201cnot including toxic air contaminants.\u201d\u00a0 Facilities producing high levels of GHG emissions also produce high levels of other pollutants, another major concern for low-income communities in industrial areas.\u00a0 CARB again responded that its analysis was sufficient, as assessment of additional contaminants was not mandated.<\/p>\n

The Court of Appeals upheld CARB\u2019s plan in its entirety.\u00a0 With respect to the appellants\u2019 preference for techniques other than cap-and-trade, the court declared, \u201cEven if other measures, such as inflexible emission limits or emission taxes might conceivably result in greater reductions, the Act does not call for maximum reductions without qualification, but for maximum reductions that are both feasible and cost-effective.\u00a0 The record reflects that the Board went to exceptional lengths to obtain informed and scholarly input on the complex scientific and economic issues that bear on these critical qualifications.\u00a0 While there are differences of opinion on many matters, AIR points to no recommendation in the plan, and no rejection of a suggested recommendation, for which substantial evidence was not presented and considered.\u201d<\/p>\n

Writing for a unanimous panel, Judge Pollak stated that AB 32 set ambitious goals for California, and these goals are necessarily challenging.\u00a0 He noted that the scoping plan is an initial step in the emissions reduction process, to which alterations will be made periodically, and \u201cit is hardly surprising that the scoping plan leaves some questions unanswered.\u201d\u00a0 Though incomplete, the plan was not found to be \u201carbitrary or capricious,\u201d and was supported by an extensive record of technical studies and public consultation; thus, it was found compliant with AB 32.<\/p>\n

This case highlights the difficulties of designing a fair, effective, efficient, and politically feasible scheme to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on a statewide scale.\u00a0 Though it provides a strong outline and officially conforms to the statute\u2019s requirements, it is likely that CARB\u2019s scoping plan will be updated before the 2020 reduction goals are met.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By: Kathleen Kline, Intern On June 19, the California Court of Appeals upheld the Superior Court\u2019s decision dismissing a challenge to the state Air Resources Board (CARB or Board) by environmental justice advocates.\u00a0 Appellants, led by the Association of Irritated Residents (AIR), claimed the scoping plan CARB developed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is inadequate.\u00a0 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":703,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-1551","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-uncategorized","7":"czr-hentry"},"yoast_head":"\nCalifornia Court of Appeals Finds Scoping Plan for Greenhouse Gas Reduction Compliant with AB 32 - Climate Law Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2012\/07\/06\/california-court-of-appeals-finds-scoping-plan-for-greenhouse-gas-reduction-compliant-with-ab-32\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"California Court of Appeals Finds Scoping Plan for Greenhouse Gas Reduction Compliant with AB 32 - Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"By: Kathleen Kline, Intern On June 19, the California Court of Appeals upheld the Superior Court\u2019s decision dismissing a challenge to the state Air Resources Board (CARB or Board) by environmental justice advocates.\u00a0 Appellants, led by the Association of Irritated Residents (AIR), claimed the scoping plan CARB developed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is inadequate.\u00a0 […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2012\/07\/06\/california-court-of-appeals-finds-scoping-plan-for-greenhouse-gas-reduction-compliant-with-ab-32\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2012-07-06T23:58:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2012-07-10T20:48:19+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Danielle Sugarman\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@sabincenter\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@sabincenter\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Danielle Sugarman\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2012\/07\/06\/california-court-of-appeals-finds-scoping-plan-for-greenhouse-gas-reduction-compliant-with-ab-32\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2012\/07\/06\/california-court-of-appeals-finds-scoping-plan-for-greenhouse-gas-reduction-compliant-with-ab-32\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Danielle Sugarman\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/e4ee4e6a642a8274931a1a7c59851e0e\"},\"headline\":\"California Court of Appeals Finds Scoping Plan for Greenhouse Gas Reduction Compliant with AB 32\",\"datePublished\":\"2012-07-06T23:58:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2012-07-10T20:48:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2012\/07\/06\/california-court-of-appeals-finds-scoping-plan-for-greenhouse-gas-reduction-compliant-with-ab-32\/\"},\"wordCount\":832,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2012\/07\/06\/california-court-of-appeals-finds-scoping-plan-for-greenhouse-gas-reduction-compliant-with-ab-32\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2012\/07\/06\/california-court-of-appeals-finds-scoping-plan-for-greenhouse-gas-reduction-compliant-with-ab-32\/\",\"name\":\"California Court of Appeals Finds Scoping Plan for Greenhouse Gas Reduction Compliant with AB 32 - Climate Law Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2012-07-06T23:58:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2012-07-10T20:48:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2012\/07\/06\/california-court-of-appeals-finds-scoping-plan-for-greenhouse-gas-reduction-compliant-with-ab-32\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2012\/07\/06\/california-court-of-appeals-finds-scoping-plan-for-greenhouse-gas-reduction-compliant-with-ab-32\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2012\/07\/06\/california-court-of-appeals-finds-scoping-plan-for-greenhouse-gas-reduction-compliant-with-ab-32\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"California Court of Appeals Finds Scoping Plan for Greenhouse Gas Reduction Compliant with AB 32\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/\",\"name\":\"Climate Law Blog\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2023\/02\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2023\/02\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png\",\"width\":2752,\"height\":260,\"caption\":\"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/x.com\/sabincenter\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/e4ee4e6a642a8274931a1a7c59851e0e\",\"name\":\"Danielle Sugarman\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/author\/dsugar1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"California Court of Appeals Finds Scoping Plan for Greenhouse Gas Reduction Compliant with AB 32 - Climate Law Blog","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2012\/07\/06\/california-court-of-appeals-finds-scoping-plan-for-greenhouse-gas-reduction-compliant-with-ab-32\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"California Court of Appeals Finds Scoping Plan for Greenhouse Gas Reduction Compliant with AB 32 - Climate Law Blog","og_description":"By: Kathleen Kline, Intern On June 19, the California Court of Appeals upheld the Superior Court\u2019s decision dismissing a challenge to the state Air Resources Board (CARB or Board) by environmental justice advocates.\u00a0 Appellants, led by the Association of Irritated Residents (AIR), claimed the scoping plan CARB developed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is inadequate.\u00a0 […]","og_url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2012\/07\/06\/california-court-of-appeals-finds-scoping-plan-for-greenhouse-gas-reduction-compliant-with-ab-32\/","og_site_name":"Climate Law Blog","article_published_time":"2012-07-06T23:58:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2012-07-10T20:48:19+00:00","author":"Danielle Sugarman","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@sabincenter","twitter_site":"@sabincenter","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Danielle Sugarman","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2012\/07\/06\/california-court-of-appeals-finds-scoping-plan-for-greenhouse-gas-reduction-compliant-with-ab-32\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2012\/07\/06\/california-court-of-appeals-finds-scoping-plan-for-greenhouse-gas-reduction-compliant-with-ab-32\/"},"author":{"name":"Danielle Sugarman","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/e4ee4e6a642a8274931a1a7c59851e0e"},"headline":"California Court of Appeals Finds Scoping Plan for Greenhouse Gas Reduction Compliant with AB 32","datePublished":"2012-07-06T23:58:00+00:00","dateModified":"2012-07-10T20:48:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2012\/07\/06\/california-court-of-appeals-finds-scoping-plan-for-greenhouse-gas-reduction-compliant-with-ab-32\/"},"wordCount":832,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization"},"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2012\/07\/06\/california-court-of-appeals-finds-scoping-plan-for-greenhouse-gas-reduction-compliant-with-ab-32\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2012\/07\/06\/california-court-of-appeals-finds-scoping-plan-for-greenhouse-gas-reduction-compliant-with-ab-32\/","name":"California Court of Appeals Finds Scoping Plan for Greenhouse Gas Reduction Compliant with AB 32 - Climate Law Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website"},"datePublished":"2012-07-06T23:58:00+00:00","dateModified":"2012-07-10T20:48:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2012\/07\/06\/california-court-of-appeals-finds-scoping-plan-for-greenhouse-gas-reduction-compliant-with-ab-32\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2012\/07\/06\/california-court-of-appeals-finds-scoping-plan-for-greenhouse-gas-reduction-compliant-with-ab-32\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2012\/07\/06\/california-court-of-appeals-finds-scoping-plan-for-greenhouse-gas-reduction-compliant-with-ab-32\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"California Court of Appeals Finds Scoping Plan for Greenhouse Gas Reduction Compliant with AB 32"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/","name":"Climate Law Blog","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization","name":"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2023\/02\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2023\/02\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png","width":2752,"height":260,"caption":"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/x.com\/sabincenter"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/e4ee4e6a642a8274931a1a7c59851e0e","name":"Danielle Sugarman","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/author\/dsugar1\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1551","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/703"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1551"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1551\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1551"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1551"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1551"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}