AB 32 CA Clean Air 2006

rivkin prophetic on thin edge?

promoted to primary

http://grist.org/article/want-to-toss-out-pollution-fighting-rules-youll-have-to-face-california-first/}:}:

==

ca cap and trade coverage: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ajackson/

 ==

Gov. Jerry Brown warns Trump that California won't back down on climate change.

According to the analysis from Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2) analysis, CA **AB 32**and related climate policies have pumped some $48 billion into the state economy over the past decade while helping create about 500,000 jobs.Assembly Bill 32, also known as AB 32 or the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, requires California to reduce climate-cooking greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 — which meant cutting emissions about 25 percent from where they were at in 2006, when AB 32 was passed by the California State Legislature and signed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. see CA.

:{:{...

The emissions targets established by AB 32 and the programs that were created to achieve them have funded solar, wind and energy efficiency projects in communities across California and given clean energy investors and companies confidence in the state’s energy market. The upshot, E2 found, is that every single one of the state’s 80 Assembly districts have benefitted from the Golden State’s climate leadership over the past decade.

“It’s clear that AB 32 and related policies are already paying off big time for California’s economy,” E2 executive director Bob Keefe wrote in a blog post. “Today, the state is by far the nation’s leader in clean energy jobs and investments. No other state comes close.”

California is on pace to meet the emissions reductions set by AB 32, and legislators are now considering Senate Bill 32 (SB32), which require the state to take the next step and reduce emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. But, according to the LA Times, “it appears that lawmakers will punt, rather than vote, on one of the most important environmental decisions facing California.”

California Governor Jerry Brown reportedly plans to continue pushing for the legislation, even if he has to take it directly to voters via a ballot measure campaign in 2018.

Gov. Brown isn’t the only one urging the passage of SB 32: A bipartisan group of California mayors representing eight of the largest cities in the state is calling for state legislators to pass SB 32 without delay.

“Our cities continue to bear witness to the consequences of a changing climate,” the mayors wrote. “From record heat and fire to the continued water quality and availability challenges of the drought, we are increasingly challenged by the consequences of climate change.”

Nearly 200 business leaders have also weighed in with their support of SB 32, writing in a letter that “Businesses and investors need the market certainty that a new climate target will create, and we need it this year to avoid disruption of the economic growth and job creation in this sector that California has enjoyed as a result of our climate policies.”

Nearly 60 business, environmental, public health, and consumer advocacy groups, including the American Heart & Lung Association, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the U.S Green Building Council, California, have also written a letter, which was delivered to all members of the California Assembly. In it, the groups wrote:

We must keep driving down carbon pollution to avoid the worst effects of climate change, which is already taking a toll. Wildfires burn longer and hotter. Droughts are more severe. And sea level rise threatens our coasts. But California is showing how to reduce fossil fuels and grow clean energy in every corner of the state. A YES vote on SB32 shows the world that the California legislature will continue to lead the fight for clean air, thriving communities, and a healthy planet.

Any delay in passing new climate targets will send the wrong message to the clean energy industry in California and could send businesses to other states that are actively recruiting clean energy technology companies, Nicole Lederer, chair and co-founder of E2, said in a statement.

“The economic benefits of California’s leadership on climate change are clear and measurable,” Lederer said. “This is not the time to retreat. California businesses require the market certainty that comes with SB 32. Delaying passage of SB 32 any longer will threaten clean energy jobs and undermine investment in one of the fastest growing sectors of California’s economy.”

==

rivkin fedsoc 2008

...

https://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/state-ags-on-global-warming-litigation

In the short term, however, there seems little doubt that California's Attorney General, former Governor and Democrat presidential hopeful Edmund G. (Jerry) Brown, Jr., will be leading the global warming charge. With its Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32), the California legislature has commanded that the State's greenhouse gas emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020. The law requires California's Air Resources Board to establish a statewide GHG emissions cap by January 1, 2008, and to promulgate implementing regulations by January 1, 2011. In advance of these measures, Attorney General Brownhas initiated his own campaign to force immediate GHG emissions reductions. In particular, he has embarked upon a statewide effort, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), to force California's counties to adopt global climate change plans.

Most recently, Brown announced the settlement of a suit he brought against San Bernardino County challenging its general CEQA plan. The county agreed to undertake a 30-month "Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan," including inventories of GHG emission sources and targets for reductions in emissions attributable to the county's land use decisions and other governmental operations. Brown, who has filed CEQA comments on the plans of at least eleven other California counties, has indicated that the San Bernardino plan is a "model that I encourage other cities and counties to adopt." See Brown Announces Landmark Global Warming Settlement Press Release (Aug. 21, 2007).

Similarly, Brown appealed a decision by Contra Costa County (in the San Francisco Bay Area) to permit the expansion of an existing ConocoPhillips refinery and thereby obtained an agreement from the company to adopt a GHG reduction plan. This plan includes a multi-million dollar "offset" program in the Bay Area and elsewhere in California. On the federal level, Attorney General Brown has petitioned EPA to establish carbon dioxide limitations for all ocean going vessels entering American ports and threatens to sue the Agency if it fails to approve California's pending request for a section 209(b) Clean Air Act waiver. This provision permits California - once a waiver is granted - to impose new motor vehicle and engine emissions standards that may be more stringent than comparable federal regulations. In this instance, it would permit California to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines sold in the State, and grant of the waiver would also permit other States to adopt the California standards; fourteen have indicated a desire to do so.

There is every reason to believe that Attorney General Brown, along with many other state Attorneys General, will continue to be active in this area.

==

==

2015

Introduced by Senator Pavley

(Coauthors: Senators Allen, Beall, Block, De León, Hancock, Hill, Jackson, Leno, Liu, McGuire, Mitchell, Monning, Wieckowski, and Wolk)

(Coauthors: Assembly Members Bloom,Chiu, Chu, Cristina Garcia,McCarty, Quirk, Rendon, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Williams, and Wood)}:

SB 32, as amended, Pavley. California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.

:{

(1) The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 designates the State Air Resources Board as the state agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of emissions of greenhouse gases. The state board is required to adopt a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit equivalent to the statewide greenhouse gas emissions level in 1990 to be achieved by 2020 and to adopt rules and regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum, technologically feasible, and cost-effective greenhouse gas emissions reductions.

This bill would require the state board to approve statewide greenhouse gas emissions limits that are the equivalent to 40% below the 1990 level to be achieved by 2030 and 80% below the 1990 level to be achieved by 2050, as specified. The bill would authorize the state board to approve an interim greenhouse gas emissions level target to be achieved by 2040. The bill also would state the intent of the Legislature for the Legislature and appropriate agencies to adopt complementary policies that ensure the long-term emissions reductions advance specified criteria.

(2) The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 requires the State Air Resources Board to prepare and approve a scoping plan for achieving the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and to update the scoping plan at least once every 5 years.

}:

:{

December 01, 2014}:

==

It all started with California's landmark bipartisan climate bill, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006—better known as AB32—which EDF co-sponsored, has defended in court and in public debate. The law authorized the state to establish a cap-and-trade carbon market with a declining emissions cap, reaching 1990 emissions levels by 2020.

In 2013, California launched North America's first economy-wide cap-and-trade program—currently covering 350 of the state's largest greenhouse gas polluters. The Golden State has also set rigorous standards for cleaner cars, renewable energy and low-carbon fuels, sparking innovations in the way utilities generate electricity, automakers design cars and refineries make fuel.

Several lawsuits have been filed over global warming. For example, Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency before the Supreme Court of the United States forced the US government to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. A similar approach was taken byCalifornia Attorney General**Bill Lockyer**who filed a lawsuit**California v. General Motors Corp.** to force car manufacturers to reduce vehicles' emissions of carbon dioxide. A third case, Comer v. Murphy Oil, was filed by Gerald Maples, a trial attorney in Mississippi, in an effort to force fossil fuel and chemical companies to pay for damages caused by global warming.^[35]

bs: http://www.calchamber.com/governmentrelations/businessissues/pages/climatechange.aspx

CalChamber President and CEO Allan Zaremberg explains the need for reform of the California Environmental Quality Act on a recent edition of “The Maddy Report,” a weekly public affairs television program.

CalChamber Spotlights Need for State Environmental Law Reform

California Faces More Litigation over AB 32

By Daniel Kolta

February 26, 2013

Introduction

In a recent issue, we discussed the implications of the latest court decision in Citizens Climate Lobby and Our Children’s Earth Foundation v. California Air Resources Board, a case brought by two environmental groups challenging the offset program created pursuant to the cap-and-trade regulation promulgated under California’s Global Warming Solution Act of 2006, or AB 32. The California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) has been sued by both regulated parties and environmentalists, challenging the manner in which CARB has set about regulating greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions from sources within the state, alleging violations of both federal and state law. These alleged violations have included claims that CARB’s low carbon fuel standard (“LCFS”) violates the United States Constitution, that CARB failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) in drafting the LCFS rule, that CARB’s auctioning of carbon allowances exceeds the authority delegated to it in AB 32, that its Truck and Bus Regulation is preempted by federal law, and that CARB’s Scoping Plan violated CEQA and exceeded AB 32’s grant of authority.

The goal of AB 32 is to cut California’s carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 calls for a multi-pronged program to meet this target, consisting of multiple components, including: cap-and-trade, LCFS, vehicle emission reductions, energy efficiency, use of renewable energy, and public transit improvements. (The full Scoping Plan is available here.) This article will update our readers on the status of challenges to AB 32, specifically to LCFS, cap-and-trade, the Truck and Bus Regulation, and the Scoping Plan.

Low Carbon Fuel Standard Litigation

The LCFS rule is a regulation promulgated by CARB with the goal of reducing the carbon content of transportation fuels sold in California by 10% by 2020 from a 2010 baseline.[[1]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftn1) The LCFS requires that California fuel providers meet annual average carbon intensity goals for GHG emissions.[[2]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftn2) CARB’s LCFS rule takes into account the lifecycle GHG emissions of fuel, including emissions produced during production and transportation of fuels to California. Thus, an identical ethanol imported from the Midwest would be deemed to have a higher carbon intensity than ethanol produced in California, making the Midwest product more expensive for fuel providers seeking to meet fuel standard requirements. The LCFS rule has been challenged in two court cases alleging it violates federal and state law.

Rocky Mountain Farmers Union v. Goldstenechallenges the LCFS rule as violating the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.[[3]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftn3) Plaintiffs allege that by factoring the distance a fuel travels before reaching California into the calculation of carbon intensity, CARB discriminated against interstate commerce and fuels produced out of state.[[4]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftn4) Plaintiffs also assert that the LCFS is preempted by the federal Clean Air Act.[[5]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftn5)

In December 2011, Judge Lawrence O’Neill of the Eastern District of California agreed with the plaintiffs’ Commerce Clause argument, invalidating certain parts of the LCFS rule and enjoining the rule’s enforcement. Judge O’Neill concluded that the standard “discriminates against out-of-state corn-derived ethanol while favoring in-state corn ethanol and impermissibly regulates extraterritorial conduct.”[[6]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftn6) He also found that the standard “discriminates against out-of-state and foreign crude oil while giving an economic advantage to in-state crude oil.”[[7]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftn7) After CARB appealed the decision, the Ninth Circuit stayed the district court’s injunction in April 2012.[[8]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftn8) It then heard argument on October 16, and the parties are now awaiting a decision.[[9]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftn9) Some legal experts are already anticipating the case will be appealed to the Supreme Court, regardless of the Ninth Circuit’s decision.[[10]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftn10)

In Poet, LLC v. California Air Resources Board, Poet LLC, the largest ethanol producer in the United States challenged the LCFS rule in California state court on the grounds that CARB failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act.[[11]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftn11) Poet has argued that CARB failed to respond to numerous public comments, that it omitted documents from the rulemaking file, and that the LCFS will lead to increased GHG emissions, not the reductions it promises.[[12]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftn12) Poet also alleges that CARB’s LCFS rule exceeds the scope of authority delegated to it by the legislature.[[13]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftn13) After Fresno County Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Hamilton, Jr. ruled for CARB by denying Poet’s verified petition for writ of mandate, Poet appealed the decision to the California Court of Appeals for the Fifth Appellate District on November 23, 2011.[[14]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftn14) Both sides have completed supplemental briefing, and it is unclear from the court’s docket when arguments or a final decision may occur.

Cap-and-Trade Auction Litigation

CARB’s cap-and-trade auction procedure is designed to help set the price of carbon allowances and to generate funds to support California’s GHG emissions reduction scheme.[[15]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftn15) As :{we discussed a:(style="background-color:#fff200"):}: few weeks ago, the California Chamber of Commerce filed a lawsuit in November seeking to invalidate the cap-and-trade auction scheme under AB 32. The complaint in California Chamber of Commerce v. California Air Resources Board, available :{here:(style="background-color:#fff200"):}:, asserts that AB 32 does not authorize CARB to impose fees other than those needed to cover the ordinary administrative costs of implementing a state emissions regulatory program.[[16]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftn16) Little has occurred to this point in the litigation. CARB answered the Chamber’s petition by denying all allegations and asserting an array of affirmative defenses. The National Association of Manufacturers also has filed to intervene, and would join the Chamber in asserting that the high revenues to be generated through auction constitute an impermissible tax.[[17]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftn17) Sacramento Superior Court will hear arguments on May 31, 2013.

Truck and Bus Regulation Litigation

The California Dump Truck Owners Association (“CDTOA”) filed suit in the United States District Court of the Eastern District of California in February 2011 to challenge CARB’s Truck and Bus Regulation, which provides for stricter emissions standards for dump trucks and other diesel-fuel vehicles.[[18]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftn18) The regulation requires particulate matter retrofits beginning in 2012, and will require replacement of older vehicles beginning in 2015.[[19]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftn19) These retrofits and replacements will address a variety of public health concerns from diesel particulate emissions in addition to cutting greenhouse gas emissions.[[20]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftn20)

In California Dump Truck Owners Association v. California Air Resources Board,CDTOA alleges that CARB’s regulation is unconstitutional because it is preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (“FAAAA”).[[21]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftn21) CDTOA seeks an injunction prohibiting CARB from enforcing its rule.[[22]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftn22) CDTOA also makes a public policy argument, claiming that the economic impacts of the regulation would be catastrophic for one-truck independent owner-operators and other small trucking companies.[[23]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftn23) CDTOA complains that the $150,000 needed for a new CARB-compliant truck and the dramatically decreased value of old trucks unfairly burdens small business owners.[[24]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftn24)

In December 2012, the District Court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed the case.[[25]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftn25) According to the court, a decision favoring CDTOA would undermine the validity of EPA’s approval of California’s State Implementation Plan (“SIP”) under the Clean Air Act because the Truck and Bus Regulation is part of California’s SIP.[[26]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftn26) Since exclusive jurisdiction of final Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) decisions, such as SIP approval, lies with the court of appeals, the District Court concluded it lacked jurisdiction. Further, the District Court determined that EPA was a necessary and indispensable party to the litigation due to EPA’s interests in the SIP.[[27]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftn27) Because the court could not grant any practical relief without joining EPA, but claims challenging EPA final decisions must be brought in the court of appeals, the court concluded that the action could not proceed and should be dismissed.[[28]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftn28)

CDTOA, recently renamed the California Construction Trucking Association (“CCTA”), has filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[[29]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftn29) Additionally, the CCTA has said it will file a petition for review with the Ninth Circuit challenging EPA’s approval of the SIP under the theory that the SIP impermissibly conflicts with other federal laws, specifically, the FAAAA and Commerce Clause.[[30]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftn30)

Legal commentators remain skeptical of CCTA’s argument.[[31]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftn31) While the FAAAA contains language preempting state regulation taking the form of controls on who can enter the trucking industry within a state, it does not appear to limit a state’s ability to regulate emission standards.[[32]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftn32)

Scoping Plan Litigation

On June 19, 2012, CARB prevailed in Association of Irritated Residents v. California Air Resources Board when the California First District Court of Appeal upheld its Climate Change Scoping Plan, which charts CARB’s overall GHG reduction scheme.[[33]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftn33) Several amici weighed in for each side of this high-profile case, including the Bay Area Council, represented by Marten Law attorney Kevin Haroff. The court ruled that CARB’s planned mechanisms for reducing GHG emissions were in compliance with AB 32, allowing CARB to move forward with a market-based cap-and-trade program. The court was convinced that CARB had complied with CEQA by exercising sound judgment, providing substantial evidence to support its decisions, and giving adequate consideration to alternatives.[[34]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftn34)

Conclusion

Thus far, CARB has withstood the many challenges it has faced. Yet, Poet, LLCand especially Rocky Mountain Farmers Union represent real threats to the LCFS rule, and the California Chamber of Commercelitigation could disrupt the auction procedure that CARB has already begun using. Additional lawsuits against CARB could build upon issues already raised in litigation. For example, the Chamber of Commerce and other groups representing regulated entities will be watching carefully to see how the proceeds of CARB’s auctions are spent. If the auction proceeds are used by the state of California for purposes other than reducing or mitigating GHG emissions, CARB may face additional litigation alleging that it has levied an unauthorized tax against regulated entities.[[35]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftn35) Further, while the environmental plaintiffs in Citizens Climate Lobby and Our Children’s Earth Foundationmay have failed to secure a ruling invalidating the entire carbon offsets scheme, these groups or others may bring additional challenges against specific elements of the offsets program, including particular existing or forthcoming offset protocols.

Looming is a possible dormant Commerce Clause challenge from industry against CARB’s cap-and-trade program.[[36]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftn36) If successful, such a lawsuit could completely derail CARB’s cap and trade program. Industry may wait to see how the Rocky Mountain Farmers Unionlitigation is resolved before it brings such a challenge.

For more information on AB 32 and the litigation surrounding it, please contact any of the attorneys in Marten Law’s San Francisco office.

[[1]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftnref1) California Air Resources Board, Final Regulation Order.

[[2]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftnref2) W. Newman, California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard: Current and Future Impact, Ethanol Producer Magazine (Oct. 14, 2010).

[[3]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftnref3) K. Haroff, California’s Climate Change Program Comes Together in 2012–Or Does It? Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Ecosystems Committee Newsletter, American Bar Association (Apr. 2012).

[[4]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftnref4) Id.

[[5]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftnref5) Id.

[[6]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftnref6) L. Hurley, Lawyers go west as climate litigation warms up, E&E Publishing, LLC (Sept. 20, 2012).

[[7]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftnref7) Id.

[[8]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftnref8) R. Frank, Previewing This Week’s Constitutional Battle Over California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Legal Planet (Oct. 15, 2012).

[[9]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftnref9) K. Gullo, California Asks Court to Reinstate Carbon Fuel Standard, Bloomberg Businessweek (Oct. 16, 2012).

[[10]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftnref10) Supranote 6, 8.

[[11]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftnref11) J. Cullen Howe, Judicial Developments, Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Ecosystems Committee Newsletter, American Bar Association (Apr. 2012).

[[12]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftnref12) T. Neeley, Challenging CARB 1 - Poet Files Lawsuit in California, DTN (The Progressive Farmer) (2010).

[[13]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftnref13) The State Bar of California: Environmental Law Section, A.B. 32: Climate, Commerce and the Constitution (Oct. 26, 2012).

[[14]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftnref14) Id.

[[15]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftnref15) K. Haroff & D. Kolta, California Inaugurates Country’s First Carbon Credit Auction Under Cap-and-Trade, Marten Law Environmental News(Dec. 3, 2012).

[[16]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftnref16) CalChamber, CalChamber Sues to Invalidate CARB’s Cap and Trade Auction (Nov. 13, 2012).

[[17]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftnref17) National Association of Manufacturers, Capital Briefing (Feb. 21, 2013).

[[18]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftnref18) R. Enion, California Dump Trucks v. CARB, Legal Planet (Mar. 23, 2011).

[[19]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftnref19) Id.

[[20]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftnref20) Id.

[[21]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftnref21) Id.

[[22]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftnref22) Id.

[[23]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftnref23) California Construction Trucking Association, California Dump Truck Owners Association Sues State Air Resources Board to Overturn Overreaching Truck & Bus Rule (Feb. 24, 2011).

[[24]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftnref24) Id.

[[25]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftnref25) Cal. Dump Truck Owners Ass’n v. Cal. Air Res. Bd., No. 2:11-cv-00384-MCE-GGH (E.D. Cal. Dec 19, 2012),Memorandum and Order.

[[26]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftnref26) Id.

[[27]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftnref27) Id.

[[28]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftnref28) Id.

[[29]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftnref29) PR Newswire, Truckers Will Continue Legal Battle Against CARB and U.S. EPA (Jan. 22, 2013).

[[30]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftnref30) Id.

[[31]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftnref31) Supranote 18.

[[32]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftnref32) SeeFederal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994, H.R. 2739, 103rd Cong. § 601 (1994).

[[33]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftnref33) Ass’n of Irritated Residents v. Cal. Air Res. Bd., 206 Cal. App. 4th 1487 (2012)

[[34]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftnref34) Id.

[[35]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftnref35) Supra note 15.

[[36]](http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20130226-california-ab-32-litigation#_ftnref36) Supranote 8.