User:Ssoqo/sandbox

Challenges to legislation
Although seemingly counter-intuitive, a lawsuit was filed against the California Air Resources Board (CARB) over implementation of the cap-and-trade program proposed under AB 32. In Association of Irritated Residents (AIR) v California Air Resources Board (CARB), AIR alleged that CARB failed to provide an analysis of alternatives to cap-and-trade in its "functional equivalent document" for the AB 32 Scoping Plan. AIR also argued that the cap-and-trade program, as proposed, would disproportionally impact low-income communities. Central to AIR's claim was that stationary sources in low-income communities may increase emissions through the purchase of emissions allowances. By filing suit against CARB, AIR sought an injunction against the cap-and-trade program.

Upon review, the San Francisco Superior Court issued a ruling to halt implementation of the cap-and-trade program. The court held that CARB failed to adequately consider alternatives to cap-and-trade and that the environmental analysis lacked basis. On May 20, 2011, California Superior Court Judge Ernest Goldsmith issued a formal order enjoining CARB from implementing the cap-and-trade program until it completed an adequate environmental analysis. The California hAttorney General appealed Judge Goldsmith's injunction, and on June 24, 2011, the Court of Appeals granted CARB's petition for a "writ of supersedeas. This decision effectively overturned the Superior Court's injunction, enabling CARB to continue with cap-and-trade rule making. Environmental justice advocates petitioned the California Supreme Court to reverse the "writ of superseades", but the petition was denied on September 28, 2011.

In response to the lawsuit, CARB prepared a supplemental CEQA equivalent document to the AB 32 Scoping Plan evaluating alternatives to cap-and-trade. The document was approved by the San Francisco Superior Court on December 6, 2011. The cap-and-trade regulations took effect on January 1, 2012.

The current roster in the 2010 season features:

This sandbox is created for an Environmental Law project that LYoon and I are participating in together as a group. The title of our project is Climate Change Litigation in California.

Test # 1 Climate Change Litigation and the California Environmental Management Act

Introduction (by Ssoqo (talk) 00:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)LeYoon)

Litigation related to climate change and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions has become increasingly common in the federal and state courts. Following adoption of Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) and publication of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), additional pressure was placed on public agencies to evaluate potential adverse effects to global climate change caused by GHG emissions. In particular, several lawsuits have been filed against agencies for failure to analyze GHG emissions generated by projects subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Court decisions prior to the 2010 revisions to the CEQA Guidelines gave early insights as to how CEQA would be used as a vehicle to identify and mitigate GHG emissions within the state. Decisions issued after adoption of the revised guidelines are now being used to interpret CEQA’s new requirement to evaluate GHG emissions and climate change.

Background on the California Court System The California court system is comprised of 58 Superior Courts, six Courts of Appeal, and one Supreme Court. The Superior Courts of California are located in each county and preside over cases within their respective jurisdiction. The California Courts of Appeal hear cases that have been previously decided, but are currently being contested. The highest state court, the Supreme Court of California, has discretion to review decisions made by lower courts. Cases brought before the Supreme Court are typically intended to resolve “important questions” related to state law.

The court system is hierarchical where decisions issued by higher courts set precedence for lower courts. For example, decisions of the California Supreme Court are binding on all Appellate and Superior Courts and decisions of Appellate Courts are binding on Superior Courts within the same district. The majority of climate change cases have been heard by Superior Courts; only a small number of cases have been reviewed by the Courts of Appeal and California Supreme Court.