20 Cal.App.5th 77
Cal. Ct. App.2018Background
- The California Air Resources Board (Board) adopted 2008 "Truck and Bus Regulation" to reduce diesel emissions; in 2014 staff proposed amendments delaying compliance for small fleets and certain areas.
- In Nov. 2013 the Board issued a Regulatory Advisory telling fleets they could report intent to use anticipated amendments and would not be subject to enforcement through July 1, 2014; staff later released an Initial Statement of Reasons (Mar. 2014) and the Board adopted amendments in April and finally in Nov. 2014.
- Respondents (Lawson Rock & Oil and California Trucking Association) sued, alleging CEQA violations (premature approval, wrong baseline, inadequate environmental review/piecemealing, and failure to prepare an EIR) and APA violations (deficient economic impact analysis and inadequate responses to comments).
- The trial court ruled for respondents, voided the Board’s approval of the 2014 amendments, and ordered the Board to comply with CEQA and the APA before further action.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed: it found the Board violated CEQA by effectively approving the regulatory project too early (via the Regulatory Advisory) and also violated the APA because its economic-impact analysis and responses to comments were inadequate; but held the Board retains discretion on how to comply on remand (i.e., court did not mandate an EIR in all circumstances).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the Board violate CEQA’s timing rule by issuing the Regulatory Advisory (i.e., approving the project before completing environmental review)? | Advisory committed Board to a course of action and delayed enforcement, effectively approving the amendments before CEQA review was complete. | Advisory was not a project approval; it was lawful prosecutorial discretion to allow reporting and temporary non-enforcement while amendments were developed. | Held for plaintiff: Advisory constituted premature approval of the regulatory project and violated CEQA timing requirements. |
| Was the Board’s chosen baseline for environmental analysis improper (should it have used emissions expected under full implementation of the existing regulations)? | Baseline should have reflected what would obtain under the unmodified 2010 amendments; using current (noncompliant) conditions understates impacts. | Baseline properly measured existing environmental conditions at time of analysis; projecting hypothetical future compliance would produce an illusory baseline. | Held for defendant on baseline: Board’s choice to use actual current conditions (not speculative full compliance) was within discretion and supported by substantial evidence. |
| Did substantial evidence support a fair argument that the amendments may have significant short-term environmental impacts (triggering the need for an EIR)? | Record data showed short- to mid-term increases in NOx, PM, and black carbon/greenhouse gases versus the original schedule; those increases could be significant locally and statewide. | Emissions still decline overall and the amendments yield the same long‑term emissions reductions (so no significant adverse impact); baseline argument undermines the fair-argument claim. | Held for plaintiff: A fair argument existed that the amendments could have significant short-term environmental effects; Board abused discretion by issuing a negative-declaration equivalent without taking that fair argument into an EIR-equivalent analysis. |
| Did the Board comply with APA economic-impact assessment and response-to-comments requirements? | The Board failed to analyze intra-state competitive harms to fleets that had already complied; public comments alleging competitive harm were not substantively addressed with supporting analysis. | The Board reasonably interpreted APA to require inter-state competitiveness analysis and concluded no statewide adverse impact; Department of Finance reviewed SRIA. | Held for plaintiff: Board’s economic analysis and written responses were inadequate under the APA; it failed to substantively address substantial evidence of adverse impacts to specific in‑state businesses. |
Key Cases Cited
- Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood, 45 Cal.4th 116 (Cal. 2008) (agency commitments that foreclose alternatives can constitute premature CEQA approval)
- POET, LLC v. State Air Resources Bd., 218 Cal.App.4th 681 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (certified regulatory programs must follow CEQA timing and informational principles)
- POET, LLC v. State Air Resources Bd., 12 Cal.App.5th 52 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (regulatory amendments can constitute projects under CEQA)
- Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., 48 Cal.4th 310 (Cal. 2010) (baseline should ordinarily reflect actual environmental conditions at time of analysis)
- Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Calif., 47 Cal.3d 376 (Cal. 1988) (EIR must inform decisionmakers before approval; no post hoc rationalizations)
- Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Board of Equalization, 57 Cal.4th 401 (Cal. 2013) (APA requires agencies to disclose factual basis for finding of no significant statewide economic impact and to respond to public comments)
- Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley, 60 Cal.4th 1086 (Cal. 2015) (remedies for CEQA violations; courts may void decisions or order specific actions but cannot direct discretionary determinations)