Poet v. State Air Resources Board
218 Cal. App. 4th 681
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- ARB adopted the LCFS as part of AB 32 to cut greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2020.
- LCFS relied on a lifecycle analysis (CA-GREET) including indirect land-use change via the GTAP model; emails from consultants about GTAP were withheld from the rulemaking file.
- POET and Lyons sued, asserting violations of CEQA and the APA, including 25 causes of action.
- Resolution 09-31 approving LCFS was issued April 23, 2009; Executive Officer performed environmental-review-related actions afterward.
- Plaintiffs asserted APA violations for excluding emails from the rulemaking file and CEQA violations for premature approval, split decisionmaking, and deferral of NOx mitigation.
- The trial court granted ARB’s motion to strike extra-record emails and denied the petition; the Court of Appeal reversed and remanded with directives.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timing of CEQA review and approval | ARB approved before environmental review was complete. | Approval occurred after environmental review via Executive Officer responses; final adoption followed. | April 23, 2009 approval improper; timing violated CEQA. |
| Delegation of review authority | Executive Officer, not the Board, should perform environmental review. | Hybrid decisionmaking permitted by statute; delegation valid. | Delegation violated CEQA; decisionmaking body not properly positioned. |
| Deferred mitigation for NOx from biodiesel | ARB deferred mitigation without specific performance criteria. | Deferred mitigation permissible with future standards. | Deferral of NOx mitigation violated CEQA; needed specific criteria. |
| APA rulemaking-file disclosure | Four consultant emails were data/information submitted to ARB and should be in the file. | Emails were internal; not required to be disclosed. | ARB violated APA by omitting emails; remedy ordered including them in the file. |
| Remedial remedy under CEQA/APA | Writ should void approval and suspend LCFS until CEQA/APA compliance. | Remedy should balance public interests; may keep LCFS in operation. | Remedy: void defective approval but allow LCFS to remain in effect pending compliance; remand for corrective action. |
Key Cases Cited
- Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood, 45 Cal.4th 116 (Cal. 2008) (approval timing and post-approval CEQA review principles)
- Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of California, 47 Cal.3d 376 (Cal. 1998) (timing and purpose of CEQA review; post-approval consideration)
- Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal.App.3d 296 (Cal. App. 1988) (delegation issues in CEQA review)
- Kleist v. City of Glendale, 56 Cal.App.3d 770 (Cal. App. 1976) (delegation and review-body requirements under CEQA)
- Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange, 131 Cal.App.4th 777 (Cal. App. 2005) (deferral of mitigation with requirement of specific standards)
- County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. County of Kern, 127 Cal.App.4th 1544 (Cal. App. 2005) (equitable remedies and status quo preservation in CEQA cases)