Rocky Mountain Farmers Union v. Richard W. Corey
730 F.3d 1070
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- COA considers California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) challenged by Rocky Mountain Farmers’ Union and American Fuels under dormant Commerce Clause and preemption theories.
- District court found the ethanol provisions facially discriminatory against out-of-state ethanol and the crude-oil provisions discriminatory in purpose and effect; it also found lack of preemption by RFS and unresolved questions on extraterritoriality.
- California enacted AB 32 and CARB regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation fuels via lifecycle carbon intensity analysis.
- LCFS uses CA-GREET lifecycle model to assign carbon intensities to fuel pathways, with default pathways and individualized pathways under Methods 2A/2B.
- On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held LCFS does not facially discriminate against out-of-state ethanol, is not extraterritorial regulation as applied, and remanded for Pike balancing to ethanol provisions while addressing crude-oil provisions and preemption issues.
- The panel affirmed some aspects, reversed others, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its Commerce Clause analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do ethanol provisions facially discriminate against interstate commerce? | Rocky Mountain/AM Fuels contend yes. | CARB argues no facial discrimination, uses non-origin factors. | No facial discrimination against ethanol found. |
| Does LCFS regulate extraterritorial conduct? | Regulation reaches beyond California via lifecycle analysis. | Regulation confines to California market only. | Extratraterritorial regulation rejected; remanded for Pike analysis. |
| Do crude-oil provisions discriminate in purpose or effect? | Provisions favor California HCICO and existing sources. | Regulations serve pollution-control goals. | District court rulings on purpose/effect remanded for Pike review. |
| Is LCFS preempted by the federal Renewable Fuel Standard? | RFS preempts state-imposed lifecycle regimes. | Section 211(c)(4)(B) preserves California’s authority. | Preemption issue not resolved on appeal; discussed as preserved. |
Key Cases Cited
- Oregon Waste Sys., Inc. v. Dep't of Envtl. Quality of State of Or., 511 U.S. 93 (1994) (dormant Commerce Clause protection against local protectionism)
- Maine v. Taylor, 477 U.S. 131 (1986) (strict scrutiny for facially discriminatory local regulation)
- Healy v. Beer Inst., 491 U.S. 324 (1989) (extraterritorial regulation concerns in-state effects)
- Chemical Waste Mgmt., Inc. v. Hunt, 504 U.S. 334 (1992) (facial discrimination and burden balancing framework)
- Carbone v. Town of Clarkstown, 511 U.S. 393 (1994) (exports/imports controls; extraterritorial limits; preemption context)