Rocky Mountain Farmers Union v. Goldstene
843 F. Supp. 2d 1042
E.D. Cal.2011Background
- This action challenges California’s LCFS implemented by CARB under AB 32; plaintiffs allege dormant Commerce Clause and federal preemption issues.
- Defendants move for summary judgment arguing LCFS is an authorized regulation under 42 U.S.C. § 7545(c)(4)(B) (Section 211(c)(4)(B)) and insulated from preemption and Commerce Clause scrutiny.
- The court previously rejected dismissal relying on Section 211(c)(4)(B) but now analyzes whether LCFS fits the exemption and how ordinary conflict preemption applies.
- The court concludes LCFS is authorized under 211(c)(4)(B) but not fully shielded from ordinary conflict preemption or Commerce Clause scrutiny, and will resolve merits in separate orders.
- The court clarifies that Section 211(c)(4)(B) does not bar preemption challenges arising under Section 211(o) (EISA) and that the merits will be addressed in later proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether LCFS is an authorized regulation under 211(c)(4)(B) | Rocky Mountain Farmers Union | CARB contends LCFS fits (c)(4)(B) | LCFS is authorized under 211(c)(4)(B) |
| Scope of 211(c)(4)(B) exemption and its preemption effect | LCFS conflicts with federal provisions and is not exempt | LCFS exempt as to preemption | Exemption applies but not as carte blanche; ordinary conflict preemption applies |
| LCFS versus Section 211(o) (RFS2) conflict preemption | LCFS obstructs Congress’s 211(o) goals | LCFS does not conflict with 211(o) | Court will assess under conflict preemption; not resolved at this stage |
| Commerce Clause scrutiny and 211(c)(4)(B) insulation | Section 211(c)(4)(B) does not immunize from Commerce Clause | LCFS insulated by 211(c)(4)(B) | 211(c)(4)(B) does not expressly permit violation of the Commerce Clause; scrutiny permitted |
| Whether LCFS is severable or a single unseverable provision | Some provisions may be severed | LCFS potentially indivisible | Remain issues; severability to be addressed as appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Rocky Mountain Farmers Union v. Goldstene, 719 F. Supp. 2d 1170 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (court acknowledged §211(c)(4)(B) preemption exemption and conduct on scope)
- Oxygenated Fuels Ass’n v. Davis, 331 F.3d 665 (9th Cir. 2003) (limits of California’s §211(c)(4)(B) exemption and relation to federal fuel regulation)
- Davis v. EPA, 348 F.3d 772 (9th Cir. 2003) (interpretation of §211(c)(4)(A) and (B) together; California latitude under (B))