California hasn’t been shy about its intentions to lead the nation in its progressive anti-emissions regulations, but at least this time around it appears the state will not be able to enact a new mandate that would be aimed at cutting carbon in fuel.
The defeat was dealt by Fresno-based U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence O’Neill, according to the Associated Press, who ruled that the proposed low-carbon fuel rules proposed by the California Air Resource Board would violate the U.S. Constitution’s commerce clause. O’Neill went on to specify that the proposed mandate would favor local producers of biofuel and crude oil, but discriminate against out-of-state producers of said fuels.
Naturally, this decision is being met with mixed results – out-of-state producers were more than pleased, “Today’s decision…struck down a misguided policy that would have resulted in even higher fuel costs for Californian consumers while increasing the cost of business throughout the state,†said Michael Whatley, Consumer Energy Alliance executive vice president.
Members of CARB saw things quite differently, arguing that the laws create “an evenhanded standard that encourages the use of cleaner low carbon fuels by regulating fuel-providers in California.†CARB says it intends to ask the judge to stay the ruling, and even appeal if necessary to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
What exactly did the proposed laws call for?
Simply put, the laws called for producers of fuel within California to reduce the carbon-intensity of their fuels by at least 10 percent from pure gasoline by 2020. CARB believed that this would reduce California’s dependence on petroleum by 20 percent and help to contribute 10 percent of the overall state goal of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.
As one proponent of CARB’s efforts, a nonprofit legal organization known as Earthjustice, sees it, California was the right intentions, “California is leading the way on cleaner fuels and a cleaner power grid.” Of course, other organizations, such as out-of-state fuel producers, see it the other way – meaning a drawn-out legal battle is likely on the way.
References
1.’U.S. Court halts…’ view
