California air board administrative decisions
🔷 1. Overview: What is the California Air Resources Board (CARB)?
CARB is the state agency responsible for:
Controlling air pollution in California,
Developing and enforcing regulations for vehicle emissions, industrial pollutants, and climate change,
Implementing California’s Clean Air Act, AB 32 (Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006), SB 32, and other environmental mandates.
CARB acts as both a regulatory and enforcement agency, functioning under administrative law principles.
🔷 2. Administrative Law and CARB
CARB decisions are governed by the California Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and must follow:
Proper rulemaking procedures (public notice, hearings, comment),
Delegated statutory authority (from California legislature),
Due process when taking enforcement actions (e.g., permit revocation, fines),
Are subject to judicial review in state courts.
🔷 3. Detailed Case Law Involving CARB Administrative Decisions
Below are six landmark or significant cases involving CARB’s regulatory authority and administrative decisions:
✅ Case 1: Association of Irritated Residents v. CARB (2012) – 206 Cal.App.4th 1487
Facts:
Environmental justice groups sued CARB for failing to properly evaluate alternatives under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) during its Cap-and-Trade rulemaking under AB 32.
Issue:
Did CARB comply with CEQA when adopting the Cap-and-Trade program?
Ruling:
The court ruled CARB violated CEQA by approving the Cap-and-Trade regulation before adequately completing the required alternatives analysis.
However, the Cap-and-Trade program itself was not invalidated.
Significance:
Reinforced that CARB, like any agency, must follow CEQA before finalizing major regulatory decisions.
Emphasized transparency and environmental assessment in rulemaking.
✅ Case 2: POET, LLC v. CARB (2013, 2017, 2021) – Series of Cases
Facts:
POET, a biofuel company, challenged CARB’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), claiming procedural violations under the California APA and environmental flaws under CEQA.
Issues:
Did CARB comply with procedural and environmental requirements in adopting LCFS rules?
Rulings:
Courts repeatedly held that CARB failed to fully comply with CEQA, particularly in evaluating indirect emissions.
Courts ordered CARB to redo parts of its environmental analysis, but allowed LCFS to continue temporarily due to its environmental benefits.
Significance:
Demonstrated courts’ willingness to uphold climate regulations while enforcing strict procedural compliance.
Highlighted the role of CEQA in regulatory rulemaking, not just project approvals.
✅ Case 3: National Association of Manufacturers v. CARB (2002) – 136 Cal.Rptr.2d 905
Facts:
CARB adopted regulations requiring manufacturers to reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products.
Industry associations challenged the rule as exceeding CARB's authority and being arbitrary.
Issue:
Did CARB have statutory authority to regulate emissions from consumer products?
Ruling:
The court upheld CARB's rule, finding it within its delegated authority and based on scientific findings.
Significance:
Confirmed CARB’s broad authority under California’s Health & Safety Code to regulate emissions from a wide array of sources.
Set precedent for extending regulatory reach to non-industrial sectors.
✅ Case 4: Rocky Mountain Farmers Union v. Corey (2013) – 730 F.3d 1070
Facts:
Multiple ethanol producers challenged CARB’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), arguing it violated the Dormant Commerce Clause by discriminating against out-of-state fuels.
Issue:
Did CARB’s LCFS unconstitutionally burden interstate commerce?
Ruling:
Ninth Circuit upheld the LCFS, holding that it did not discriminate against interstate commerce but rather reflected California’s interest in regulating GHG emissions.
Significance:
Key ruling that upheld CARB’s climate-based regulations against constitutional challenges.
Reinforced the idea that states can lead in climate policy, even with national implications.
✅ Case 5: California Chamber of Commerce v. CARB (2017) – 10 Cal.App.5th 604
Facts:
The California Chamber of Commerce sued CARB, claiming the Cap-and-Trade auction system was an unconstitutional tax, not authorized by AB 32.
Issue:
Was the Cap-and-Trade auction a regulatory fee or a tax requiring a 2/3 vote?
Ruling:
Court ruled that Cap-and-Trade is not a tax, but a regulatory market mechanism, authorized by statute.
The funds were used for environmental purposes, not general revenue.
Significance:
Upheld CARB’s Cap-and-Trade program.
Clarified legal distinction between taxes and regulatory fees in environmental governance.
✅ Case 6: Morning Star Packing Co. v. CARB (2018) – 38 Cal.App.5th 317
Facts:
A food processing company challenged the inclusion of its sector in Cap-and-Trade, arguing CARB overstepped its authority and violated due process.
Issue:
Did CARB improperly expand the Cap-and-Trade program to include new sectors?
Ruling:
Court found CARB had adequate statutory authority, and that regulated parties had opportunity to comment and challenge inclusion.
Significance:
Reinforced CARB’s discretion in sectoral coverage within environmental regulation.
Supported CARB’s administrative process as consistent with due process and statutory limits.
🔷 4. Summary of Key Legal Principles
| Case Name | Legal Focus | Key Principle Established |
|---|---|---|
| Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. CARB | CEQA compliance | CARB must fully comply with CEQA in rulemaking |
| POET v. CARB (multiple years) | APA & CEQA | Procedural errors can invalidate CARB regulations |
| NAM v. CARB | Statutory Authority | CARB has broad power to regulate air toxins |
| Rocky Mtn. Farmers v. Corey | Dormant Commerce Clause | CARB climate rules do not violate interstate commerce laws |
| Chamber of Commerce v. CARB | Regulatory fee vs. tax | Cap-and-Trade auction is a lawful regulatory program |
| Morning Star Packing v. CARB | Program scope & due process | CARB can expand sector coverage if proper procedures are followed |
🔷 5. Conclusion
CARB operates as a powerful state agency under California administrative law, with broad responsibilities in air quality and climate policy. However, it is:
Bound by procedural laws such as CEQA and the California APA,
Subject to judicial review to ensure it acts within the scope of its legislative authority,
Obligated to provide public participation and scientific justification in its decisions.
California courts have largely upheld CARB’s environmental leadership, but have also enforced procedural
RELATED Blog
0 comments