California

Subscribe to California via RSS

By Chris Garrett, Diego Flores, Lucas Quass and Samantha Seikkula

CEQA Case Report: Understanding the Judicial Landscape for Development[i]

In an unpublished opinion issued March 26, 2018, Golden Door Properties, LLC v. Vallecitos Water District, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment sustaining the Vallecitos Water District’s (District’s) demurrer from Golden Door, LLC’s (Golden Door’s) challenge to two statutory assessments in which the District concluded there is a sufficient water supply for Newland Sierra, LLC’s (Newland’s) proposed residential development (Project) in rural unincorporated San Diego County (County). In summary, the court determined:

  • A Water Supply Assessment issued by a water district in conjunction with a project’s CEQA review process is not independently reviewable and may only be challenged as part of a final EIR.
  • Challenges to a rescinded Water Verification are moot if there is uncertainty about whether particular dispute will recur and, in any case, will not evade review.

Appeal in POET II could complicate California Air Resources Board’s proposed LCFS amendments.

Joshua T. Bledsoe, Kimberly D. Farbota

In the case commonly referred to as POET II, petitioner POET, LLC, a biofuels manufacturer, challenged the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) and Alternative Diesel Fuels (ADF) regulations which the California Air Resources Board (ARB) adopted in 2015. After briefing had been completed, defendant-respondent ARB filed a motion for judgement on the pleadings (MJOP) on November 21, 2017, in an attempt to have the case dismissed in light of earlier rulings in the related POET I case. On January 5, 2018 the Fresno County Superior Court issued a ruling granting the MJOP with respect to all claims and dismissing the entire case as moot. On March 6, 2018, POET noticed an appeal of the Superior Court’s decision to the California Court of Appeal for the Fifth Appellate District, the same Court of Appeal that issued the decisions in POET I. In that decision, the court sharply criticized the ARB for not acting in good faith and found that ARB failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Also on March 6, 2018, ARB released proposed amendments to the LCFS that would, inter alia, extend the Program to 2030. Included in the amendment package is an analysis of nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions attributable to the LCFS, prepared in an attempt to fulfill the writ of mandate issued in POET I. On March 12, 2018, ARB released Regulatory Guidance Document 18-01, which updates prior guidance regarding ARB’s plans to meet the requirements of the writ of mandate issued in POET I. The appeal in POET II carries important implications for the Regulatory Guidance, the amendment package, and potentially for the future of the LCFS Program.

DRECP under review in an effort to alleviate burdens on energy development.

By Marc T. Campopiano, Joshua T. Bledsoe, Jennifer K. Roy, and James Erselius

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) recently issued a notice of intent to review the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) for potential burdens on domestic energy production in California. The BLM issued the notice on February 2, 2018, in response to Executive Order (EO) 13783, “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth.” EO 13783 was issued on March 28, 2017, and requires the heads of federal agencies to review all existing agency actions that “potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources.”

Finalized in 2016, the DRECP established a framework to streamline permitting for renewable energy projects on public lands in the California Mojave and Colorado/Sonoran desert region. The DRECP covers renewable energy development activities, including solar, wind, and geothermal projects, as well as transmission facilities that service renewable energy projects. As discussed in a previous post, concerns from local agencies, industry, and environmental groups caused state and federal agencies to narrow DRECP’s focus to public lands only.

The corresponding Land Use Plan Amendment (LUPA), issued when the DRECP was finalized, affects land use planning decisions for all of the 10.8 million acres of federal lands within the 22 million total acres covered under the DRECP. The LUPA set aside certain BLM-managed lands for conservation and recreation, and identified priority areas for renewable energy development. As detailed in a prior post, the approved LUPA designates 388,000 acres of Development Focus Areas, which are lands identified as having high-quality solar, wind, and geothermal energy potential and access to transmission. In addition to Development Focus Areas, the approved LUPA designates: 40,000 acres of Variance Process Lands for renewable energy development; approximately 6.5 million acres for conservation; approximately 3.6 million acres for recreation; and 419,000 acres of General Public Lands, which lack a specific land allocation or designation. A land use plan amendment is needed to develop renewable energy in General Public Lands areas.

Webcast addresses recent developments involving the California Environment Quality Act.

By Marc Campopiano, Chris Garrett, and Winston Stromberg

The Project Siting & Approvals Practice hosted a 60-minute webcast on February 21, “CEQA Developments: How New Proposed Regulations and Streamlined Legislation Will Impact California Projects.” Speakers provided an overview of the proposed updates to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the implications of new proposed legislation to streamline CEQA (including S.B. 827), and the impact of the California…

By Richard P. Bress, Philip J. Perry, Andrew D. Prins, Ryan Baasch and Alexandra Shechtel

On February 26, for the first time ever, a federal district court has enjoined a California Proposition 65 warning requirement on First Amendment grounds. Under California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 — colloquially known as “Proposition 65” — the State listed the herbicide glyphosate, the most widely used herbicide in the world, as a chemical “known” to the…

By Joshua Bledsoe and Kimberly Farbota

Recent guidance published by the California Air Resources Board (ARB) clarifies the treatment of diesel fuels under the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) in light of the Court of Appeals’ May 30, 2017 decision in POET I. Meanwhile, in POET II, ARB recently filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (MJOP), in an attempt to have the lawsuit dismissed as moot before a hearing on the merits occurs. While the MJOP addresses all of the claims in POET II and various other filings have been made by the parties in connection with the motion (e.g., Requests for Judicial Notice, a Motion to Strike, etc.), this blog entry focuses only on the key aspects of the MJOP and POET’s opposition thereto.

New Guidance Regarding Implications of the POET I Decision

On November 22, 2017, the ARB posted regulatory guidance to clarify the scope of the writ of peremptory mandate issued by the Fresno County Superior Court on October 18, 2017 (the Modified Writ) to implement the May 30, 2017 POET I decision.

As we have discussed in previous posts, the POET I case arose from Petitioner POET, LLC’s challenges to the original LCFS regulation adopted by ARB in 2009. On April 10, 2017, the Court of Appeal ruled that ARB had failed to faithfully execute a writ of peremptory mandate requiring it to remedy violations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that occurred during adoption of the original LCFS. In response to a petition for rehearing filed by ARB, the Court of Appeal reissued its opinion on May 30, 2017.

By Marc Campopiano and Shannon Cheng

A proposed Scoping Plan Update released by the California Air Resources Board (ARB) targets the land use sector and development projects for greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions. The proposed update was spurred by the passage of Senate Bill (SB) 32 and Assembly Bill (AB) 398, which codified California’s goal of reducing GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 and extended the Cap-and-Trade Program, respectively.

In a shift from prior versions of the Scoping Plan, which largely avoided discussing the California Environmental Quality Act’s (CEQA’s) role in addressing climate impacts from new land use development, ARB recommends that local agencies cut GHG emissions from the land use sector in three key ways:

By Joshua T. Bledsoe and Kimberly Farbota

In a previous post, we described how potential delays in the resolution of the case commonly known as POET I could create uncertainty regarding the future of the California Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). On August 23, 2017, the Supreme Court of California issued an order: (1) denying California Air Resources Board (ARB)’s petition for review of the appellate decision in POET I; (2) denying ARB’s request for an order directing depublication of the associated opinion; and (3) remitting the case to the Fresno County Superior Court.

As we have discussed in previous posts, the POET I case arises from petitioner POET, LLC’s challenges to the original LCFS regulation adopted by ARB in 2009. On April 10, 2017, the Court of Appeal ruled that ARB had failed to faithfully execute a writ of peremptory mandate requiring it to remedy violations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that occurred during adoption of the original LCFS. In response to a petition for rehearing filed by ARB, the Court of Appeal reissued its opinion on May 30, 2017. The revised opinion narrows the holding to focus more squarely on the facts of the case, but does not substantively alter the April 10, 2017 opinion. On July 10, 2017, ARB filed a petition with the California Supreme Court seeking depublication of the May 30, 2017 opinion, or in the alternative, Supreme Court review. In the petition, ARB argued that the decision should be depublished because it creates unnecessary confusion about how agencies and courts should address uncertainty under CEQA. ARB also argued that Supreme Court review could provide clarification regarding the standards by which compliance with a CEQA-related writ should be measured. As is common practice, the Supreme Court’s August 23, 2017 order did not provide the Court’s reasons for denying ARB’s petition and request.

By Joshua Bledsoe and Kimberly Farbota

Two recent developments in the interrelated legal challenges commonly known as POET I and POET II may create additional uncertainty for the future of the Low Carbon Fuel Standard Program (LCFS).

Earlier this year, the California Court of Appeal for the Fifth Appellate District (Court of Appeal) issued two opinions in the POET I case, both of which were adverse to the California Air Resources Board (ARB). As we have discussed in previous posts, the POET I case arises from petitioner POET, LLC’s challenges to the original LCFS regulation adopted by ARB in 2009. On April 10, 2017, the Court of Appeal ruled that ARB had failed to faithfully execute a writ of peremptory mandate (the Writ) requiring it to remedy violations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that occurred during adoption of the original LCFS. In the opinion, the Court of Appeal largely agreed with petitioner POET, LLC, finding that ARB failed to comply with CEQA’s requirement that it analyze the degree to which nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions would be impacted by implementation of the LCFS.

In response to ARB’s petition for a rehearing, the Court of Appeal reissued its opinion on May 30, 2017. The revised opinion narrows the holding to focus more squarely on the facts of the case, but does not substantively alter the April 10, 2017 opinion. In the revised opinion, the Court of Appeal assigned continuing jurisdiction to the Fresno County Superior Court (Superior Court) over POET I pending ARB’s completion of the revised NOx analysis and discharge of a reissued writ.

By Joshua T. Bledsoe and Max Friedman

As discussed in a previous post, the California Court of Appeal for the Fifth Appellate District (Court of Appeal) ruled on April 10, 2017 that the California Air Resources Board (ARB) had failed to properly follow a writ of peremptory mandate (the Writ) requiring ARB to remedy violations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that occurred during adoption of the original Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). The Court of Appeal largely agreed with the petitioner, POET, LLC (POET), a South Dakota-based ethanol producer, holding that ARB had failed to comply with CEQA’s requirement that it analyze the degree to which nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from biodiesel fuels had been and would be impacted by the implementation of the LCFS. Indeed, the Court of Appeal found that ARB had acted in bad faith in selecting a definition of the “CEQA project” that failed to account for NOx emissions attributable to the original LCFS.

As a result, the Court of Appeal directed the Fresno County Superior Court (Superior Court) to deny ARB’s request for dismissal of the Writ and to set aside its 2015 approval of the CEQA analysis regarding NOx emissions from biodiesel until ARB had conducted a revised analysis. The Court of Appeal also froze the carbon intensity (CI) targets for diesel fuel at 2017 levels until ARB had completed its revised NOx assessment. The Superior Court implemented the Court of Appeal’s ruling on April 20, 2017, vacating its prior discharge of the Writ and modifying the reissued Writ as required by the higher court. However, on April 28, 2017 the Superior Court vacated its April 20th order as premature due to subsequent filings by ARB.