Facts

In Dec. 2008, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved a Scoping Plan that set forth policy recommendations of the CARB for achieving the objectives of AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.

In 2009, several environmental justice groups sued CARB challenging CARB's compliance with the statutory provisions of AB 32 in approving the Scoping Plan and CARB's compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Petitioners contended that CARB failed to comply with Health and Safety Code section 38561 in preparing the Scoping Plan and that CARB failed to adequately analyze the impacts of the measures in the Scoping Plan and failed to conduct an adequate alternatives analysis as required by CEQA. In the CEQA claims in particular, petitioners claimed that CARB's analysis as to possible alternatives to "Cap and Trade" measures, a market-based emission reduction strategy, was flawed.

Result

In its final statement of decision, the court rejected the petitioners' statutory claims and the CEQA effects claim, and granted the writ petition on the CEQA alternatives analysis claim. The court ordered petitioners to prepare a writ of mandate directing ARB to set aside the alternatives analysis and enjoining further implementation of the Scoping Plan.