Facts

Petitioners, Comite Progreso de Lamont (a coalition of community groups advocating for environmental and public health policies), sought a writ against respondent, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District. The coalition wanted the district to rescind those portions of the refinery rules they characterize as exemptions and to revise the regulations so that they comply with Health and Safety Code Section 42705.6 (statute). Through the statute, local air districts are required to install and operate community air monitoring systems at or near sensitive receptor locations around petroleum refineries. It also requires petroleum refinery owners and operators to install and operate fence-line air monitoring systems at or adjacent to the refinery in accordance with guidelines developed by the local air district. These monitoring systems would provide useful real-time data regarding pollution levels and measuring emissions, gas leaks and other air emissions and this data must be provided to the public as quickly as possible. To implement the statute's requirements, the district adopted Rules 4460 and 3200. These rules exempted petroleum refineries that were not currently refining crude oil from complying with the statute's monitoring requirements. They also excluded petroleum refineries with a crude oil refining capacity of 40,000 barrels per day or less from monitoring any pollutants other than the six included in a pre-determined list developed by the district.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: The coalition generally contended that respondent's refinery rules violated the statute. Specifically, they argued that the district's exemptions were inconsistent with the statute; that the district failed to deploy community air monitoring stations within the applicable time period; failed to prepare required guidance materials; failed to provide for public review and input those guidance materials. Finally, they contended that the district, in choosing to deploy only one community air monitor per petroleum refinery, violated the statute.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: The district denied all contentions and specifically noted that applicable statutes provided it with the discretion to include in the rules exemptions for certain facilities.

Result

Petitioner's and intervenor's (State of California) request for a peremptory writ of mandate was granted and respondent was required to remove from its regulations the exemption for the facilities that are not refining crude oil presently and refine its rule for refineries that have a capacity of less than 40,000 barrels per day. Respondent is required to provide evidentiary support for the decisions made and demonstrate a rational connection between the regulations and the statute.