Federal judge finds California LCFS unconstitutional
Fresno, CA – A judge in Federal District Court in Fresno, California, today sided with America's ethanol industry in ruling that the State of California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) is unconstitutional. Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill agreed with the arguments that the LCFS is in violation of the Commerce Clause the U.S. Constitution.
In a joint statement, RFA President and CEO Bob Dinneen and Growth Energy CEO Tom Buis said: “The state of California overreached in creating its low carbon fuel standard by making it unconstitutionally punitive for farmers and ethanol producers outside of the state’s border. With this ruling, it is our hope that the California regulators will come back to the table to work on a thoughtful, fair, and ultimately achievable strategy for improving our environment by incenting the growth and evolution of American renewable fuels.”
The groups filed their suit on December 24, 2009 and asserted that the California LCFS violates the Commerce Clause by seeking to regulate farming and ethanol production practices in other states. The Commerce Clause specifically forbids state laws that discriminate against out-of-state goods and that regulate out-of-state conduct. With its original filing, the groups noted, “The LCFS imposes excessive burdens on the entire domestic ethanol industry while providing no benefit to Californians. In fact, in disadvantaging low-carbon, domestic ethanol, the LCFS denies the people of California a genuine opportunity to clean their air, create jobs, and strengthen their economic and national security. One state cannot dictate policy for all the others, yet that is precisely what California has aimed to do through a poorly conceived and, frankly, unconstitutional LCFS.”
On this claim the Court found that the LCFS discriminates against out-of-state corn-derived ethanol and impermissibly regulates extraterritorial conduct. As a result, the Court issued an injunction. Judge O’Neill also ruled that CARB failed to establish that there are no alternative methods to advance its goals of reducing GHG emissions to combat global warming.
The ruling allows CARB to appeal Judge O’Neill’s decision immediately to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. RFA and Growth Energy will defend the Judge’s decision that the LCFS is unconstitutional in any appeal that may be filed by CARB.
2 Responses
Aureon Kwolek
2011-12-30
1California would be way ahead with a mandate that all new vehicles sold in the State must be flexi-fueled – giving consumers a choice at the pump. This would cut tail-pipe emissions faster by displacing more gasoline, rather than imposing illegal restrictions on our domestic ethanol industry…… Why should California AIR replace conventional gasoline with readily available renewable fuels? Because gasoline emits sulfurous black carbon soot and is laced with a multitude of carcinogens, neurotoxins, and chemical additives – that ethanol does Not emit…. Gasoline contains aromatics and emissions that cause cancer: CO2 is nothing - next to Benzene – which can actually kill you. It’s known to cause leukemia, especially in children. Other dangerous aromatics in gasoline include (1) toluene, meta-xylene, para-xylene, ortho-xylene ethyltoluene, ethyl benzene, trimethylbenzene. (2) Toxic olefins. (3) Dibromoethane (EDB). (4) N-Nitrosodiethylamine. (5) Ethylene dibromide. (6) Ethylene dichloride. (7) Toxic n-paraffins. (8) Toxic iso-paraffins: methylbutanes, methylpentanes, methylhexanes, dimethylpentanes, trimethylbutanes, trimethylpentanes. (9) Cycloparaffins: cyclopentane, methylcyclopentane, cyclohexane, methylcyclohexane. (10) Toxic metal deactivators, deposit modifiers, gum inhibitors, freezing point depressants, corrosion inhibitors, and dyes… and the list goes on….. So why is C-ARB black-balling a much cleaner-burning domestic fuel, while it continues to allow these poisons to be released into the air we breathe?
Aureon Kwolek
2011-12-31
2C-ARB also discriminated against domestic corn ethanol - by assigning FALSE indirect land use change penalties. C-ARB land use penalties against corn ethanol are based on flimsy assumptions, not facts on the ground. Indirect land use change is unproven junk science, and should NOT be allowed as a bases for rulemaking. Recent studies show that land use change impact from corn ethanol is zero….. The bogus land use change theory was erroneously based on the false assumption that corn ethanol acreage would expand and displace other cropland. Although corn acreage fluctuates from year to year, the fact is, our corn crop covers about the same acreage as it did in 1944, and corn ethanol is capped at 15 billion gallons. The trend has been to expand corn ethanol production by getting a higher yield from the same number of acres. Further proof that C-ARB’s numbers are wrong: A recent USDA report for all U.S. crops showed that total crop acreage actually decreased, and caused NO indirect land use change….. The ravenous lumber and paper pulp industries in other countries such as Brazil and Indonesia, is the main cause of deforestation, not biofuels. Clearing land for livestock grazing is also a big factor. Deforestation has been occurring for hundreds of years, long before the expansion of biofuels. Many other factors cause land use change, such as commodities speculation, which drives-up prices; locating crops closer to export targets to reduce transportation costs; and the simple fact that our economic needs continue to expand. Using the unproven theory to assign false carbon penalties, C-ARB twisted its data in favor of imported ethanol from Brazil, while it discriminated against domestic corn ethanol…... If their LCFS prevails, California fuel importers will pocket a $1.01 per gallon subsidy on a FOREIGN fuel - paid for by the American taxpayer, including taxpayers in the Corn Belt who are getting screwed by another State….. By design, C-ARB ignored Brazil’s plans to expand sugar cane acreage dramatically in the next few years. Instead, C-ARB embraced the false assumption that corn acreage is expanding and displacing other crops, when it is not. C-ARB falsely assigned a Lower land use change penalty to expanding Brazilian sugar cane acreage, and a Higher penalty to American corn-based ethanol, which is not expanding in acreage….. It should also be noted, that if indirect land use change exists at all, then Brazilian sugar cane expansion would also be the cause of deforestation and land displacement in other countries around the world. But C-ARB’s rule-making ignores the facts on the ground and employs an unproven theory as a means of discrimination. This is another issue that should be addressed by the Court…. Bottom line is – The Court Should Limit Regulatory Rules to Scientifically Proven Factual Information Only.
Leave a Reply
Comments are closed