Hearings begin on constitutionality of California cap and trade


In an uncertain political landscape, cap and trade in California faced a fresh hurdle as hearings began before an appeals court over the constitutional legitimacy of the regime. 

“A long-running lawsuit filed by the California Chamber of Commerce seeks to have the system declared an illegal business tax that should have required a two-thirds vote of the legislature to take effect,” the San Francisco Chronicle reported. “Oral arguments in the case, first filed in 2012, are scheduled to begin in January.”

“Gov. Jerry Brown, who has made addressing climate change a central part of his legacy, spent much of the summer trying to convince legislators to explicitly extend the system past 2020. But he set a high bar, trying to line up the support of two thirds of legislators, in case the Chamber of Commerce won its suit. Republicans and business-friendly Democrats balked.”

That set the stage for the state Chamber of Commerce to bring a challenge. Rather than making a direct frontal attack on the provisions of California’s landmark emissions legislation, its lawsuit claims that California lacks an adequate legal ground to perform one of its central tasks, arguing “the state has no right to sell permits and generate revenue,” Reuters noted

A long road

The Chamber’s suit was accepted for hearings along with a separate filing, which could result in joint appeals if the court ends up siding with the California Air Resources Board. The plaintiff in the second lawsuit is Morning Star Packing Company, “the world’s largest tomato processor and a company that is required to buy carbon-emissions permits through the program,” as the Christian Science Monitor observed. “The case is expected to reach the state Supreme Court, as both sides have said they will appeal if they lose.”

Although, four years ago, the Sacramento Superior Court ruled that CARB “was given broad authority to design a program to meet emissions targets, including the sale of permits,” Reuters added, “CalChamber’s appeal of that ruling has kept the issue alive, casting a shadow over the emissions trading market, which has at times suffered a lack of participation due to uncertainty over its future. Despite the state’s earlier victory, the Third Appellate District Court’s request last year for supplemental information indicates they are taking a close look[.]”

The money factor

Still, this year, the market for carbon bounced back to a degree from previous lows. “For much of 2016, many companies appeared to be boycotting the state’s emissions-trading system,” the Chronicle noted, with buyers hesitant to commit if the system’s end might be in sight. “In May, when the state held its quarterly auction of greenhouse gas permits, only 11 percent sold.” This week, however, “state officials reported the results of the year’s last quarterly auction, held Nov. 15 — and they showed a dramatic rebound,” the paper reported. “This time, companies snapped up more than 88 percent of the current-year permits offered, the best performance of any quarterly auction since February.”

Critics of the lawsuit, including CARB, have warned that a defeat in court could wipe out a myriad of projects reliant on cap-and-trade revenues for funding. “Auction revenue is a key funding source for a high-speed rail project seeking to link Los Angeles and San Francisco by train,” the Associated Press recalled. “It also generates billions for transit construction, housing and energy conservation efforts.” But the state Chamber has countered that even a clear victory would leave a broad array of options open for the air authority. “If the auction is allowed to stand, there’s nothing to prevent the California Air Resources Board from inventing new ways to raise revenue, James Parrinello, a lawyer representing the Chamber of Commerce, told the judges.”


Write a comment
  1. Ulysses Uhaul
    Ulysses Uhaul 25 January, 2017, 09:10

    Doomers your chance at a 200 response thread!!!!!

    Oh Goodie….

    Move with Uly……we treet ya rite!

    Reply this comment
  2. Ronald Stein
    Ronald Stein 25 January, 2017, 09:24

    The California go-it-alone emissions crusade has already raised $7 billion in fees over the last 10 years from our citizens’ pocketbooks that are appropriated to more than 20 government pet projects. HOWEVER, according to the California Energy Commission, California contributes a miniscule 1 per cent to the world’s greenhouse gases which is the SAME contribution when AB32 was signed into law in 2006, a decade ago. The cap & trade program has had little to no impact on the reduction of California’s contributions to global greenhouse gas emissions, but it continues to hit the pocketbooks of its financially challenged citizens.

    The uncontrollable costs for the emissions crusade, and the LCFS, are a huge burden to continually be placed on the citizens of California with its growing numbers of financially challenged.

    Reply this comment
    • Dork
      Dork 25 January, 2017, 10:11

      I doubt we will have to wait for the courts to decide this, Mr Pruitt, future head of the EPA most likely will not renew the Waiver California has to set it’s own emission levels, effectively nullifying All Authority vested in CARB.

      Mary Nichols YOUR’E FIRED!!!

      Reply this comment
  3. DaughterofPB
    DaughterofPB 25 January, 2017, 19:44

    Brown gives me the creeps.He just does not seem right. Something is off. I just learned about Caligula in Ancient Rome, Brown seems like that, throw parties for like devil worshippers. Creepy.

    Reply this comment
    • eck
      eck 26 January, 2017, 18:52

      You may be on to something here. This obsession with the so called “Bullet train”, is exhibit A. Loony. Look at the $$ schedule problems there already are. We can look forward to its merciful death along with Jerry’s governorship.

      Reply this comment
  4. Dude
    Dude 25 January, 2017, 22:01

    The federal government is about to play it’s Trump card which will force Californian liberals to go on a starvation diet…..no more CARBs.

    Reply this comment
  5. Spurwing Plover
    Spurwing Plover 25 January, 2017, 22:10

    Just about every law or rule passed by the demacrats is Unconstitutional

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply

Related Articles

Bill could halt Airbnb, vacation rentals in some CA cities

Travel has never been easier or more affordable — thanks to the proliferation of online accommodation marketplaces. Whether you’re planning a weekend trip

Suddenly, buzz is back for Brown 2016

In just a handful of weeks, speculation has returned, and hype has built, around the idea of a Jerry Brown candidacy

Despite topping polls, Condoleezza Rice not running for Senate

Political pundits and strategists finally are taking seriously that, despite topping polls, Condoleezza Rice is not running for the U.S. Senate. The decision