Disappointment in ARB Case
After three years of hard work, TRANSDEF’s challenge to the California Air Resources Board’s adoption of its 2014 Scoping Plan was rejected today by the Court. Disappointingly, the decision was based purely on the technical, procedural objections brought by ARB. ARB never defended its decision to include a GHG-increasing measure in a plan intended to reduce GHGs.
In oral argument, TRANSDEF’s attorney, Stuart Flashman, proposed a new way to look at CEQA GHG impacts–one that we have not heard being used before: Because of the global climate change tipping point being close to the present, he distinguished near-term GHG emissions as being far more significant an impact than emissions occurring after the tipping point has been passed. While a very strong argument, the Court ruled that TRANSDEF’s comments had not made that point, so that we were barred from litigating it. We suggest this issue be raised in future cases.