Print

Court denies LCFS rehearing request

By Erin Voegele | January 24, 2014

On Jan. 22, a panel of judges with Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the petitions requesting a rehearing en banc in regard to litigation against California’s Low Carbon Fuels Standard. The rehearing request was filed in October in response to an opinion published on Sept. 18 by a panel of three judges  that overturned a December 2011 ruling by the district court that the program did facially discriminate against out of state ethanol, impermissibly engaged in extraterritorial regulation of ethanol production and discriminated against out-of-state crude oil.

Growth Energy and the Renewable Fuels Association, are among the plaintiffs who filed the rehearing request. In response to the court’s denial, the two organizations issued a joint statement calling the decision to allow the LCFS to stand “a blow to California consumers.”

“We will continue to evaluate all our options moving forward to assure that sound science and fair play ultimately prevail in this case,” said Growth Energy and the RFA. “We are heartened that seven judges strongly dissented from the court’s decision believing it merited further review, citing: ‘The majority opinion in this case upholds a regulatory scheme that, on its face, promotes California industry at the expense of out-of-state interests. The majority opinion also sanctions California’s clear attempt to project its authority into other states. Because the Constitution forbids such an expansive and discriminatory exercise of state power over interstate commerce, I respectfully dissent from our failure to rehear this case.’”

A summary prepared by the court provides additional information on the reasoning behind the its ruling. It can be downloaded here. http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/01/22/12-15131.pdf

 

 

 

 

0 Responses

     

    Leave a Reply

    Biomass Magazine encourages encourages civil conversation and debate. However, we reserve the right to delete comments for reasons including but not limited to: any type of attack, injurious statements, profanity, business solicitations or other advertising.

    Comments are closed