Posted on 12/30/2011 11:47:57 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Ow, that’s gotta hurt. CA’s 2006 Global Warming law – denied.
Federal judge blocks California low-carbon fuels rule
Chico Enterprise Record
FRESNO — A federal judge moved today to block California from enforcing its first-in-the-nation mandate for cleaner, low-carbon fuels, saying the rules favor biofuels produced in the state.
The lawsuit challenging the state regulations, which were adopted as part of the state’s landmark 2006 global warming law, was filed in federal court last year by a coalition including the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association and the Consumer Energy Alliance.
Fresno-based U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence O’Neill’s written ruling Thursday said the low-carbon fuel rules violated the U.S. Constitution’s commerce clause by discriminating against crude oil and biofuels producers located outside California.
Out-of-state fuels producers hailed the decision as a win for California drivers.
Full story at Chico Enterprise Record
Well, it’s a rare event, but every once in a while, a federal judge does something for our side.
Wonder what her next trick is?
Mary is the bureaucrat in charge of the California Air Resources Board.
9th Circuit will reverse this in due course.
************************************EXCERPT************************************************
Mark and two Cats says:
Thank you Judge O’Neill – California needs all the help it can get! Jerry Brown, California’s senile governor, and the California Air Resources Board have been actively conspiring to turn the state into their view of a green/socialist paradise, with the general public living in concentrated urban centers where everybody will walk or bike to work, and where only the wealthy will be able to afford to have single-family dwellings in the suburbs or in the country. And since Brown and his cronies have been driving businesses out of the state, the only wealthy people left will be leftists: Hollywood types, union bosses, government workers, and politicians.
********************************EXCERPT*************************************
From this year:
“…July 18, 2011
U.S. Supreme Court again rejects most decisions by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
Judges in the circuit’s nine Western states are more liberal than the high court justices, who reversed or vacated 19 of the 26 decisions they examined for the last term…”
From 2009:
“…June 29, 2009
U.S. Supreme Court looks over 9th Circuit’s shoulder
This term, justices reversed, at least partially, 94% of the Western appeals court’s rulings. Part of the reason, experts say, is the court is perceived as liberal and partial to the underdog…”
So if the state wants this to go through, THEY’LL appeal.
Look for that to be announced before the SCOTUS starts it’s new term.
*************************EXCERPT************************************************
D. W. Schnare says:
This Commerce Clause argument is identical to the one zwhich we (American Tradition Institute) are using in Colorado to shut down that state’s renewable energy mandate. It is a very strong argument and I predict even the Ninth Circuit will have to affirm it. This is one of those extremely rare cases where the Commerce Clause works for the people.
Dean Robb says:
Interesting side note:
“Today, we look at the ruling’s impact.
Over the past several months, the Digest and other media noted that California was importing ethanol from Brazil, a 6000 mile, diesel-churning tanker haul.
Now, before the California Low Carbon Fuel Standard was put into place, California would have sourced its ethanol needs from, say, Nebraska, some 1200 miles to the east.
The 6000-mile trek was justified, said the authors of the low-carbon standard, on the basis that Brazilian ethanol was produced with a much lower carbon intensity than the aforementioned Nebraskan ethanol.
So, what was happening to the offending gallons from the Nebraska? Were they no longer produced at all?
Actually, they were being exported via a 6000 mile, diesel-sucking tanker haul to Brazil, to make up for the shortfall in the Brazilian market.
Same ethanol molecule, same emissions when burned.
12,000 miles of hauling, instead of 2,400, to burn the same tankfuls of molecules. All in the name of reducing carbon emissions.”- http://biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2011/12/30/us-federal-court-issues-injunction-against-california-low-carbon-fuel-standard/
So who is really making the money here? Years ago when Oil prices were regulated by the government they found that domestic produced oil had to be sold at a set by the government price, but imported oil was at market value……. so to get around the regulation the domestic oil on paper was exported then an equal amount crude oil was then imported at market value all the time the oil never left the storage tanks. So the question becomes did the tax payer subsidized bio fuel actually leave the country?
Interesting turn of events. Good for California on this one.
Good news.
Thanks Ernest.
Gingrich Kills Chapter on Climate Change in Upcoming Book
Even the Warmists Don't Believe In Global Warming
PRUDEN: A little humility at the ‘climate research’ crossroads
Thou shalt not question UN ‘experts’
Global Warming on Free Republic
Don’t be too happy, it’s coming from several directions...
http://www.mddep.gouv.qc.ca/communiques_en/2011/c20111215-carbonmarket.htm
Altho several states are bailing on it lately, its still out there...
http://www.westernclimateinitiative.org/
The up side...
BTW this was supported by Huntsman, when you get to the voting booth...
http://www.platts.com/RSSFeedDetailedNews/RSSFeed/ElectricPower/6695863
Figured you’d have the low down on this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
