<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"<p>SACRAMENTO \u2013 Six supplemental appellate briefs were filed on\nMay 23 in the latest leg of a four-year lawsuit filed by manufacturers in\nconnection with California\u2019s carbon market auction system.</p>\n\n<p>Briefs were filed in the Court of Appeal of the State of\nCalifornia, 3rd Appellate District by the California Air Resources Board, the\nEnvironmental Defense Fund and Natural Resources Defense Council, the\nInternational Emissions Trading Association and the California Chamber of\nCommerce, Morning Star Packing Co. and the National Association of\nManufacturers (NAM), which filed the lawsuits in 2012 and 2013.</p>\n\n<p>Dave Clegern, public information officer, climate change\nprograms for the California Air Resources Board, said the board is \u201Cnow awaiting\nfurther direction from the court,\u201D but that the board does not know when the\ncourt will set a hearing date or issue a decision.</p>\n\n<p>The initial brief filed in 2012 by the Chamber of Commerce\nagainst regulatory agency the Air Resources Board (ARB), argued that California\u2019s\ncarbon auctions establish an unconstitutional tax.</p>\n\n<p>However, Sean Penrith, executive director of The Climate\nTrust, told the <i>Northern California\nRecord</i> that \u201Cauctions have been shown to be a common approach to manage\nscarce resources.\u201D</p>\n\n<p>In its initial brief filed in November 2012, the chamber\nsaid: \u201CThis case is about one thing and one thing only - the lack of authority\nof an unelected, politically appointed regulatory board to engraft into a\nregulatory program a revenue-raising device that would impose what in effect is\nan invalid tax or an unconstitutional fee and would exact from taxpayers as much\nas $70 billion or more \u2013 a massive sum of tax/fee revenue that would be more\nthan was sought by the Proposition 30 tax initiative approved by voters on\nNov. 6, 2012.\u201D</p>\n\n<p>The chamber said the tax/fee device was added to the board\u2019s\nregulatory program to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through, among other\nthings, a \u201Ccap-and-trade\u201D program that sets a statewide cap on the amount of\nGHG emissions that entities covered by the program are allowed to emit, calculates\nindividual emissions allowances that are applied to covered entities and allows\nan entity to trade, for compensation, any part of its GHG emissions that it will\nnot use.</p>\n\n<p>\u201CIf the legislature wants to authorize the ARB to impose\nfees or taxes on emitters of GHG, it has every power to do so through new\nlegislation,\u201D the chamber said. \u201CBut such authority must come from the elected\nbranches of government through the democratic process, not slipped under the\nrug by an unelected board. Efforts to combat climate change can continue. So\ncan ARB\u2019s cap-and-trade program. The only thing that must cease is the\nunauthorized, unnecessary and illegal attempt by an unelected board to cloak a\nmulti-billion dollar tax increase in an environmental regulation.\u201D</p>\n\n<p>In its May 23 supplemental appellate brief, the California\nAir Resources Board said the auction system is akin to a development fee in two\nways. Specifically, the board said both the payment of development fees and the\npurchase of allowances through the auction system provide a governmental\nprivilege to the payor. In addition, the board said both the payment of\ndevelopment fees and the purchase of allowances through the auction system are\nnot compulsory.</p>\n\n<p>\u201CThe continued viability of the cap and trade program is of\ncritical importance to the state of California in meeting the 2020 statewide\ngreenhouse gas emissions limit mandated by the Legislature in AB 32,\u201D the board\nsaid in its supplemental brief.</p>\n\n<p>Penrith echoed the board\u2019s sentiments. <br></p><p>\u201CWe have just\nlaunched our pilot carbon investment fund with the support of a program-related\ninvestment from the Packard Foundation, so the outcome of the lawsuit is\nimportant to us,\u201D he said.</p>\n\n<p>If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, the board\nsaid it should preserve the status quo by ordering that all portions of the\nregulations implicated by its order remain in effect until the board has had a\nreasonable opportunity to amend the cap-and-trade regulations to come into\ncompliance with the court\u2019s decision.</p>\n\n<p>Penrith also agreed that the board should be given a chance\nto \u201Ccorrect or replace the auction mechanism beginning in 2021\u201D to give it time\nto make corrections without disrupting the market and California\u2019s efforts to\naddress climate change.</p>\n\n<p>&nbsp;\u201CWe believe that California is authorized to protect its\nnatural resources and environment, and since entities that purchase allowances\nvia the auction platform receive something of inherent value in return, the\nauction cannot and should not be construed as a tax,\u201D Penrith said.</p>\n\n<p>In 2013, the Superior Court of California, County of\nSacramento found that the auctions were within Air Resources Board\u2019s authority and\nthat the board did not need to secure approval from a two-thirds majority of\nCalifornia\u2019s legislature to hold the auctions. The plaintiffs subsequently\nappealed. The appeals court asked the parties to answer several questions to\nprovide clarity on the issues at hand.</p>"^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://norcalrecord.com/stories/510795651-appellate-briefs-latest-step-in-battle-over-california-carbon-auctions>