Cent. Cal. Envtl. Justice Network v. Randolph

• Docket Number: 2:22-cv-01714-DJC-CKD
• Decision Date: 20 July 2023
• Parties: CENTRAL CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE NETWORK, COMMITTEE FOR A BETTER ARVIN, MEDICAL ADVOCATES FOR HEALTHY AIR, and HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT FOR ALL, Plaintiffs, v. LIANE RANDOLPH, in her official capacity as Chair of the Air Resources Board; STEVEN CLIFF, in his official capacity as Executive Officer of the Air Resources Board; SANDRA BERG, JOHN EISENHUT, DANIEL SPERLING, JOHN BALMES, DIANE TAKVORIAN, DEAN FLOREZ, HECTOR DE LA TORRE, DAVINA HURT, BARBARA RIORDAN, PHIL SERNA, NORA VARGAS, TANIA PACHECO-WERNER, and GIDEON KRACOV, in their official capacities as Board Members of the Air Resources Board; CONNIE LEYVA and EDUARDO GARCIA, in their official capacities as Ex Officio Board Members of the Air Resources Board; SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT; and the GOVERNING BOARD OF THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California

1

CENTRAL CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE NETWORK, COMMITTEE FOR A BETTER ARVIN, MEDICAL ADVOCATES FOR HEALTHY AIR, and HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT FOR ALL, Plaintiffs, v. LIANE RANDOLPH, in her official capacity as Chair of the Air Resources Board; STEVEN CLIFF, in his official capacity as Executive Officer of the Air Resources Board; SANDRA BERG, JOHN EISENHUT, DANIEL SPERLING, JOHN BALMES, DIANE TAKVORIAN, DEAN FLOREZ, HECTOR DE LA TORRE, DAVINA HURT, BARBARA RIORDAN, PHIL SERNA, NORA VARGAS, TANIA PACHECO-WERNER, and GIDEON KRACOV, in their official capacities as Board Members of the Air Resources Board; CONNIE LEYVA and EDUARDO GARCIA, in their official capacities as Ex Officio Board Members of the Air Resources Board; SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT; and the GOVERNING BOARD OF THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT, Defendants.

No. 2:22-cv-01714-DJC-CKD

United States District Court, E.D. California

July 20, 2023

ORDER GRANTING STATE DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE; GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND WITHHOLDING SUBMISSION OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION REGARDING DEFENDANTS' OFFER OF JUDGMENT

HON DANIEL J. CALABRETTA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This case concerns California's long-running efforts to reduce air pollution in the San Joaquin Valley to levels required under the Clean Air Act. Central California Environmental Justice Network, Committee for a Better Arvin, Medical Advocates for Healthy Air, and Healthy Environment for All Lives (“Plaintiffs”) move for summary judgment and seek an injunction ordering members of the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) in their official capacity (“State Defendants”) and the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District and its Governing Board (together referred to as “San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District” or “District Defendants”) to comply with the Clean Air Act and “develop, adopt, and submit [attainment contingency] measures within 180 days.” (Pls.' Mem of P. and A. in supp. of. Pls.' Mot. for Summ. J. (ECF No. 17-1) at 20 (“MSJ”).) State Defendants and District Defendants (“Defendants”) for their part “do not contest any of the three Issues identified by Plaintiffs[,]” instead only disputing the proper remedy. (State Defs.' Mem. of P. and A. in Opp'n to Pls.' Mot. for Summ. J. (ECF No. 21) at1 -2 (“MSJ Opp'n”).)

For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and orders Defendants to submit attainment contingency measures for approval by the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA”) with sufficient time for the EPA to review and approve before the December 15, 2024 final attainment decision deadline for the EPA. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to modify and ensure compliance with its order.

BACKGROUND

I. The Clean Air Act

The Clean Air Act of 1 970, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq. authorized the EPA to establish national ambient air quality standards (“NAAQS”). See Friends of the Earth v. Carey, 535 F.3d 165, 168 (2d Cir. 1976) (“Carey”). National ambient air quality standards established by the EPA “set maximum levels for certain air-borne toxins.” Am. Lung Ass'n of N.J. v. Kean, 871 F.2d 319, 322 (3d Cir. 1989) (“AMA of New Jersey ”). States must attain the relevant NAAQS based on “an elaborate timetable” Congress created in the 1990 amendments because of “perceived ‘widespread failure' to meet the air quality standards . . . ." Hall v. U.S. E.P.A., 273 F.3d 1146, 115354 (9th Cir. 2001) (footnote omitted).

The Clean Air Act designates areas as “air quality control regions” with three possible classifications: attainment, nonattainment, and unclassifiable. See 42 U.S.C. § 7407(b), (d). For nonattainment areas, the Clean Air Act further classifies them as: (1) “Marginal;” (2) “Moderate;” (3) “Serious;” (4) “Severe;” or (5) “Extreme.” See 42 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1). “For each area classified under this subsection, the primary standard attainment date for ozone shall be as expeditiously as practicable but not later than the date provided in [a table].” Id. These attainment deadlines for nonattainment areas are particularly important because failure to attain by the relevant deadline triggers automatic reclassification to a higher designation, which can expose the State to sanctions and fines, see 42 U.S.C. § 7511(b)(4) (consequences for a “Severe” area for failing to attain a standard); 42 U.S.C. § 7509 (consequences for a State for failing to attain a standard in general). See generally 42 U.S.C. §§ 7511 -11f.

States create the plans, called state implementation plans or "SIPs", that execute the goals set by the EPA and Congress. See South Coast Air Quality Mgmt Dist. v. E.P.A., 472 F.3d 882, 886 (D.C. Cir. 2006) ("South Coast I") (citing 42 U.S.C. § 7410). “These SIPs are promulgated by state agencies after notice and comment and must be approved by the EPA after it conducts its own notice and comment proceedings.” AMA of New Jersey, 871 F.2d at 322 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 7410). CARB adopts and submits SIPs and SIP revisions to the EPA that are created by the local districts, such as the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.^[1] “By virtue of the States' roles in devising a strategy and adopting an implementation plan, the Supreme Court has emphasized that '[i]t is to the States that the [Clean Air] Act assigns initial and primary responsibility for deciding what emissions reductions will be required from which sources.'” Hall, 273 F.3d at 1153 (quoting Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass'ns, 531 U.S. 457, 470-72 (2001)) (first alteration included; second alteration added).

“Since abatement and control of air pollution through systematic and timely attainment of the air quality standards is Congress' overriding objective, a [state implementation] plan, once adopted by a state and approved by the EPA, becomes controlling and must be carried out by the state.” Carey, 535 F.2d at 169. A state “may not unilaterally alter the legal commitments of its SIP once [the] EPA approves the plan.” Safe Air for Everyone v. U.S. E.P.A., 488 F.3d 1088, 1097 (9th Cir. 2007) (“SAFE v. EPA”) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 7416). After approval, the Clean Air Act offers few alternatives for states trying to modify their commitments. See Carey, 535 F.2d at 169. A state may submit revisions, reclassify to a higher designation, or attain the standard. To the extent any plan revisions are permitted, “[t]he [EPA] Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 7501 of this title), or any other applicable requirement of this chapter.” 42 U.S.C. § 7410(l). The EPA Administrator may redesignate an area from nonattainment to attainment only if certain conditions are met that require the EPA Administrator to find all outstanding commitments satisfied and that the area attained the relevant standard due to “permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 7407(d)(3)(E). “In all other instances, the State is relegated to a lone option: compliance.” Carey, 535 F.2d at 178 (citations omitted).

The Clean Air Act “provides a private right of action for citizens to enforce an SIP by bringing a civil action in federal district court.” Sierra Club v. U.S. E.P.A., 671 F.3d 955, 959 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 7604) (“Sierra Club”). This cause of action enforcing a SIP arises under 42 U.S.C. section 7604(a). When Congress crafted the citizen-suit provision of the Clean Air Act, “Congress made clear that citizen groups are not to be treated as nuisances or troublemakers but rather as welcomed participants in the vindication of environmental interests. Fearing that administrative enforcement might falter or stall, ‘the citizen suits provision reflected a deliberate choice by Congress to widen citizens access to the courts, as a supplemental and effective assurance that the Act would be implemented and enforced.'” Carey, 535 F.2d at 172 (quoting Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Train, 510 F.2d 692, 700 (D.C. Cir. 1975) (“NRDC v. Train”)). “Citizens' suits are limited to enforcing a SIP's specific strategies, however, and may not enforce its overall objectives or aspirational goals.” El Commits Para el Bienestar de Earlimart v. U.S. E.P.A., 786 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 2015) (“El Comite”) (citing Bayview Hunters Cmty. Advocs. v. Metro. Transp. Comm'n, 366 F.3d 692, 701 (9th Cir. 2004)).

II. The San Joaquin Valley's Air Pollution Problem

A. The EPA's Ozone Standards Applied to the San Joaquin Valley

“The San Joaquin Valley is a large inland area of California extending from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta in the north to the Tehachapi Mountains in the South.” Ass'n of Irritated Residents v. U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, 10 F.4th 937, 942 (9th Cir. 2021) ("AIR v. EPA”). As the Ninth Circuit recently recognized, “the [San Joaquin] Valley has long struggled to attain air quality standards for ozone.” Id. “The Valley has long been ‘an area with some of the worst air quality in the United States,' and it has repeatedly failed to meet air quality standards.” Id. at 944 (quoting Committee for a Better Arvin v. U.S. E.P.A., 786 F.3d 1169, 1173 (9th Cir. 2015)).

In brief, the EPA has revised the applicable ozone standard three times, first establishing the 1979 One-Hour Ozone standard that was replaced by the 1997 EightHour Ozone standard, then by the 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone standard, then by the 2015 Eight-Hour Ozone standard, which is currently in effect.^[2] While the EPA expressly revoked two of these standards (the 1979 One-Hour Ozone standard and the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone standard), for areas that failed to...