The Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) and Growth Energy issued the following statement in response to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ denial of rehearing en banc in the litigation regarding California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS).
“Today’s decision by the Court of Appeals to allow a clearly discriminatory LCFS to stand is 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. 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.’”The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) issued the following statement in response to the ruling.
“Although the LCFS clearly discriminates against fuels produced in other states and violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals chose to deny our petition and uphold this biased law. The broad reach and intended scope of the California LCFS mean that the Ninth Circuit’s decision will have adverse consequences throughout the nation’s fuel supply chain far beyond California’s borders, and ultimately a negative impact on consumers. AFPM agrees with the seven dissenting judges who would have granted further review because the original decision ‘contravenes black letter law’ and is ‘inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent.’ AFPM will be evaluating its options regarding further court proceedings in upcoming weeks.”