California Air Resources Board

PUBLIC DOCUMENT – March 22, 2023

PENDING LITIGATION – With California Air Resources Board as a Party

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is a party in the cases listed below as a defendant, a plaintiff, an intervenor, or an amicus. These cases are organized into subject areas: greenhouse gas-related cases, diesel and other pollutants-related cases, enforcement cases, and other miscellaneous cases. The expectation is that this list will be periodically updated. Since the case name, court name, and case number are listed, details about each case can be obtained from the filed pleadings at each court.

Greenhouse Gas-Related Cases

Challenge to the Advanced Clean Trucks rulemaking by the natural gas industry under the California Environmental Quality Act and the Administrative Procedures Act. California Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition v. California Air Resources Board (Fresno County Superior Court, Case No. 20CECG02250; industry appeal California Court of Appeal, Fifth District, F084229).

Challenge to the Advanced Clean Cars II rulemaking under the federal and California constitutions, the California Environmental Quality Act, and the Administrative Procedures Act. The Two Hundred for Homeownership, Robert Apodaca, and Jose Antonio Ramirez v. California Air Resources Board and Steven S. Cliff, in his official capacity, (United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division, Case No. 1:22‑at‑904).

Fossil fuel industry challenge to CARB’s Advanced Clean Cars II regulations in state court against moving cars to zero emissions.Western States Petroleum Association v. California Air Resources Board et al., (Fresno County Superior Court, Case No. 22CECG03603.)

Challenge to the revised 2022-2026 federal fuel economy standards issued by National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). CARB intervened to support the federal standards.Natural Resources Defense Council v. National Highway Traffic Safety Admin., et al. (United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, Case No. 22-1080, consolidated with Nos. 22-1144, 22-1145).

Intervention to support U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) in a challenge to its restoration of CARB’s waiver for its greenhouse gas emission and zero-emission vehicle standards. Ohio, et al. v. EPA, et al. (United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, Case No. 22-1081, consolidated with other cases).

Intervention to support U.S. EPA in a challenge to more stringent 2021‑2026 greenhouse gas emission standards for cars. State of Texas, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al. (United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, Case No. 22‑1031).

Challenge to Trump-era SAFE Vehicles Rule Part 1 against the U.S. EPA and NHTSA to revoke California’s authority. State of California v. Wheeler et al. (United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, Case No. 19‑1239, consolidated with other cases under No. 19‑1230, Union of Concerned Scientists, et al. v. NHTSA).

Challenge to the Trump-era SAFE Vehicles Rule Part 2 against U.S. EPA and NHTSA to gut federal passenger vehicle greenhouse gas emissions and fuel economy standards. State of California v. Wheeler, et al., (United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, Case No. 20-1167, consolidated with other cases under No. 20‑1145, Competitive Enterprise Institute, et al. v. NHTSA, et al.).

Challenge to the federal Bureau of Land Management recession of the 2016 Waste Prevention Rule for oil and gas methane leaks on federal lands.State of California, et al. v. David Bernhardt, et al. (United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 20-16793, appeal from 472 F.Supp.3d 573 (N.D. Cal. 2020).

Challenge to U.S. EPA’s final rules that reverse limits on methane and other emissions from existing sources in the oil and gas sector that were constructed or modified since September 18, 2015. Environmental Defense Fund, et al. v. Andrew Wheeler, et al. (United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, Case No. 20‑1360).

Challenge to U.S. EPA’s failure to initiate rulemaking for existing oil and natural gas facilities. State of New York, et al. v. Andrew Wheeler and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (United States District Court, District of Columbia, Case No. 1:18‑CV‑00773).

Challenge to U.S. EPA’s rule on aircraft greenhouse gas emissions. State of California, et al. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency. (United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, Case No. 21‑1018).

Challenge to the U.S. EPA Supplemental Finding on mercury emissions from power plants. State of Massachusetts v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, Case No. 20‑1265).

Challenge to U.S. EPA standards of performance for greenhouse gas emissions from new, modified, and reconstructed electricity‑generating power plants. CARB intervened in 2015 to defend the existing federal rule. State of North Dakota v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, Case No. 15‑1381).

Challenge to U.S. EPA’s oil and gas methane rule. CARB intervened in 2016 to support U.S. EPA’s rule to control methane emissions from new and modified sources in the oil and gas sector.State of North Dakota, et al. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, et al. (United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, Case No. 16‑1242).

Challenge to the federal Bureau of Land Management’s rule to control methane leaks on public lands. CARB intervened in 2016 to defend the federal rule. State of Wyoming, et al. v. United States Department of the Interior, et al. (United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, Case No. 20-8073, appeal from 493 F.Supp.3d 1046 (D. Wyo. 2020).

Following Cap-and-Trade de-linkage with Ontario, a company sued for alleged lost money. CARB intervened. W.O. Stinson & Son LTD. v. Western Climate Initiative, Inc., (Ontario Canada Superior Court, Case No. CV-20-00083726-0000).

Diesel and Other Pollutants-Related Cases

Challenge to CARB’s regulatory fee for controlling transportation refrigeration units on trucks. California Trucking Association v. California Air Resources Board et al (Fresno County Superior Court, Case No. 22CECG00919).

CARB intervened to support South Coast Air Quality Management District’s indirect source rule to reduce emissions associated with warehouses.California Trucking Association v. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. District (United States District Court, Central District of California, Case No. 2:21‑cv‑6341).

Challenge to U.S. EPA’s Trump-era midnight revocation of its long-established “once in, always in” policy for controlling major sources of hazardous air pollutants from stationary sources. California v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, Case No. 21-1034consolidated with Case No. 21‑1024).

Challenge to U.S. EPA’s Trump-era midnight rule setting lax ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards.New York, et al. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, et al. (United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, Case No. Case No. 21‑1028).

Challenge to U.S. EPA’s Trump-era midnight rule setting lax particulate matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards.State of California, et al. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, et al. (United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, Case No. Case No. 21‑1014).

CARB intervened to support petitioners’ challenge to the China Shipping environmental documentation claiming prior mitigation is not needed at the Los Angeles Port. South Coast Air Quality Management District v. City of Los Angeles, et al. (California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Div. 1, Case. No. D080902).

Challenge to U.S. EPA’s recent rule on aircraft particulate matter regulation.State of California, et al. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, Case No. 

Challenge to CARB’s At-Berth regulation amendments, Including adding oil tankers, and requiring plugging in at ports.Western States Petroleum Association v. California Air Resources Board (Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. 20STCP03138).

Enforcement Cases

Enforcement of emissions standards for diesel passenger cars. California Air Resources Board v. Daimler AG and Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC. (United States District Court, District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 1:20‑cv‑2565.)

Complaint against Key Disposal, Inc. for truck violations. California Air Resources Board v. Key Disposal, Inc., and John Katangian (Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC650014).

Complaint against fuel distributors for violations of the Regulation on the Commercialization of Alternative Diesel Fuels. People ex rel. CARB v. Noil Energy Group, Inc. & Speedy Fuel, Inc. (Los Angeles Superior Court Case Nos. 20STCV30142, 20STCV30292).

Complaint against Wholesale Harvest for alleged violations of the Consumer Products Regulation.People ex rel. CARB v. Wholesale Harvest Supply, Inc. (Mendocino County Superior Court, Case No. 22CV00491).

Complaint against the company for fraudulent certification of biodiesel additive. California Air Resources Board v. Best Energy Solutions & Technology Corp. (Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. 22STCV32487).

Other Cases

Third‑party subpoena warranty lawsuit.Bobby Harris v. Nissan North America, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Case No. 2:20‑cv‑06021‑CJC‑GJS).

Complaint alleging CARB and the San Joaquin Valley Air Quality Management District failed to submit attainment contingency measures to Region 9, U.S. EPA to address the 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS in the Valley. Central California Environmental Justice Network, et al. v. Randolph, et al.(U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:22‑cv‑01714-TLN-CKD).

Challenge under the Endangered Species Act related to dust mitigation within the Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area.Friends of Oceano Dunes, Inc. v. California Air Resources Board, et al. (U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:17‑cv‑8733).

Challenge to U.S. EPA’s Trump-era midnight rule skewing economic analysis “Increasing Consistency and Transparency in Considering Costs and Benefits in the Clean Air Act Rulemaking Process.” State of New York, et al. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, Case No. 21‑1026).

Challenge to the 2017 Scoping Plan on civil rights grounds and under the California Environmental Quality Act. The claim is that the Scoping Plan exacerbates the housing crisis. The Two Hundred, et al. v California Air Resources Board, et al. (Fresno Superior Court, Case No. 18CECG1494).

Multiple cases: The Heavy-Duty Vehicle Inspection Program. Heavy‑duty trucks and buses traveling in California (even if registered elsewhere) may be inspected for excessive smoke, tampering, and engine certification label compliance. Tests are performed by CARB inspection teams at border crossings, CHP freeway weigh stations, fleet facilities, and roadside locations. Owners violating the requirements may receive a citation starting at $300 per violation. The Heavy‑Duty Vehicle Inspection Program was adopted pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 44011.6. Once the citation is final, applications for judgments are filed in Sacramento County Superior Court. (Health & Safety Code, § 44011.6(m).) The individual citations filed in court are not listed in this summary.