Unlike last fall's unsuccessful Proposition 23, which came from the political right, this challenge to California's landmark global warming law comes from the left. Plaintiffs say the California Air Resources Board didn't adequately consider alternative ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions before approving a Cap-and-Trade program. That's where companies get a certain number of emission permits, then buy extras from other companies that don't need them.
Young: "We disagree with the court's decision."
And, says Stanley Young with the Air Resources Board, the ruling could put several other emission reduction programs on hold too …
Young: "… including our clean cars standards, energy efficiency programs and low-carbon fuels standards."
The Board is working with the plaintiffs on a narrow remedy so the ruling only forces a closer look at Cap-and-Trade. The state also plans to appeal the original ruling.