Automobile dealers\u2019 claims of harm from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s permission allowing California to implement its tailpipe greenhouse gas reduction rule were dismissed by a federal appeals court April 29. \u201cThe petitioners have submitted no evidence that their members actually suffered injury,\u201d from implementing the state\u2019s rule under the federal Clean Air Act, states the three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. In a 35-page decision, it also held the National Automobile Dealers Association and U.S. Chamber of Commerce challenges were moot because national automobile fuel standards were adopted that mirror California\u2019s regulation. The federal appeals court held, therefore, it had no jurisdiction over the case and rejected the appeal. \u201cThis is an important case for the Air Resources Board and for California. The nation\u2019s first greenhouse gas regulations, approved in 2004, have now passed their final hurdle,\u201d stated Stanley Young, CARB spokesperson. \u201cThis decision allows California to continue to show leadership in taking reasonable action to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, as EPA also continues to take common sense, reasonable steps to address greenhouse gas pollution at the national level,\u201d said Stacy Kika, U.S. EPA spokesperson. The national auto dealers said they were reviewing the ruling and weighing options. \u201cUnfortunately, this decision leaves in place the existing, extraneous California fuel economy standards,\u201d according to a written statement by the auto dealers. Thirteen other states and the District of Columbia adopted tailpipe emission rules similar to California\u2019s. This state\u2019s regulations are estimated to be the equivalent of taking 6.5 million cars off the road. Fewer emissions from the transportation sector are expected to ease the regulatory burden on the electricity sector. In 2004, California attempted to implement its tailpipe emission reduction law written by then-Assemblymember Fran Pavley. Under President George W. Bush, the EPA refused to grant California a Clean Air Act waiver that would allow the state to put its law into effect. The Air Board and EPA challenged the ruling in 2007. Shortly after President Barack Obama came into office, his new EPA administrator granted California\u2019s waiver. Obama also directed the National Transportation Department to adopt higher fuel economy rules on a par with California\u2019s tailpipe regulations. After the national rules were adopted, California announced that adoption of the federal vehicle mileage standard satisfied its own tailpipe law. The court docket number is 09-1237. * * * * * The market for carbon emissions credits in California is less-than-robust due to continuing legal uncertainty about the fate of the state\u2019s cap-and-trade program, as well as concern about buyer liability in the event offset credit projects don\u2019t pan out as planned. That\u2019s the conclusion of Evolution Markets in its latest tracking report issued April 29. The company found that credit trading prices were level to slightly lower in April, with California carbon allowances bid at an average of $13.75\/ton range (about the same as in March) and California carbon offsets bid at an average of $10\/ton, down from March. Domestic early action credits were bid at $7.25\/ton and domestic landfill gas credits at $2.50\/ton. * * * * * Lawsuits were filed in state and federal courts in San Francisco May 4 charging California and a slew of federal agencies with failing to protect future generations from climate change impacts under the state and federal public trust doctrines. \u201cThis is something new--no climate litigation in the past has ever gone back to the first principal that the government must protect the public trust,\u201d Pete McCloskey, former Republican U.S. Representative, stated May 4. \u201cThe large body of litigation brought under environmental statutes is too narrow for the crisis at hand.\u201d McCloskey\u2019s firm filed suit in the U.S. District Court for Northern California. The suit targets several federal agencies, including the U.S Environmental Protection Agency and Departments of Energy, Interior, Defense, Agriculture, and Commerce. Another suit was filed in the state Superior Court in San Francisco by Our Children\u2019s Trust. The 42-page federal legal complaint seeks to force carbon dioxide emissions reductions and the implementation of reforestation programs. The plaintiffs, predominantly teenagers, ask the court to require the agencies to ensure that the national emissions are cut by 6 percent by 2013, and each agency develop greenhouse gas inventories, climate change mitigation plans, and carbon budgets by the end of this year. The state complaint is directed at the governor. It asks for a court declaration that California and the state chief have affirmative duties to protect the atmosphere (CGC-11-510725). * * * * * Should utilities--like parents for their children--determine how to benefit their customers with the proceeds they get from selling freely granted emissions rights in the state\u2019s carbon cap-and-trade program? Or should ratepayers--like adults--get to decide, with utilities simply rebating the money to their customers? That\u2019s the question consumer groups posed in filings late last month in a California Public Utilities Commission rulemaking proceeding just getting underway. The proceeding is entitled \u201cOrder Instituting Rulemaking to Address Utility Cost and Revenue Issues Associated with Greenhouse Gas Emissions.\u201d Groups raised the idea of rebates when the California Air Resources Board adopted rules for a carbon cap-and-trade program last year. The Air Board largely punted, so the issue is rising again before the CPUC.