Preview
E-FILED
XAVIER BECERRA
03/02/2017
Attorney General of California FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
GAVIN G. MCCABE
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
By: L Peterson, Deputy
M. ELAINE MECKENSTOCK EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES
MELINDA PILLING UNDER GOVT. CODE § 6103
JANELLE M. SMITH
Deputy Attorneys General
State Bar No. 231801
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
San Francisco, CA 94102-7004
Telephone: (415) 703-5521
Fax: (415) 703-5843
E-mail: Janelle.Smith@doj.ca.gov
Attorneys for Respondents California Air Resources
Board and Richard Corey
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
COUNTY OF FRESNO
ll
12
13
14 POET, LLC; JAMES M. LYONS, Case No. 15 CE CG 03380
15 Petitioners, NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER
CONTINUING THE FEBRUARY 22, 2017
16 HEARING DATE
17 Judge: The Hon. James Petrucelli
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD Trial Date: July 26, 2017
18 and RICHARD COREY, Action Filed: October 30, 2015
19 Respondents.
20
21
22,
23
24
25
26
27
28
I
Notice of Entry of Order Continuing the Feb. 22, 2017 Hearing Date (15 CE CG 03380)
TO ALL PARTIES AND ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
Please take notice that on February 15, 2017, the Honorable James Petrucelli entered an
order continuing the hearing date in this matter to July 26, 2017, at 9:00 a.m, A true and correct
copy of the Court’s order is attached as Exhibit A.
Dated: March 2, 2017 Respectfully Submitted,
XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General of California
GAVIN G. MCCABE
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
10
/s/__ Janelle M. Smith
ll JANELLE M. SMITH
Deputy Attomey General
12 Attorneys for Respondents California Air
Resources Board and Richard Corey
13
14 OK2015900818
Notice of entry of order continuing February 22, 2017 hearing date.doc
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Notice of Entry of Order Continuing the Feb. 22, 2017 Hearing Date (15 CE CG 03380)
DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY E-MAIL and U.S. Mail
Case Name: POET, LLC; JAMES M. LYONS V. CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES
BOARD AND RICHARD COREY
Case No.: 15 CE CG 03380
I declare:
Iam employed in the Office of the Attorney General, which is the office of a member of the
California State Bar, at which member's direction this service is made. I am 18 years of age or
older and not a party to this matter. I am familiar with the business practice at the Office of the
Attorney General for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United
States Postal Service. In accordance with that practice, correspondence placed in the internal
mail collection system at the Office of the Attorney General is deposited with the United States
Postal Service with postage thereon fully prepaid that same day in the ordinary course of
business.
On March 2, 2017, I served the attached NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER CONTINUING
THE FEBRUARY 22, 2017 HEARING DATE by transmitting a true copy via electronic mail
In addition, I placed a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope, in the internal mail
system of the Office of the Attorney General, addressed as follows:
John P. Kinsey Timothy Jones
Attorney for Plaintiffs Attorney for Plaintiffs
Wanger Jones Helsley PC Wanger Jones Helsley PC
265 E. River Park Circle, Suite 310 265 E. River Park Circle, Suite 310
Post Office Box 28340 Post Office Box 28340
Fresno, CA 93720 Fresno, California 93720
E-mail Address: jkinsey@wjhattorneys.com E-mail Address: tjones@wjhattorneys.com
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California the foregoing is true
and correct and that this declaration was executed on March 2, 2017, at San Francisco,
California.
Claudine Santos Claudine. rate
Declarant Signature
(0K2015900818
41709683.doc
EXHIBIT “A”
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER CONTINUING THE
FEBRUARY 22, 2017 HEARING DATE
XAVIER BECERRA
ILED
FEB 15 2017
Attorney General of California
GAVIN G. MCCABE
Supervising Deputy Attorney General FRESNO SUPERIOR COURT
MELINDA PILLING, SBN 274929 DEPUTY
JANELLE M. SMITH, SBN 231801
M. ELAINE MECKENSTOCK, SBN 268861
Deputy Attorneys General RECEIVED VIA E-FILE
1515 Clay Street, 20th Floor 2/10/2017
Oakland, CA 94612-0550 maeCOU INTY Pe RIOR COURT
a epuly
Telephone: (510) 879-0299 ROM |FILING FEES
Fax: (510) 622-2270 UNDER ¢ GOVT. CODE § 6103
E-mail: Elaine. Meckenstock@doj.ca.gov
Attorneys for Respondents
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF FRESNO
$a10 ~ -
11
12
13 POET, LLC; JAMES M. LYONS. Case No. 15 CE CG 03380
14. Petitioners, STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER CONTINUING TH
15 FEBRUARY 22, 2017 HEARIN G DATE
16 '
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD Judge: The Hon. James Petrucelli
17 and RICHARD COREY, Trial Date: February 22, 2017
Action Filed: October 30, 2015
18 Respondents.
19
20 Petitioners POET, LLC and James M. Lyons (Petitioners), and Respondents
21 California Air Resources Board and Richard Corey (Respondents) (collectively, the “Parties ”),
stipulate as follows conceming the hearing in this matter (“POET I”) presently set for February
23 22, 2017
24 WHEREAS, the heating on the merits in this matter was originally set for
September 9, 2016;
26 WHEREAS, based on good cause, the briefing schedule in this matter was
27 extended through December 2016 and the hearing on the merits continued to January 20, 2017, by
‘ 28 stipulation of the Parties and order of the Court (signed July 19, 2016);
{7911/003/00692705,DOCX} {701 1/003/00692705.DOCX 1
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Continue the February 22, 2017 Hearing (15 CE CG 03380)
WHEREAS, in late December 2016, the January 20, 2017, hearing on the merits
was continued to February 22, 2017, at the Court’s request and in coordination with: the Parties
via email;
WHEREAS, Petitioners have appealed, to te Fifth District Court ofAppeal, this
Court’s order discharging the writ in Case No. 09CECG04659, POET, LLC ¥ California Air
Resources Board (“POET P’y;
WHEREAS, POETJ involves the same Parties as this POET I case;
WHEREAS, there is overlap in the relief sought in the POETI appeal and in this
POETH case;
10
WHEREAS, on January 25, 2017, the Fifth District Court ofAppeal issued an
11
Oral Argument Notice in the POETI appeal indicating that the case will be scheduled for oral
12
argument in March 2017, and identifying multiple issues the Parties should be prepared to address
13
at argument (see attached Exhibit 1);
14
WHEREAS, the Court of Appeal’s Oral Argument Notice asks the Parties’
15
counsel to “assume that any disposition reversing the order discharging the writ” would also
16
direct the trial court to order Respondents to vacate the 2015 approval of the current Low Carbort
17
Fuel Standard.(“LCFS”) (see ibid.);
18 ~
WHEREAS, the Court of Appeal’s Oral Argument Notice also indicates the
19
Parties’ counsel should come to oral argument “prepared to address relief that,” among othet
20
possibilities, “suspends the operative effect of the current [LCFS]”"—the one adopted in 2015 (see
21
ibid.);
22,
WHEREAS, in this POET IT case, Petitioners seek to invalidate the 2015 approval
23
of the current LCFS and to suspend that regulation;
24
WHEREAS, on February 3, 2017, the Court of Appeal issued a letter requesting
supplemental briefing in the POETI appeal with a deadline of February 24, 2017 (see attached
26
Exhibit 2);
27
28
im 1003/00692705.DOCX} {7011/003/00692705.DOCX 2
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Continue the February 22, 2017 Hearing (15 CE CG 03380)
WHEREAS, good cause exists to continue the February 22, 2017, hearing in this
POET II case so that the parties may focus their resources on POET I supplemental briefing and
argument preparation, so that the Court of Appeal may issue its decision in the POET J appeal,
and so that the parties, and perhaps this Court, may consider the implications of the POET I
decision for this POET IZ case before this Court hears any argument on the merits in this case;
WHEREAS, the parties have met and conferred and agreed that a hearing the
week of July 24, 2017, would likely allow for the events described above to occur;
WHEREAS, given theuncertainty of both the timing. of the POET Idecision and
its implications for this case, Respondents respectfully teserve the right to seek further changes in
10
the hearing date in this case, should circumstances warrant;
li
WHEREAS, counsel for the Parties are available for a hearing any day the week
12
of July 24, 2017, that is convenient for the Court;
13
WHEREAS, Respondents respectfully request that the hearing be scheduled for
14
the afternoon, or at least late morning, to allow for same-day travel from Oakland to Fresno;
15
IT IS HEREBY AGREED AND STIPULATED AS FOLLOWS:
16
The hearing on the merits of the Petition should be continued from February 22
17
2017 to July 2__, 2017 at PM/AM.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
frouipoamossz70s.DOCK} {7011/003/00692705.DOCX 3
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Continue the February 22, 2017 Hearing (15 CE CG 03380)
-
v
Dated: February q 22017 orice OFTHE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
oy. Mlaunie We ceeuatel
M. ELAINE MECKENSTOCK
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Respondents
Deted: Februmy g 2017 WANGER Jonzs Hisizy PC
10
By: 9G
Jo: KINSEY
11 Altorneys, for Petitioners
12
13 ORDER
14 Having read and considered the foregoing stipulation requesting an order to
15 continue the February 22, 2017, hearing on the Petition, and for good cause,
16 IT IS SO ORDERED THAT:
17 The hearing on the merits of the Petition shall be contim from February 22,
18
2017 to ly 2f, ao17 at LO MIAM.
VL
Y/-
19 Wf
Dated: Febmary i. 2017 —Aét._/
Tarmage
20
21
23 0K2015900818
90758799.doc
24
(
25
26
27
28
{701 tnasnosen0s Doc) {7011/003/00692705.DOCK 4
,
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Continue the February 22, 2017 Hearing (15 CE CG 03380)
Exhibit 1
=
COURT OF APPEAL
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2424 VENTURA STREET
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93721
CHARLENE YNSON TELEPHONE (559) 445-5491
CLERK/ADMINISTRATOR FAX (559) 445-5769
BRIAN A. CO1
ASSISTANT CLERK/ADMINISTRATOR
January 25, 2017
Jobn Patrick Kinsey
Wanger Jones & Helsley, PC
265 E. River Park Circle, Suite 310
Fresno, CA 93720
Re: Poet, LLC et al. v. Califomia Air Resources Board et al. F073340
ORAL ARGUMENT NOTICE
The above captioned case has been sent to chambers for review and will be scheduled for submission
on the March 2017 calendar. The Court requests oral argument in this case. A notification of
your date and time of appearance will be sent to you at least 20 days prior to argument.
The Court recognizes that, on the issue of compliance with the writ, counsel is in the
somewhat awkward position of trying to persuade the Court what the Court meant when it drafted the
language that became paragraph 3 of the writ. In contrast, the issue of appropriate relief (assuming a
failure to comply is established) involves an analysis of current circumstances and argument presented
in the adversarial process may be helpful to the Court in deciding that issue.
Accordingly, at oral argument counsel should be prepared to address the many issues that arise
in connection with choosing appropriate relief. To narrow these issues, counsel should assume that
any disposition reversing the order discharging the writ also would direct the trial court to order ARB
(1) to take further action necessary to comply with the writ and (2) vacate the 2015 defective project
approval—hat is, “set aside its [2015] approval of the LCFS regulations.” (POET, LLC v, State Air
Resources Bd. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 681, 760.) As in the prior appeal and the March 2016 writ
petition filed in this appeal; the question of further relief raises an overarching concern about the
consequences of that further relief, which we describe here as the-baby-with-the-bathwater problem.
In other words, would invalidating/suspending or freezing the operative effect of the LCFS
regulations cause greater detriments that allowing the regulations to remain operative pending
compliance with the writ?
Your analysis of the benefits/detriments of the types of further relief available should consider
all benefits and detriments (not just those related to NOx emissions) because the LCFS regulations
have consequences that extend beyond NOx emissions. For example, counsel should consider the
seven noncancer health impacts associated with PM2.5 and described at page C-244 of the
administrative record, including the statement “that the statewide health impacts of the emissions
associated with this regulation in the year 2020 are approximately: [{] 24 premature deaths (7 — 43,
95% CI).” (See Appendix F11, Adm. Record C-646 to C-651.)
Page 2
January 25, 2017
As to the various choices about further relief, counsel should be prepared to address relief that
(1) returns to the status quo established by the writ (i.e. a retum to the standards in effect for 2013);
(2) preserves the current status quo, whether that be 2016 standards or the standards that would be
applied in 2017; or (3) suspends the operative effect of the current and former regulations.
As to the argument that invalidating/suspending the LCFS regulations would result in less
detriment this time around because federal greenhouse gas regulations are in place now, counsel
should consider, among other things, whether the change of administrations has affected the
likelihood that the federal regulations would remain in effect while ARB attempts to comply with the
writ.
The foregoing does not describe all of the issues related to appropriate appellate relief and
counsel should not limit their preparation to those issues.
This Oral Argument Notice must be completed and returned to the court within 10 days of its date.
Any new authorities must be filed separately from this notice and must comply with California Rules
of Court, rule 8.254.
PERSONAL APPEARANCE- I will personally appear for oral argument.
TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE USING COURTCALL - Once you receive notice of the date
and time for oral argument you will need to make reservations with CourtCall on their website
www.courtcall.com or by calling (888) 882-6878.
Signature:
Print name of attorney/self represented party who will argue:
On behalf of: Appellant Respondent Petitioner
Real Party in Interest Other
Time requested for oral argument (30 min. max., CRC rule 8.256(c)(2)) minutes.
(If time is not specified, argument will be limited to 15 minutes.)
COURT OF APPEAL
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2424 VENTURA STREET
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93721
‘CHARLENE YNSON TELEPHONE (559) 445-5494
CLERK/ADMINISTRATOR FAX (559) 445-5769
BRIAN A. COTT:
ASSISTANT CLERK/ADMINISTRATOR
January 25, 2017
Dylan J. Crosby
Wagner Jones Helsley PC
265 East River Park Circle, #310
Fresno, CA 93720
Re: Poet, LLC et al. v. California Air Resources Board et al.- F073340
ORAL ARGUMENT NOTICE
The above captioned case has been sent to chambers for review and will be scheduled for submission
on the March 2017 calendar. The Court requests oral argument in this case. A notification of
your date and time of appearance will be sent to you at least 20 days prior to argument.
The Court recognizes that, on the issue of compliance with the writ, counsel is in the
somewhat awkward position of trying to persuade the Court what the Court meant when it drafted the
language that became paragraph 3 of the writ. In contrast, the issue of appropriate relief (assuming a
failure to comply is established) involves an analysis of current circumstances and argument presented
in the adversarial process may be helpful to the Court in deciding that issue.
Accordingly, at oral argument counsel should be prepared to address the many issues that arise
in connection with choosing appropriate relief. To narrow these issues, counsel should assume that
any disposition reversing the order discharging the writ also would direct the trial court to order ARB
(1) to take further action necessary to comply with the writ and (2) vacate the 2015 defective project
approval—that is, “set aside its [2015] approval of the LCFS regulations.” (POET, LLC v. State Air
Resources Bd. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 681, 760.) As in the prior appeal and the March 2016 writ
petition filed in this appeal, the question of further relief raises an overarching concern about the
consequences of that further relief, which we describe here as the-baby-with-the-bathwater problem.
In other words, would invalidating/suspending or freezing the operative effect of the LCFS
regulations cause greater detriments that allowing the regulations to remain operative pending
compliance with the writ?
Your analysis of the benefits/detriments of the types of further relief available should consider
all benefits and detriments (not just those related to NOx emissions) because the LCFS regulations
have consequences that extend beyond NOx emissions. For example, counsel should consider the
seven noncancer health impacts associated with PM2.5 and described at page C-244 of the
administrative record, including the statement “that the statewide health impacts of the emissions
associated with this regulation in the year 2020 are approximately: [§[] 24 premature deaths (7 — 43,
95% Cl).” (See Appendix F11, Adm. Record C-646 to C-651.)
Page 2
January 25, 2017
As to the various choices about further relief, counsel should be prepared to address relief that
(1) retums to the status quo established by the writ (ie., a return to the standards in effect for 2013);
(2) preserves the current status quo, whether that be 2016 standards or the standards that would be
applied in 2017; or (3) suspends the operative effect of the current and former regulations.
As to the argument that invalidating/suspending the LCFS regulations would result in less
detriment this time around because federal greenhouse gas regulations are in place now, counsel
should consider, among other things, whether the change of administrations has affected the
likelihood that the federal regulations would remain in effect while ARB attempts to comply with the
writ.
The foregoing does not describe all of the issues related to appropriate appellate relief and
counsel should not.limit their preparation to those issues.
This Oral Argument Notice must be completed and returned to the court within 10 days of its date.
Any new authorities must be filed separately from this notice and must comply with California Rules
of Court, rule 8.254.
PERSONAL APPEARANCE - I will personally appear for oral argument.
‘ TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE USING COURTCALL - Once you receive notice of the date
and time for oral argument you will need to make reservations with CourtCall on their website
www.courtcall.com or by calling (888) 882-6878.
Signature:
Print name of attorney/self represented party who will argue:
On behalf of: Appellant Respondent Petitioner
Real Party in Interest Other
Time requested for oral argument (30 min. max., CRC rule 8.256(c)(2)) minutes.
(if time is not specified, argument will be limited to 15 minutes.)
COURT OF APPEAL
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2424 VENTURA STREET
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93721
CHARLENE YNSON TELEPHONE (559) 445-5491
CLERK/ADMINISTRATOR. FAX (559) 445-5769
BRIAN A. COTTA
ASSISTANT CLERK/ADMINISTRATOR
January 25, 2017
Timothy Jones
Wanger Jones Helsley, PC
265 E. River Park Circle, Suite 310
Fresno, CA 93720
Re: Poet, LLC et al. v. California Air Resources Board et al.- F073340
ORAL ARGUMENT NOTICE"
The above captioned case has been sent to chambers for review and will be scheduled for submission
on the March 2017 calendar. The Court requests oral argument in this case. A notification of
your date and time of appearance will be sent to you at least 20 days prior to argument.
The Court recognizes that, on the issue of compliance with the writ, counsel is in the
somewhat awkward position of trying to persuade the Court what the Court meant when it drafted the
language that became paragraph 3 of the writ. In contrast, the issue of appropriate relief (assuming a
failure to comply is established) involves an analysis of current circumstances and argument presented
in the adversarial process may be helpful to the Court in deciding that issue.
Accordingly, at oral argument counsel should be prepared to address the many issues that arise
in connection with choosing appropriate relief. To narrow these issues, counsel should assume that
any disposition reversing the order discharging the writ also would direct the trial court to order ARB
(1) to take further action necessary to comply with the writ and (2) vacate the 2015 defective project
approval—that is, “set aside its [2015] approval of the LCFS regulations.” (POET, LLC v. State Air
Resources Bd. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 681, 760.) As in the prior appeal and the March 2016 writ
petition filed in this appeal, the question of firther relief raises an overarching concern about the
consequences of that further relief, which we describe here as the-baby-with-the-bathwater problem.
In other words, would invalidating/suspending or freezing the operative effect of the LCFS
regulations cause greater detriments that allowing the regulations to remain operative pending
compliance with the writ?
Your analysis of the benefits/detriments of the types of further relief available should consider
all benefits and detriments (not just those related to NOx emissions) because the LCFS regulations
have consequences that extend beyond NOx emissions. For example, counsel should consider the
seven noncancer health impacts associated with PM2.5 and described at page C-244 of the
administrative record, including the statement “that the statewide health impacts of the emissions
associated with this regulation in the year 2020 are approximately: {] 24 premature deaths (7 — 43,
95% CI.” (See Appendix F11, Adm, Record C-646 to C-651.)
Page 2
January 25, 2017
As to the various choices about further relief, counsel should be prepared to address relief that
(1) returns to the status quo established by the writ (Le., a return to the standards in effect for 2013);
(2) preserves the current status quo, whether that be 2016 standards or the standards that would be
applied in 2017; or (3) suspends the operative effect of the current and former regulations.
As to the argument that invalidating/suspending the LCFS regulations would result in less
detriment this time around because federal greenhouse gas regulations are in place now, counsel
should consider, among other things, whether the change of administrations has affected the
likelihood that the federal regulations would remain in effect while ARB attempts to comply with the
writ.
The foregoing does not describe all of the issues related to appropriate appellate relief and
counsel should not limit their preparation to those issues.
This Oral Argument Notice must be completed and returned to the court within 10 days of its date.
Any new authorities must be filed separately from this notice and must comply with California Rules
of Court, rule 8.254.
PERSONAL APPEARANCE - I will personally appear for oral argument.
TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE USING COURTCALL - Once you receive notice of the date
and time for oral argument you will need to make reservations with CourtCall on their website
www.courtcall.com or by calling (888) 882-6878
Signature
Print name of attorney/self represented party who will argue:
On behalf of: Appellant Respondent Petitioner
Real Party in Interest Other
Time requested for oral argument (30 min. max., CRC rule 8.256(c)(2)) minutes.
(If time is not specified, argument will be limited to 15 minutes.)
COURT OF APPEAL
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2424 VENTURA STREET
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93721
CHARLENE YNSON ‘TELEPHONE (559) 445-5491
CLERK/ADMINISTRATOR FAX (559) 445-5769
BRIAN A. COTTA
ASSISTANT CLERK/ADMINISTRATOR
January 25, 2017
Margaret Elaine Meckenstock
California Attorney General's Office
1515 Clay St, 20th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612-1492
Re: Poet, LLC et al. v. California Air Resources Board et al. - F073340
ORAL ARGUMENT NOTICE ~
The above captioned case has been sent to chambers for review and will be scheduled for submission
on the March 2017 calendar. The Court requests oral argument in this case. A notification of
your date and time of appearance will be sent to you at least 20 days prior to argument,
The Court recognizes that, on the issue of compliance with the writ, counsel is in the
somewhat awkward position of trying to persuade the Court what the Court meant when it drafted the
language that became paragraph 3 of the writ. In contrast, the issue of appropriate relief (assuming a
failure to comply is established) involves an analysis of current circumstances and argument presented
in the adversarial process may be helpful to the Court in deciding that issue.
Accordingly, at oral argument counsel should be prepared to address the many issues that arise
in connection with choosing appropriate relief. To narrow these issues, counsel should assume that *
any disposition reversing the order discharging the writ also would direct the trial court to order ARB
(1) to take further action necessary to comply with the writ and (2) vacate the 2015 defective project
approval—tat is, “set aside its [2015] approval of the LCFS regulations.” (POET, LLC v. State Air
Resources Bd, (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 681, 760.) As in the prior appeal and the March 2016 writ
petition filed in this appeal, the question of further relief raises an overarching concern about the
consequences of that further relief, which we describe here as the-baby-with-the-bathwater problem.
In other words, would invalidating/suspending or freezing the operative effect of the LCFS
regulations cause greater detriments that allowing the regulations to remain operative pending
compliance with the writ?
Your analysis of the benefits/detriments of the types of further relief available should consider
all benefits and detriments (not just those related to NOx emissions) because the LCFS regulations
have consequences that extend beyond NOx emissions. For example, counsel should consider the
seven noncancer health impacts associated with PM2.5 and described at page C-244 of the
administrative record, including the statement “that the statewide health impacts of the emissions
associated with this regulation in the year 2020 are approximately: [{{] 24 premature deaths (7 — 43,
95% CI.” (See Appendix F11, Adm. Record C-646 to C-651.)
Page 2
January 25, 2017
As to the various choices about further relief, counsel should be prepared to address relief that
(1) returns to the status quo established by the writ (i.e., a return to the standards in effect for 2013);
(2) preserves the current status quo, whether that be 2016 standards or the standards that would be
applied in 2017; or (3) suspends the operative effect of the current and former regulations.
As to the argument that invalidating/suspending the LCFS regulations would result in less
detriment this time around because federal greenhouse gas regulations are in place now, counsel
should consider, among other things, whether the change of administrations has affected the
likelihood that the federal regulations would remain in effect while ARB attempts to comply with the
writ.
The foregoing does not describe all of the issues related to appropriate appellate relief and
counsel-should not limit their preparation to those issues.
This Oral Argument Notice must be completed and returned to the court within 10 days of its date.
Any new authorities must be filed separately from this notice and must comply with California Rules
of Court, rule 8.254.
PERSONAL APPEARANCE - I will personally appear for oral argument.
TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE USING COURTCALL - Once you receive notice of the date
and time for oral argument you will need to make reservations with CourtCall on their website
www.courtcall.com or by calling (888) 882-6878
Signature:
Print name of attorney/self represented party who will argue:
On behalf of: Appellant Respondent Petitioner
Real Party in Interest Other
Time requested for oral argument (30 min. max., CRC rule 8.256(c)(2)) minutes.
(If time is not specified, argument will be limited to 15 minutes.)
COURT OF APPEAL
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2424 VENTURA STREET
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93721
CHARLENE YNSON ‘TELEPHONE (559) 445-5494
CLERK/ADMINISTRATOR FAX (599) 445-5769
BRIAN A. COTTA
ASSISTANT CLERK/ADMINISTRATOR
January 25, 2017
Janelle Muriel Smith
California Attorney General's Office
1515 Clay Street, 20th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612-1492
Re: Poet, LLC et al. v. Califomia Air Resources Board et al. - F073340
“ORAL ARGUMENT NOTICE
The above captioned case has been sent to chambers for review and will be scheduled for submission
on the March 2017 calendar. The Court requests oral argument in this case. A notification of
your date and time of appearance will be sent to you at least 20 days prior to argument.
The Court recognizes that, on the issue of compliance with the writ, counsel is in the
somewhat awkward position of trying to persuade the Court what the Court meant when it drafted the
language that became paragraph 3 of the writ. In contrast, the issue of appropriate relief: (assuming a
failure to comply is established) involves an analysis of current circumstances and argument presented
in the adversarial process may be helpful to the Court in deciding that issue.
Accordingly, at oral argument counsel should be prepared to address the many issues that arise
in connection with choosing appropriate relief. To narrow these issues, counsel should assume that
any disposition reversing the order discharging the writ also would direct the trial court to order ARB
(1) to take further action necessary to comply with the writ and (2) vacate the 2015 defective project
approval—that is, “set aside its [2015] approval of the LCFS regulations.” (POET, LLC v. State Air
Resources Bd. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 681, 760.) As in the prior appeal and the March 2016 writ
petition filed in this appeal, the question of further relief raises an overarching concern about the
consequences of that further relief, which we describe here as the-baby-with-the-bathwater problem.
In other words, would invalidating/suspending or freezing the operative effect of the LCFS
regulations cause greater detriments that allowing the regulations to remain operative pending
compliance with the writ?
‘Your analysis of the benefits/detriments of the types of further relief available should consider
all benefits and detriments (not just those related to NOx emissions) because the LCFS regulations
have consequences that extend beyond NOx emissions. For example, counsel should consider the
seven noncancer health impacts associated with PM2.5 and described at page C-244 of the
administrative record, including the statement “that the statewide health impacts of the emissions
associated with this regulation in the year 2020 are approximately: [i] 24 premature deaths (7 — 43,
95% CI.” (See Appendix F11, Adm. Record C-646 to C-651.)
Page 2
January 25, 2017
As to the various choices about further relief, counsel should be prepared to address relief that
(1) retums to the status quo established by the writ (i.e., a return to the standards in effect for 2013);
(2) preserves the current status quo, whether that be 2016 standards or the standards that would be
applied in 2017; or (3) suspends the operative effect of the current and former regulations.
As to the argument that invalidating/suspending the LCFS regulations would result in less
detriment this time around because federal greenhouse gas regulations are in place now, counsel
should consider, among other things, whether the change of administrations has affected the
likelihood that the federal regulations would remain in effect while ARB attempts to comply with the
writ.
The foregoing does not describe all of the issues related to appropriate appellate relief and
counsel should not limit their preparation to those issues. :
This Oral Argument Notice must be completed and returned to the court within 10 days of its date.
Any new authorities must be filed separately from this notice and must comply with California Rules
of Court, rule 8.254,
—— PERSONAL APPEARANCE - | will personally appear for oral argument.
TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE USING COURTCALL - Once you receive notice of the date
and time for oral argument you will need to make reservations with CourtCall on their website
www.courtcall.com or by calling (888) 882-6878.
Signature:
Print name of attorney/self represented party who will argue:
On behalf of: Appellant Respondent Petitioner
Real Party in Interest Other
Time requested for oral argument (30 min. max., CRC rule 8.256(c)(2)) minutes.
(if time is not specified, argument will be limited to 15 minutes.)
COURT OF APPEAL
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2424 VENTURA STREET.
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93721
CHARLENE YNSON TELEPHONE (559) 445-5494
CLERK/ADMINISTRATOR FAX (559) 445-5769
BRIAN A. COTT/
ASSISTANT CLERK/ADMINISTRATOR
January 25, 2017
Myung J Park
Ofc Attomey General
455 Golden Gate Ave
San Francisco, CA 94102-7004
Re: Poet, LLC et al. v. California Air Resources Board et al.- F073340
ORAL ARGUMENT NOTICE
The above captioned case has been sent to chambers for review and will be scheduled for submission
on the March 2017 calendar. The Court requests oral argument in this case. A notification of
your date and time of appearance will be sent to you at least 20 days prior to argument.
The Court recognizes that, on the issue of compliance with the writ, counsel is in the
somewhat awkward position of trying to persuade the Court what the Court meant when it drafted the
language that became paragraph 3 of the writ. In contrast, the issue of appropriate relief (assuming a
failure to comply is established) involves an analysis of current circumstances and argument presented
in the adversarial process may be helpful to the Court in deciding that issue.
Accordingly, at oral argument counsel should be prepared to address the many issues that arise
in connection with choosing appropriate relief. To narrow these issues, counsel should assume that
any disposition reversing the order discharging the writ also would direct the trial court to order ARB
(1) to take further action necessary to comply with the writ and (2) vacate the 2015 defective project
approval—that is, “set aside its [2015] approval of the LCFS regulations.” (POET, LLC v. State Air
Resources Bd. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 681, 760.) As in the prior appeal and the March 2016 writ
petition filed in this appeal, the question of further relief raises an overarching concern about the
consequences of that further relief, which we describe here as the-baby-with-the-bathwater problem.
In other words, would invalidating/suspending or freezing the operative effect of the LCFS
regulations cause greater detriments that allowing the regulations to remain operative pending
compliance with the writ?
Your analysis of the benefits/detriments of the types of further relief available should consider
all benefits and detriments (not just those related to NOx emissions) because the LCFS regulations
have consequences that extend beyond NOx emissions. For example, counsel should consider the
seven noncancer health impacts associated with PM2.5 and described at page C-244 of the
administrative record, including the statement “that the statewide health impacts of the emissions
associated with this regulation in the year 2020 are approximately: [{] 24 premature deaths (7 — 43,
95% Cl).” (See Appendix F11, Adm. Record C-646 to C-651.)
Page 2
January 25, 2017
As to the various choices about further relief, counsel should be prepared to address relief that
(1) returns to the status quo established by the writ (.c., a return to the standards in effect for 2013);
(2) preserves the current status quo, whether that be 2016 standards or the standards that would be
applied in 2017; or (3) suspends the operative effect of the current and former regulations.
As to the argument that invalidating/suspending the LCFS regulations would result in less
detriment this time around because federal greenhouse gas regulations are in place now, counsel
should consider, among other things, whether the change of administrations has affected the
likelihood that the federal regulations would remain in effect while ARB attempts to comply with the
writ.
The foregoing does not describe all of the issues related to appropriate appellate relief and
counsel should not limit their preparation to those issues.
This Oral Argument Notice must be completed and returned to the court within 10 days of its date.
Any new authorities must be filed separately from this notice and must comply with California Rules
of Court, rule 8.254.
PERSONAL APPEARANCE - I will personally appear for oral argument.
TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE USING COURTCALL - Once you receive notice of the date
and time for oral argument you will need to make reservations with CourtCall on their website
www.courteall.com or by calling (888) 882-6878.
Signature:
Print name of attorney/self represented party who will argue:
On behalf of: Appellant Respondent Petitioner
Real Party in Interest * Other
Time requested for oral argument (30 min. max., CRC rule 8.256(c)(2)) minutes.
(If time is not specified, argument will be limited to 15 minutes.)
COURT OF APPEAL
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2424 VENTURA STREET
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93721
CHARLENE YNSON ‘TELEPHONE (559) 445-5491
CLERK/ADMINESTRATOR FAX (559) 445-5769
BRIAN A. COTTA
ASSISTANT CLERK/ADMINISTRATOR
January 25, 2017
David Richard Pettit
Natural Resources Defense Council
1314 2nd St
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Poet, LLC et al. v. California Air Resources Board et al.- F073340
ORAL ARGUMENT NOTICE
The above captioned case has been sent to chambers for review and will be scheduled for submission
on the March 2017 calendar. The Court requests oral argument in this case. A notification of
your date and time of appearance will be sent to you at least 20 days prior to argument.
The Court recognizes that, on the issue of compliance with the writ, counsel is in the
somewhat awkward position of trying to persuade the Court what the Court meant when it drafted the
language that became paragraph 3 of the writ. In contrast, the issue of appropriate relief (assuming a
failure to comply is established) involves an analysis of current circumstances and argument presented
in the adversarial process may be helpful to the Court in deciding that issue.
Accordingly, at oral argument counsel should be prepared to address the many issues that arise
in connection with choosing appropriate relief. To narrow these issues, counsel should assume that
any disposition reversing the order discharging the writ also would direct the trial court to order ARB
(1) to take further action necessary to comply with the writ and (2) vacate the 2015 defective project
approval—that is, “set aside its [2015] approval of the LCFS regulations.” (POET, LLC v. State Air
Resources Bd, (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 681, 760.) As in the prior appeal and the March 2016 writ
petition filed in this appeal, the question of further relief raises an overarching concern about the
consequences of that further relief, which we describe here as the-baby-with-the-bathwater problem.
In other words, would invalidating/suspending or freezing the operative effect of the LCFS
regulations cause greater detriments that allowing the regulations to remain operative pending
compliance with the writ?
Your analysis of the benefits/detriments of the types of further relief available should consider
all benefits and detrimenis (not just those related to NOx emissions) because the LCFS regulations
have consequences that ext
Preview
E-FILED XAVIER BECERRA 03/02/2017 Attorney General of California FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT GAVIN G. MCCABE Supervising Deputy Attorney General By: L Peterson, Deputy M. ELAINE MECKENSTOCK EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES MELINDA PILLING UNDER GOVT. CODE § 6103 JANELLE M. SMITH Deputy Attorneys General State Bar No. 231801 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 Telephone: (415) 703-5521 Fax: (415) 703-5843 E-mail: Janelle.Smith@doj.ca.gov Attorneys for Respondents California Air Resources Board and Richard Corey SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF FRESNO ll 12 13 14 POET, LLC; JAMES M. LYONS, Case No. 15 CE CG 03380 15 Petitioners, NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER CONTINUING THE FEBRUARY 22, 2017 16 HEARING DATE 17 Judge: The Hon. James Petrucelli CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD Trial Date: July 26, 2017 18 and RICHARD COREY, Action Filed: October 30, 2015 19 Respondents. 20 21 22, 23 24 25 26 27 28 I Notice of Entry of Order Continuing the Feb. 22, 2017 Hearing Date (15 CE CG 03380) TO ALL PARTIES AND ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: Please take notice that on February 15, 2017, the Honorable James Petrucelli entered an order continuing the hearing date in this matter to July 26, 2017, at 9:00 a.m, A true and correct copy of the Court’s order is attached as Exhibit A. Dated: March 2, 2017 Respectfully Submitted, XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of California GAVIN G. MCCABE Supervising Deputy Attorney General 10 /s/__ Janelle M. Smith ll JANELLE M. SMITH Deputy Attomey General 12 Attorneys for Respondents California Air Resources Board and Richard Corey 13 14 OK2015900818 Notice of entry of order continuing February 22, 2017 hearing date.doc 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Notice of Entry of Order Continuing the Feb. 22, 2017 Hearing Date (15 CE CG 03380) DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY E-MAIL and U.S. Mail Case Name: POET, LLC; JAMES M. LYONS V. CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD AND RICHARD COREY Case No.: 15 CE CG 03380 I declare: Iam employed in the Office of the Attorney General, which is the office of a member of the California State Bar, at which member's direction this service is made. I am 18 years of age or older and not a party to this matter. I am familiar with the business practice at the Office of the Attorney General for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. In accordance with that practice, correspondence placed in the internal mail collection system at the Office of the Attorney General is deposited with the United States Postal Service with postage thereon fully prepaid that same day in the ordinary course of business. On March 2, 2017, I served the attached NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER CONTINUING THE FEBRUARY 22, 2017 HEARING DATE by transmitting a true copy via electronic mail In addition, I placed a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope, in the internal mail system of the Office of the Attorney General, addressed as follows: John P. Kinsey Timothy Jones Attorney for Plaintiffs Attorney for Plaintiffs Wanger Jones Helsley PC Wanger Jones Helsley PC 265 E. River Park Circle, Suite 310 265 E. River Park Circle, Suite 310 Post Office Box 28340 Post Office Box 28340 Fresno, CA 93720 Fresno, California 93720 E-mail Address: jkinsey@wjhattorneys.com E-mail Address: tjones@wjhattorneys.com I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on March 2, 2017, at San Francisco, California. Claudine Santos Claudine. rate Declarant Signature (0K2015900818 41709683.doc EXHIBIT “A” NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER CONTINUING THE FEBRUARY 22, 2017 HEARING DATE XAVIER BECERRA ILED FEB 15 2017 Attorney General of California GAVIN G. MCCABE Supervising Deputy Attorney General FRESNO SUPERIOR COURT MELINDA PILLING, SBN 274929 DEPUTY JANELLE M. SMITH, SBN 231801 M. ELAINE MECKENSTOCK, SBN 268861 Deputy Attorneys General RECEIVED VIA E-FILE 1515 Clay Street, 20th Floor 2/10/2017 Oakland, CA 94612-0550 maeCOU INTY Pe RIOR COURT a epuly Telephone: (510) 879-0299 ROM |FILING FEES Fax: (510) 622-2270 UNDER ¢ GOVT. CODE § 6103 E-mail: Elaine. Meckenstock@doj.ca.gov Attorneys for Respondents SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF FRESNO $a10 ~ - 11 12 13 POET, LLC; JAMES M. LYONS. Case No. 15 CE CG 03380 14. Petitioners, STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING TH 15 FEBRUARY 22, 2017 HEARIN G DATE 16 ' CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD Judge: The Hon. James Petrucelli 17 and RICHARD COREY, Trial Date: February 22, 2017 Action Filed: October 30, 2015 18 Respondents. 19 20 Petitioners POET, LLC and James M. Lyons (Petitioners), and Respondents 21 California Air Resources Board and Richard Corey (Respondents) (collectively, the “Parties ”), stipulate as follows conceming the hearing in this matter (“POET I”) presently set for February 23 22, 2017 24 WHEREAS, the heating on the merits in this matter was originally set for September 9, 2016; 26 WHEREAS, based on good cause, the briefing schedule in this matter was 27 extended through December 2016 and the hearing on the merits continued to January 20, 2017, by ‘ 28 stipulation of the Parties and order of the Court (signed July 19, 2016); {7911/003/00692705,DOCX} {701 1/003/00692705.DOCX 1 Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Continue the February 22, 2017 Hearing (15 CE CG 03380) WHEREAS, in late December 2016, the January 20, 2017, hearing on the merits was continued to February 22, 2017, at the Court’s request and in coordination with: the Parties via email; WHEREAS, Petitioners have appealed, to te Fifth District Court ofAppeal, this Court’s order discharging the writ in Case No. 09CECG04659, POET, LLC ¥ California Air Resources Board (“POET P’y; WHEREAS, POETJ involves the same Parties as this POET I case; WHEREAS, there is overlap in the relief sought in the POETI appeal and in this POETH case; 10 WHEREAS, on January 25, 2017, the Fifth District Court ofAppeal issued an 11 Oral Argument Notice in the POETI appeal indicating that the case will be scheduled for oral 12 argument in March 2017, and identifying multiple issues the Parties should be prepared to address 13 at argument (see attached Exhibit 1); 14 WHEREAS, the Court of Appeal’s Oral Argument Notice asks the Parties’ 15 counsel to “assume that any disposition reversing the order discharging the writ” would also 16 direct the trial court to order Respondents to vacate the 2015 approval of the current Low Carbort 17 Fuel Standard.(“LCFS”) (see ibid.); 18 ~ WHEREAS, the Court of Appeal’s Oral Argument Notice also indicates the 19 Parties’ counsel should come to oral argument “prepared to address relief that,” among othet 20 possibilities, “suspends the operative effect of the current [LCFS]”"—the one adopted in 2015 (see 21 ibid.); 22, WHEREAS, in this POET IT case, Petitioners seek to invalidate the 2015 approval 23 of the current LCFS and to suspend that regulation; 24 WHEREAS, on February 3, 2017, the Court of Appeal issued a letter requesting supplemental briefing in the POETI appeal with a deadline of February 24, 2017 (see attached 26 Exhibit 2); 27 28 im 1003/00692705.DOCX} {7011/003/00692705.DOCX 2 Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Continue the February 22, 2017 Hearing (15 CE CG 03380) WHEREAS, good cause exists to continue the February 22, 2017, hearing in this POET II case so that the parties may focus their resources on POET I supplemental briefing and argument preparation, so that the Court of Appeal may issue its decision in the POET J appeal, and so that the parties, and perhaps this Court, may consider the implications of the POET I decision for this POET IZ case before this Court hears any argument on the merits in this case; WHEREAS, the parties have met and conferred and agreed that a hearing the week of July 24, 2017, would likely allow for the events described above to occur; WHEREAS, given theuncertainty of both the timing. of the POET Idecision and its implications for this case, Respondents respectfully teserve the right to seek further changes in 10 the hearing date in this case, should circumstances warrant; li WHEREAS, counsel for the Parties are available for a hearing any day the week 12 of July 24, 2017, that is convenient for the Court; 13 WHEREAS, Respondents respectfully request that the hearing be scheduled for 14 the afternoon, or at least late morning, to allow for same-day travel from Oakland to Fresno; 15 IT IS HEREBY AGREED AND STIPULATED AS FOLLOWS: 16 The hearing on the merits of the Petition should be continued from February 22 17 2017 to July 2__, 2017 at PM/AM. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 frouipoamossz70s.DOCK} {7011/003/00692705.DOCX 3 Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Continue the February 22, 2017 Hearing (15 CE CG 03380) - v Dated: February q 22017 orice OFTHE ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF CALIFORNIA oy. Mlaunie We ceeuatel M. ELAINE MECKENSTOCK Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Respondents Deted: Februmy g 2017 WANGER Jonzs Hisizy PC 10 By: 9G Jo: KINSEY 11 Altorneys, for Petitioners 12 13 ORDER 14 Having read and considered the foregoing stipulation requesting an order to 15 continue the February 22, 2017, hearing on the Petition, and for good cause, 16 IT IS SO ORDERED THAT: 17 The hearing on the merits of the Petition shall be contim from February 22, 18 2017 to ly 2f, ao17 at LO MIAM. VL Y/- 19 Wf Dated: Febmary i. 2017 —Aét._/ Tarmage 20 21 23 0K2015900818 90758799.doc 24 ( 25 26 27 28 {701 tnasnosen0s Doc) {7011/003/00692705.DOCK 4 , Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Continue the February 22, 2017 Hearing (15 CE CG 03380) Exhibit 1 = COURT OF APPEAL FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2424 VENTURA STREET FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93721 CHARLENE YNSON TELEPHONE (559) 445-5491 CLERK/ADMINISTRATOR FAX (559) 445-5769 BRIAN A. CO1 ASSISTANT CLERK/ADMINISTRATOR January 25, 2017 Jobn Patrick Kinsey Wanger Jones & Helsley, PC 265 E. River Park Circle, Suite 310 Fresno, CA 93720 Re: Poet, LLC et al. v. Califomia Air Resources Board et al. F073340 ORAL ARGUMENT NOTICE The above captioned case has been sent to chambers for review and will be scheduled for submission on the March 2017 calendar. The Court requests oral argument in this case. A notification of your date and time of appearance will be sent to you at least 20 days prior to argument. The Court recognizes that, on the issue of compliance with the writ, counsel is in the somewhat awkward position of trying to persuade the Court what the Court meant when it drafted the language that became paragraph 3 of the writ. In contrast, the issue of appropriate relief (assuming a failure to comply is established) involves an analysis of current circumstances and argument presented in the adversarial process may be helpful to the Court in deciding that issue. Accordingly, at oral argument counsel should be prepared to address the many issues that arise in connection with choosing appropriate relief. To narrow these issues, counsel should assume that any disposition reversing the order discharging the writ also would direct the trial court to order ARB (1) to take further action necessary to comply with the writ and (2) vacate the 2015 defective project approval—hat is, “set aside its [2015] approval of the LCFS regulations.” (POET, LLC v, State Air Resources Bd. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 681, 760.) As in the prior appeal and the March 2016 writ petition filed in this appeal; the question of further relief raises an overarching concern about the consequences of that further relief, which we describe here as the-baby-with-the-bathwater problem. In other words, would invalidating/suspending or freezing the operative effect of the LCFS regulations cause greater detriments that allowing the regulations to remain operative pending compliance with the writ? Your analysis of the benefits/detriments of the types of further relief available should consider all benefits and detriments (not just those related to NOx emissions) because the LCFS regulations have consequences that extend beyond NOx emissions. For example, counsel should consider the seven noncancer health impacts associated with PM2.5 and described at page C-244 of the administrative record, including the statement “that the statewide health impacts of the emissions associated with this regulation in the year 2020 are approximately: [{] 24 premature deaths (7 — 43, 95% CI).” (See Appendix F11, Adm. Record C-646 to C-651.) Page 2 January 25, 2017 As to the various choices about further relief, counsel should be prepared to address relief that (1) returns to the status quo established by the writ (i.e. a retum to the standards in effect for 2013); (2) preserves the current status quo, whether that be 2016 standards or the standards that would be applied in 2017; or (3) suspends the operative effect of the current and former regulations. As to the argument that invalidating/suspending the LCFS regulations would result in less detriment this time around because federal greenhouse gas regulations are in place now, counsel should consider, among other things, whether the change of administrations has affected the likelihood that the federal regulations would remain in effect while ARB attempts to comply with the writ. The foregoing does not describe all of the issues related to appropriate appellate relief and counsel should not limit their preparation to those issues. This Oral Argument Notice must be completed and returned to the court within 10 days of its date. Any new authorities must be filed separately from this notice and must comply with California Rules of Court, rule 8.254. PERSONAL APPEARANCE- I will personally appear for oral argument. TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE USING COURTCALL - Once you receive notice of the date and time for oral argument you will need to make reservations with CourtCall on their website www.courtcall.com or by calling (888) 882-6878. Signature: Print name of attorney/self represented party who will argue: On behalf of: Appellant Respondent Petitioner Real Party in Interest Other Time requested for oral argument (30 min. max., CRC rule 8.256(c)(2)) minutes. (If time is not specified, argument will be limited to 15 minutes.) COURT OF APPEAL FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2424 VENTURA STREET FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93721 ‘CHARLENE YNSON TELEPHONE (559) 445-5494 CLERK/ADMINISTRATOR FAX (559) 445-5769 BRIAN A. COTT: ASSISTANT CLERK/ADMINISTRATOR January 25, 2017 Dylan J. Crosby Wagner Jones Helsley PC 265 East River Park Circle, #310 Fresno, CA 93720 Re: Poet, LLC et al. v. California Air Resources Board et al.- F073340 ORAL ARGUMENT NOTICE The above captioned case has been sent to chambers for review and will be scheduled for submission on the March 2017 calendar. The Court requests oral argument in this case. A notification of your date and time of appearance will be sent to you at least 20 days prior to argument. The Court recognizes that, on the issue of compliance with the writ, counsel is in the somewhat awkward position of trying to persuade the Court what the Court meant when it drafted the language that became paragraph 3 of the writ. In contrast, the issue of appropriate relief (assuming a failure to comply is established) involves an analysis of current circumstances and argument presented in the adversarial process may be helpful to the Court in deciding that issue. Accordingly, at oral argument counsel should be prepared to address the many issues that arise in connection with choosing appropriate relief. To narrow these issues, counsel should assume that any disposition reversing the order discharging the writ also would direct the trial court to order ARB (1) to take further action necessary to comply with the writ and (2) vacate the 2015 defective project approval—that is, “set aside its [2015] approval of the LCFS regulations.” (POET, LLC v. State Air Resources Bd. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 681, 760.) As in the prior appeal and the March 2016 writ petition filed in this appeal, the question of further relief raises an overarching concern about the consequences of that further relief, which we describe here as the-baby-with-the-bathwater problem. In other words, would invalidating/suspending or freezing the operative effect of the LCFS regulations cause greater detriments that allowing the regulations to remain operative pending compliance with the writ? Your analysis of the benefits/detriments of the types of further relief available should consider all benefits and detriments (not just those related to NOx emissions) because the LCFS regulations have consequences that extend beyond NOx emissions. For example, counsel should consider the seven noncancer health impacts associated with PM2.5 and described at page C-244 of the administrative record, including the statement “that the statewide health impacts of the emissions associated with this regulation in the year 2020 are approximately: [§[] 24 premature deaths (7 — 43, 95% Cl).” (See Appendix F11, Adm. Record C-646 to C-651.) Page 2 January 25, 2017 As to the various choices about further relief, counsel should be prepared to address relief that (1) retums to the status quo established by the writ (ie., a return to the standards in effect for 2013); (2) preserves the current status quo, whether that be 2016 standards or the standards that would be applied in 2017; or (3) suspends the operative effect of the current and former regulations. As to the argument that invalidating/suspending the LCFS regulations would result in less detriment this time around because federal greenhouse gas regulations are in place now, counsel should consider, among other things, whether the change of administrations has affected the likelihood that the federal regulations would remain in effect while ARB attempts to comply with the writ. The foregoing does not describe all of the issues related to appropriate appellate relief and counsel should not.limit their preparation to those issues. This Oral Argument Notice must be completed and returned to the court within 10 days of its date. Any new authorities must be filed separately from this notice and must comply with California Rules of Court, rule 8.254. PERSONAL APPEARANCE - I will personally appear for oral argument. ‘ TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE USING COURTCALL - Once you receive notice of the date and time for oral argument you will need to make reservations with CourtCall on their website www.courtcall.com or by calling (888) 882-6878. Signature: Print name of attorney/self represented party who will argue: On behalf of: Appellant Respondent Petitioner Real Party in Interest Other Time requested for oral argument (30 min. max., CRC rule 8.256(c)(2)) minutes. (if time is not specified, argument will be limited to 15 minutes.) COURT OF APPEAL FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2424 VENTURA STREET FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93721 CHARLENE YNSON TELEPHONE (559) 445-5491 CLERK/ADMINISTRATOR. FAX (559) 445-5769 BRIAN A. COTTA ASSISTANT CLERK/ADMINISTRATOR January 25, 2017 Timothy Jones Wanger Jones Helsley, PC 265 E. River Park Circle, Suite 310 Fresno, CA 93720 Re: Poet, LLC et al. v. California Air Resources Board et al.- F073340 ORAL ARGUMENT NOTICE" The above captioned case has been sent to chambers for review and will be scheduled for submission on the March 2017 calendar. The Court requests oral argument in this case. A notification of your date and time of appearance will be sent to you at least 20 days prior to argument. The Court recognizes that, on the issue of compliance with the writ, counsel is in the somewhat awkward position of trying to persuade the Court what the Court meant when it drafted the language that became paragraph 3 of the writ. In contrast, the issue of appropriate relief (assuming a failure to comply is established) involves an analysis of current circumstances and argument presented in the adversarial process may be helpful to the Court in deciding that issue. Accordingly, at oral argument counsel should be prepared to address the many issues that arise in connection with choosing appropriate relief. To narrow these issues, counsel should assume that any disposition reversing the order discharging the writ also would direct the trial court to order ARB (1) to take further action necessary to comply with the writ and (2) vacate the 2015 defective project approval—that is, “set aside its [2015] approval of the LCFS regulations.” (POET, LLC v. State Air Resources Bd. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 681, 760.) As in the prior appeal and the March 2016 writ petition filed in this appeal, the question of firther relief raises an overarching concern about the consequences of that further relief, which we describe here as the-baby-with-the-bathwater problem. In other words, would invalidating/suspending or freezing the operative effect of the LCFS regulations cause greater detriments that allowing the regulations to remain operative pending compliance with the writ? Your analysis of the benefits/detriments of the types of further relief available should consider all benefits and detriments (not just those related to NOx emissions) because the LCFS regulations have consequences that extend beyond NOx emissions. For example, counsel should consider the seven noncancer health impacts associated with PM2.5 and described at page C-244 of the administrative record, including the statement “that the statewide health impacts of the emissions associated with this regulation in the year 2020 are approximately: {] 24 premature deaths (7 — 43, 95% CI.” (See Appendix F11, Adm, Record C-646 to C-651.) Page 2 January 25, 2017 As to the various choices about further relief, counsel should be prepared to address relief that (1) returns to the status quo established by the writ (Le., a return to the standards in effect for 2013); (2) preserves the current status quo, whether that be 2016 standards or the standards that would be applied in 2017; or (3) suspends the operative effect of the current and former regulations. As to the argument that invalidating/suspending the LCFS regulations would result in less detriment this time around because federal greenhouse gas regulations are in place now, counsel should consider, among other things, whether the change of administrations has affected the likelihood that the federal regulations would remain in effect while ARB attempts to comply with the writ. The foregoing does not describe all of the issues related to appropriate appellate relief and counsel should not limit their preparation to those issues. This Oral Argument Notice must be completed and returned to the court within 10 days of its date. Any new authorities must be filed separately from this notice and must comply with California Rules of Court, rule 8.254. PERSONAL APPEARANCE - I will personally appear for oral argument. TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE USING COURTCALL - Once you receive notice of the date and time for oral argument you will need to make reservations with CourtCall on their website www.courtcall.com or by calling (888) 882-6878 Signature Print name of attorney/self represented party who will argue: On behalf of: Appellant Respondent Petitioner Real Party in Interest Other Time requested for oral argument (30 min. max., CRC rule 8.256(c)(2)) minutes. (If time is not specified, argument will be limited to 15 minutes.) COURT OF APPEAL FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2424 VENTURA STREET FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93721 CHARLENE YNSON ‘TELEPHONE (559) 445-5491 CLERK/ADMINISTRATOR FAX (559) 445-5769 BRIAN A. COTTA ASSISTANT CLERK/ADMINISTRATOR January 25, 2017 Margaret Elaine Meckenstock California Attorney General's Office 1515 Clay St, 20th Floor Oakland, CA 94612-1492 Re: Poet, LLC et al. v. California Air Resources Board et al. - F073340 ORAL ARGUMENT NOTICE ~ The above captioned case has been sent to chambers for review and will be scheduled for submission on the March 2017 calendar. The Court requests oral argument in this case. A notification of your date and time of appearance will be sent to you at least 20 days prior to argument, The Court recognizes that, on the issue of compliance with the writ, counsel is in the somewhat awkward position of trying to persuade the Court what the Court meant when it drafted the language that became paragraph 3 of the writ. In contrast, the issue of appropriate relief (assuming a failure to comply is established) involves an analysis of current circumstances and argument presented in the adversarial process may be helpful to the Court in deciding that issue. Accordingly, at oral argument counsel should be prepared to address the many issues that arise in connection with choosing appropriate relief. To narrow these issues, counsel should assume that * any disposition reversing the order discharging the writ also would direct the trial court to order ARB (1) to take further action necessary to comply with the writ and (2) vacate the 2015 defective project approval—tat is, “set aside its [2015] approval of the LCFS regulations.” (POET, LLC v. State Air Resources Bd, (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 681, 760.) As in the prior appeal and the March 2016 writ petition filed in this appeal, the question of further relief raises an overarching concern about the consequences of that further relief, which we describe here as the-baby-with-the-bathwater problem. In other words, would invalidating/suspending or freezing the operative effect of the LCFS regulations cause greater detriments that allowing the regulations to remain operative pending compliance with the writ? Your analysis of the benefits/detriments of the types of further relief available should consider all benefits and detriments (not just those related to NOx emissions) because the LCFS regulations have consequences that extend beyond NOx emissions. For example, counsel should consider the seven noncancer health impacts associated with PM2.5 and described at page C-244 of the administrative record, including the statement “that the statewide health impacts of the emissions associated with this regulation in the year 2020 are approximately: [{{] 24 premature deaths (7 — 43, 95% CI.” (See Appendix F11, Adm. Record C-646 to C-651.) Page 2 January 25, 2017 As to the various choices about further relief, counsel should be prepared to address relief that (1) returns to the status quo established by the writ (i.e., a return to the standards in effect for 2013); (2) preserves the current status quo, whether that be 2016 standards or the standards that would be applied in 2017; or (3) suspends the operative effect of the current and former regulations. As to the argument that invalidating/suspending the LCFS regulations would result in less detriment this time around because federal greenhouse gas regulations are in place now, counsel should consider, among other things, whether the change of administrations has affected the likelihood that the federal regulations would remain in effect while ARB attempts to comply with the writ. The foregoing does not describe all of the issues related to appropriate appellate relief and counsel-should not limit their preparation to those issues. This Oral Argument Notice must be completed and returned to the court within 10 days of its date. Any new authorities must be filed separately from this notice and must comply with California Rules of Court, rule 8.254. PERSONAL APPEARANCE - I will personally appear for oral argument. TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE USING COURTCALL - Once you receive notice of the date and time for oral argument you will need to make reservations with CourtCall on their website www.courtcall.com or by calling (888) 882-6878 Signature: Print name of attorney/self represented party who will argue: On behalf of: Appellant Respondent Petitioner Real Party in Interest Other Time requested for oral argument (30 min. max., CRC rule 8.256(c)(2)) minutes. (If time is not specified, argument will be limited to 15 minutes.) COURT OF APPEAL FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2424 VENTURA STREET FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93721 CHARLENE YNSON ‘TELEPHONE (559) 445-5494 CLERK/ADMINISTRATOR FAX (599) 445-5769 BRIAN A. COTTA ASSISTANT CLERK/ADMINISTRATOR January 25, 2017 Janelle Muriel Smith California Attorney General's Office 1515 Clay Street, 20th Floor Oakland, CA 94612-1492 Re: Poet, LLC et al. v. Califomia Air Resources Board et al. - F073340 “ORAL ARGUMENT NOTICE The above captioned case has been sent to chambers for review and will be scheduled for submission on the March 2017 calendar. The Court requests oral argument in this case. A notification of your date and time of appearance will be sent to you at least 20 days prior to argument. The Court recognizes that, on the issue of compliance with the writ, counsel is in the somewhat awkward position of trying to persuade the Court what the Court meant when it drafted the language that became paragraph 3 of the writ. In contrast, the issue of appropriate relief: (assuming a failure to comply is established) involves an analysis of current circumstances and argument presented in the adversarial process may be helpful to the Court in deciding that issue. Accordingly, at oral argument counsel should be prepared to address the many issues that arise in connection with choosing appropriate relief. To narrow these issues, counsel should assume that any disposition reversing the order discharging the writ also would direct the trial court to order ARB (1) to take further action necessary to comply with the writ and (2) vacate the 2015 defective project approval—that is, “set aside its [2015] approval of the LCFS regulations.” (POET, LLC v. State Air Resources Bd. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 681, 760.) As in the prior appeal and the March 2016 writ petition filed in this appeal, the question of further relief raises an overarching concern about the consequences of that further relief, which we describe here as the-baby-with-the-bathwater problem. In other words, would invalidating/suspending or freezing the operative effect of the LCFS regulations cause greater detriments that allowing the regulations to remain operative pending compliance with the writ? ‘Your analysis of the benefits/detriments of the types of further relief available should consider all benefits and detriments (not just those related to NOx emissions) because the LCFS regulations have consequences that extend beyond NOx emissions. For example, counsel should consider the seven noncancer health impacts associated with PM2.5 and described at page C-244 of the administrative record, including the statement “that the statewide health impacts of the emissions associated with this regulation in the year 2020 are approximately: [i] 24 premature deaths (7 — 43, 95% CI.” (See Appendix F11, Adm. Record C-646 to C-651.) Page 2 January 25, 2017 As to the various choices about further relief, counsel should be prepared to address relief that (1) retums to the status quo established by the writ (i.e., a return to the standards in effect for 2013); (2) preserves the current status quo, whether that be 2016 standards or the standards that would be applied in 2017; or (3) suspends the operative effect of the current and former regulations. As to the argument that invalidating/suspending the LCFS regulations would result in less detriment this time around because federal greenhouse gas regulations are in place now, counsel should consider, among other things, whether the change of administrations has affected the likelihood that the federal regulations would remain in effect while ARB attempts to comply with the writ. The foregoing does not describe all of the issues related to appropriate appellate relief and counsel should not limit their preparation to those issues. : This Oral Argument Notice must be completed and returned to the court within 10 days of its date. Any new authorities must be filed separately from this notice and must comply with California Rules of Court, rule 8.254, —— PERSONAL APPEARANCE - | will personally appear for oral argument. TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE USING COURTCALL - Once you receive notice of the date and time for oral argument you will need to make reservations with CourtCall on their website www.courtcall.com or by calling (888) 882-6878. Signature: Print name of attorney/self represented party who will argue: On behalf of: Appellant Respondent Petitioner Real Party in Interest Other Time requested for oral argument (30 min. max., CRC rule 8.256(c)(2)) minutes. (if time is not specified, argument will be limited to 15 minutes.) COURT OF APPEAL FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2424 VENTURA STREET. FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93721 CHARLENE YNSON TELEPHONE (559) 445-5494 CLERK/ADMINISTRATOR FAX (559) 445-5769 BRIAN A. COTT/ ASSISTANT CLERK/ADMINISTRATOR January 25, 2017 Myung J Park Ofc Attomey General 455 Golden Gate Ave San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 Re: Poet, LLC et al. v. California Air Resources Board et al.- F073340 ORAL ARGUMENT NOTICE The above captioned case has been sent to chambers for review and will be scheduled for submission on the March 2017 calendar. The Court requests oral argument in this case. A notification of your date and time of appearance will be sent to you at least 20 days prior to argument. The Court recognizes that, on the issue of compliance with the writ, counsel is in the somewhat awkward position of trying to persuade the Court what the Court meant when it drafted the language that became paragraph 3 of the writ. In contrast, the issue of appropriate relief (assuming a failure to comply is established) involves an analysis of current circumstances and argument presented in the adversarial process may be helpful to the Court in deciding that issue. Accordingly, at oral argument counsel should be prepared to address the many issues that arise in connection with choosing appropriate relief. To narrow these issues, counsel should assume that any disposition reversing the order discharging the writ also would direct the trial court to order ARB (1) to take further action necessary to comply with the writ and (2) vacate the 2015 defective project approval—that is, “set aside its [2015] approval of the LCFS regulations.” (POET, LLC v. State Air Resources Bd. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 681, 760.) As in the prior appeal and the March 2016 writ petition filed in this appeal, the question of further relief raises an overarching concern about the consequences of that further relief, which we describe here as the-baby-with-the-bathwater problem. In other words, would invalidating/suspending or freezing the operative effect of the LCFS regulations cause greater detriments that allowing the regulations to remain operative pending compliance with the writ? Your analysis of the benefits/detriments of the types of further relief available should consider all benefits and detriments (not just those related to NOx emissions) because the LCFS regulations have consequences that extend beyond NOx emissions. For example, counsel should consider the seven noncancer health impacts associated with PM2.5 and described at page C-244 of the administrative record, including the statement “that the statewide health impacts of the emissions associated with this regulation in the year 2020 are approximately: [{] 24 premature deaths (7 — 43, 95% Cl).” (See Appendix F11, Adm. Record C-646 to C-651.) Page 2 January 25, 2017 As to the various choices about further relief, counsel should be prepared to address relief that (1) returns to the status quo established by the writ (.c., a return to the standards in effect for 2013); (2) preserves the current status quo, whether that be 2016 standards or the standards that would be applied in 2017; or (3) suspends the operative effect of the current and former regulations. As to the argument that invalidating/suspending the LCFS regulations would result in less detriment this time around because federal greenhouse gas regulations are in place now, counsel should consider, among other things, whether the change of administrations has affected the likelihood that the federal regulations would remain in effect while ARB attempts to comply with the writ. The foregoing does not describe all of the issues related to appropriate appellate relief and counsel should not limit their preparation to those issues. This Oral Argument Notice must be completed and returned to the court within 10 days of its date. Any new authorities must be filed separately from this notice and must comply with California Rules of Court, rule 8.254. PERSONAL APPEARANCE - I will personally appear for oral argument. TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE USING COURTCALL - Once you receive notice of the date and time for oral argument you will need to make reservations with CourtCall on their website www.courteall.com or by calling (888) 882-6878. Signature: Print name of attorney/self represented party who will argue: On behalf of: Appellant Respondent Petitioner Real Party in Interest * Other Time requested for oral argument (30 min. max., CRC rule 8.256(c)(2)) minutes. (If time is not specified, argument will be limited to 15 minutes.) COURT OF APPEAL FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2424 VENTURA STREET FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93721 CHARLENE YNSON ‘TELEPHONE (559) 445-5491 CLERK/ADMINESTRATOR FAX (559) 445-5769 BRIAN A. COTTA ASSISTANT CLERK/ADMINISTRATOR January 25, 2017 David Richard Pettit Natural Resources Defense Council 1314 2nd St Santa Monica, CA 90401 Re: Poet, LLC et al. v. California Air Resources Board et al.- F073340 ORAL ARGUMENT NOTICE The above captioned case has been sent to chambers for review and will be scheduled for submission on the March 2017 calendar. The Court requests oral argument in this case. A notification of your date and time of appearance will be sent to you at least 20 days prior to argument. The Court recognizes that, on the issue of compliance with the writ, counsel is in the somewhat awkward position of trying to persuade the Court what the Court meant when it drafted the language that became paragraph 3 of the writ. In contrast, the issue of appropriate relief (assuming a failure to comply is established) involves an analysis of current circumstances and argument presented in the adversarial process may be helpful to the Court in deciding that issue. Accordingly, at oral argument counsel should be prepared to address the many issues that arise in connection with choosing appropriate relief. To narrow these issues, counsel should assume that any disposition reversing the order discharging the writ also would direct the trial court to order ARB (1) to take further action necessary to comply with the writ and (2) vacate the 2015 defective project approval—that is, “set aside its [2015] approval of the LCFS regulations.” (POET, LLC v. State Air Resources Bd, (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 681, 760.) As in the prior appeal and the March 2016 writ petition filed in this appeal, the question of further relief raises an overarching concern about the consequences of that further relief, which we describe here as the-baby-with-the-bathwater problem. In other words, would invalidating/suspending or freezing the operative effect of the LCFS regulations cause greater detriments that allowing the regulations to remain operative pending compliance with the writ? Your analysis of the benefits/detriments of the types of further relief available should consider all benefits and detrimenis (not just those related to NOx emissions) because the LCFS regulations have consequences that ext