Groups Opposing California's EV Goals Take Case to U.S. Supreme Court - Times of San Diego
Groups Opposing California's EV Goals Take Case to U.S. Supreme Court - Times of San Diego
Opponents of California’s ambitious targets for electric car adoption to lower greenhouse gas emissions took their case to the U.S. Supreme Court this week, the latest salvo against the state’s campaign to fight climate change.
Energy companies, corn growers and industry associations have long opposed strong environmental rules in California, for decades the only state with power to request a waiver from the Environmental Protection Agency to set its own vehicle emissions regulations that are more stringent than the federal standard.
The EPA made that exception because the nation’s most populous state has unique factors like geography and a large number of vehicles that make smog a worse problem than in other states.
Other states are allowed to adopt California’s stricter tailpipe emission rules, and automakers tend to follow to avoid having to produce different vehicles for different states.
In its request for hearing, filed on Tuesday, Valero Energy Corp’s Diamond Alternative Energy and other plaintiffs said EPA’s grant of a waiver for California’s Advanced Clean Car program for model years 2015 through 2025 enabled the state to “operate as a quasi-federal regulator on global climate change.”
The Diamond plaintiffs rely on the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in West Virginia v. EPA. That decision invoked the “major questions” doctrine, which requires explicit congressional authorization before regulators can take consequential actions on issues of vast economic, political and societal impact.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom wants the state to be a leader in fighting climate change and has targeted transportation because it accounts for roughly a quarter of emissions. A spokesperson for the governor was not immediately available for comment.
This request for a Supreme Court review comes as oil companies, farming groups that contribute to the production of ethanol, trucking firms and business associations also are suing in state and federal court to stop California’s rules aimed at slashing greenhouse gas emissions from boxy package delivery trucks to long-distance semi trucks.
The Clean Air Act, which EPA relies on for setting tailpipe emissions rules, does not expressly address greenhouse gas emissions from mobile sources such as cars and trucks.
Plaintiffs in Tuesday’s filing also said California does not meet the legal requirement for “compelling and extraordinary” provisions that would justify a waiver.
“Climate change is not an ‘extraordinary’ condition within California” because it is global and not local, they said. California also does not need its own emissions standards to meet global climate change since its efforts would have no discernable effect on those conditions in the state, they added.
The question of whether California may set greenhouse gas emissions for itself and other states “is undeniably major,” the plaintiffs said, especially since California has the EPA for a waiver for its plan to end sales of gasoline-only vehicles by 2035.
“The waiver and authority claimed here are the key parts of a coordinated agency strategy to convert the Nation from liquid-fuel-powered vehicles to electric vehicles,” the filing said, pointing out that would hurt demand for petroleum fuels and biofuels.
Other plaintiffs include American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, Kansas Corn Growers Association and the National Association of Convenience Stores.
Coalition of energy, ag, biofuels petitions SCOTUS challenging EPA waiver authorizing California EV mandate
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, a coalition of 15 energy, agriculture and biofuel groups filed a petition for a writ of certiorari (cert petition) with the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) challenging EPA’s decision to grant a waiver to the state of California for its 2021-2025 electric vehicle mandate, a policy governing the vehicle choice of nearly 40% of Americans directly and many more indirectly.
Petitioners include the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), Clean Fuels Development Coalition, Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC, Domestic Energy Producers Alliance (DEPA), Energy Marketers of America (EMA), ICM, Inc., Illinois Corn Growers Association, Iowa Soybean Association, Kansas Corn Growers Association, Michigan Corn Growers Association, Minnesota Soybean Growers Association, Missouri Corn Growers Association, National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS), South Dakota Soybean Association and Valero Renewable Fuels Company, LLC.
The cert petition asks SCOTUS to do two things:
- Review
and overturn an April ruling from the DC Circuit, which determined
energy petitioners lacked standing, based on redressability, to
challenge EPA’s issuance of a federal waiver allowing California to
impose its Advanced Clean Cars I (ACCI) EV mandate. In dismissing the
petitioners, the DC Circuit failed to consider any merits and statutory
questions raised in the petitioners’ case.
- Proceed straight to the merits of the case to clarify that the “California waiver” in the Clean Air Act does not empower any one state to regulate vehicle greenhouse gas emissions, impose electric vehicle mandates or limit consumer access to internal combustion engine technology.
The petitioners offered the following statements on their filing:
American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
“We are asking the Supreme Court to reverse the D.C. Circuit’s erroneous holding that fuel providers lack ‘standing’ to challenge EPA’s unlawful California waiver, and also to provide long overdue clarity on the authority of EPA and California to mandate electric vehicles. California is not a ‘super state,’ Its Clean Air Act carveout does not give it special privileges to regulate greenhouse gas emissions standards or dictate what types of car and truck powertrains can be sold in this country. Authority of this magnitude rests with Congress.
“The DC Circuit’s opinion—specifically, that fuel providers lack standing to challenge California’s EV mandates because they failed to show that a successful challenge would cause automakers to reduce EV production—is contradicted by legal precedent and basic market economics. The purpose of California’s mandate is to compel automakers and dealers to sell more electric vehicles than the market naturally demands, which is why we’re seeing inventory pile up on many dealer lots. Obviously, removing the mandate would have an effect. With the DC Circuit continuing to use standing dismissals to side-step the issues of this case, it is time for the Supreme Court to weigh in.”
– Chet Thompson, AFPM President and CEO
Boyden Gray PLLC (on behalf of many of the ag. and biofuel petitioners)
“The D.C. Circuit’s decision says that there’s no reason to believe that California’s electric vehicle sales mandate will actually mandate the sale of electric vehicles. That’s obviously false. The reason for the dodge is equally obvious: California’s attempts to become a global climate regulator are legally indefensible. And, as EPA itself admits, despite billions in costs, California’s electrification mandates do nothing at all to reduce global carbon emissions. It is time for the Supreme Court to step in and put an end to this destructive and unlawful experiment in Californian supremacy.”
– Michael Buschbacher, Boyden Gray, PLLC, Partner
Domestic Energy Producers’ Alliance
"We believe the DC Circuit’s April ruling raises significant legal and constitutional questions that need to be addressed by the highest court in the land. The decision to dismiss our standing in this case undermines the voices of numerous stakeholders affected by California’s regulatory overreach. We challenge the EPA's authority to grant California the unprecedented power to regulate vehicle greenhouse gas emissions and enforce EV mandates. This delegation of power not only disrupts the uniformity of national vehicle standards but also sets a concerning precedent for state-by-state environmental regulation. We believe that such significant regulatory decisions should rest with Congress, ensuring a balanced and democratic approach to environmental policy.”
– Jerry Simmons, DEPA President and CEO
Energy Marketers of America (EMA)
“The wheels are already coming off the federal government’s electrification agenda due to skyrocketing utility bills, charging and repair costs, and low consumer interest, and yet, we continue to see the state of California dictating electric vehicle mandates across the country. Therefore, it’s time for the Court to step in to preserve consumer choice and ensure that all forms of energy are treated equally, which will guarantee that small business energy marketers can continue to sell American-made, American-grown fuels in the future.”
– Rob Underwood, EMA President
National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS)
“EPA should not have made California’s vehicle technology mandate a standard across much of the nation. We need innovations to improve all vehicle technologies to fight climate change. Unless the Supreme Court intervenes, this rule will stop a great deal of internal combustion engine innovation in its tracks. The Court should take this case and restore sanity to our system of regulating vehicle emissions.”
– Jeff Lenard, NACS Vice President, Strategic Industry Initiatives
Comments
Post a Comment