The Biden administration’s efforts to limit pollution from vehicle tailpipes, a major source of global warming emissions, are facing serious challenges as a federal appeals court considers legal challenges brought by Republican-led states. facing trials.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard arguments Thursday in two lawsuits challenging the Biden administration’s rules for cars and trucks. The third case will be argued Friday before a separate three-judge panel in the same court.
Transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming, and the lawsuit could reach the Supreme Court. Republican attorneys general say legal challenges are needed to rein in government overreach, while environmental groups and the Democratic administration say an adverse ruling would threaten the deadly pollution that contributes to climate change. It is argued that this could jeopardize protection from
The case in the Court of Appeals calls for a 2021 Environmental Protection Agency rule that strengthened tailpipe pollution standards and a 2022 EPA decision that restored California’s authority to set its own tailpipe pollution standards for passenger cars and SUVs. will be tested. At least 15 states and the District of Columbia have signed on to California’s vehicle standards, which are stricter than federal regulations and are intended to address the state’s severe air pollution problems. Seven of the 10 U.S. cities with the most severe ozone pollution are in California.
The third case challenges mileage standards set by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration.
“At a time when U.S. gas prices are skyrocketing, President (Joe) Biden has chosen to go to war on fossil fuels,” said Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who leads a coalition of Republican-leaning states and oil. Told. Industry groups challenge tailpipe rules. Paxton is facing an impeachment trial in the Texas Senate on unrelated corruption and bribery charges.
Paxton said the EPA’s rules will be detrimental to Texas and other oil and gas producing states.
Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, who is leading a separate lawsuit challenging California’s standards, said the waiver is inappropriate because it delegates federal power to the states.
“This is not California,” Yost said.
But Peter Zarzal, a senior attorney with the Environmental Defense Fund, an advocacy group involved in both lawsuits, said the rule is “legal, constitutional and extremely important.”
The Natural Resources Defense Council, another environmental group, called the legal challenge an “unprecedented attack” on federal clean air standards by the oil industry and Republican-led states.
NRDC attorney Pete Huffman said in a memo this week that the “fossil fuel industry and its allies are pushing the EPA and NHTSA to ensure that the next clean car standard fails to achieve the carbon pollution reductions needed to address the climate crisis.” We want to make them kneel,” he said.
An EPA spokesperson declined to comment, citing ongoing litigation.
But Todd Kim, assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s Bureau of Environment and Natural Resources, said in a legal filing that the EPA acted appropriately and within its authority to regulate tailpipe pollution.
The lawsuit comes as the Biden administration is pushing the auto industry to quickly adopt electric vehicles as part of efforts to combat climate change. The Infrastructure Act of 2021 and the Climate Change Act of 2022 include billions of dollars in incentives for the purchase of new and used EVs and a national network of new charging stations. All-electric vehicles account for just 6.7% of new car sales in the U.S., but analysts expect that share to grow rapidly in the coming years. Major automakers such as General Motors and Ford have pledged to go all-in on EVs, with GM announcing it will end new sales of gasoline-powered passenger cars by 2035.
The Automotive Innovation Alliance, which represents companies that make 98% of new cars sold in the United States, said in a court filing that the EPA’s tailpipe rules for model years through 2026 “represent a challenge to the industry.” Stated. But the EPA said it designed the rule to “balance overall stringency with critical flexibility” to allow automakers to take advantage of a variety of pollution regulations while adopting EV technology.
A few blocks from the federal courthouse, House Republicans on Thursday approved a bill that would block any attempt to ban the sale of vehicles equipped with internal combustion engines. Rep. John Joyce, Republican of Pennsylvania, said his bill was introduced in response to a decision by California’s Air Quality Commission to effectively ban the sale of gasoline-powered vehicles by 2035.
Joyce said the state’s action could force automakers to stop producing and selling gasoline-powered vehicles, as many states are following California’s lead when it comes to air pollution regulations.
“California regulators should not have the power to decide what cars are sold to Pennsylvania families,” he said. The bill was approved 220-190.
Democrats argued the bill would create uncertainty in the U.S. auto market and could slow sales of EVs that don’t pollute the climate.
“Republicans are retreating at the expense of public welfare, consumer savings, and the growth of America’s clean energy economy,” a group of nine House Democrats said in a joint statement.
Meanwhile, the Justice Department disputed the argument that the tailpipe rule falls under the so-called “serious question” doctrine cited by the Supreme Court. In a June 2022 ruling that limited how the EPA can regulate carbon emissions from power plants, the court ruled that Congress must specify specifically if it wants to give the EPA the authority to regulate on issues of national importance. It was decided that it was necessary to speak.
“Far from doing anything unexpected or innovative” with the tailpipe pollution rule, Kim wrote, “EPA has simply tightened existing standards.” In doing so, he said, the EPA was “using the same regulatory approach that it has used for all vehicle greenhouse gas regulations.”
Kim said in a separate filing that Ohio’s claim that California’s waiver is illegal is “unsupported by text, history, or precedent.” He said Ohio and other states have no standing to challenge California’s exemption because they are not regulated by it.
EDF attorney Zarzal said Ohio’s challenge is cynical, noting that the state is not seeking the right to set its own standards. “They just want to deny California’s traditional authority, which has been guaranteed by federal law for more than 50 years,” he said.