D.C. Circuit Upholds California Clean Air Act Waiver

April 12, 2024

Print This Article Share it With Friends

by Lesley Clark (E&E News) The ruling is a major boost to the Golden State’s ability to set tough tailpipe emissions standards — and the Biden administration’s climate agenda. -- An influential federal appeals court has allowed California to retain its longstanding authority to set stricter fuel emissions standards for automobiles than the federal government.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Tuesday sided with the Biden administration and five of the world’s largest automakers, which have argued that upholding California’s 50-year-old Clean Air Act waiver would “promote stability and regulatory certainty.”

The ruling comes as a major relief for California’s standards — which 17 other states and the District of Columbia have adopted — as well as a boost to the White House’s efforts to meet its climate goals, which include electrifying half of all car sales by 2030.

The case is all but certain to land before the Supreme Court. It’s already been described as “SCOTUS bait” for raising issues that seem designed to attract the attention of the high court’s conservative wing. Republican-appointed justices in the majority have recently sided with conservative claims against other initiatives from President Joe Biden, including his administration’s vaccine mandate and student loan forgiveness plan.

Republican-led states and oil interests argued before the D.C. Circuit in September that California’s waiver harms their interests because it forces manufacturers to charge more for combustion engine vehicles. The Biden administration had reinstated the state’s waiver after EPA revoked it under former President Donald Trump.

The states also argued that the case fell under the “major questions” doctrine — a nod to a 2022 Supreme Court decision in West Virginia v. EPA that curbed the environmental agency’s ability to widely regulate coal-fired power plants. The doctrine says Congress must explicitly authorize federal agencies to regulate matters of vast economic and political importance.

Attorneys for California and the federal government, however, had argued that the state’s waiver — which now covers 40 percent of the auto market — does not rise to the level of a “major question” because it has been endorsed by Congress.

California’s waiver has allowed the state to enact a package of regulations that included a mandate for automakers to sell an increasing number of zero-emission vehicles in the state. READ MORE

Related articles

D.C. Circuit Upholds Reinstatement of California Clean Air Act Waiver (Sierra Club)
D.C. Circuit Upholds Reinstatement of California Clean Air Act Waiver in Ohio v. EPA (Earthjustice)
Court upholds California’s authority to set nation-leading vehicle emission rules (PBS)
DC Circuit affirms California waiver for strict emissions standards -- The California waiver, enacted in the 1970s to address Los Angeles smog, was challenged by a coalition of 17 conservative states that argued it violated their right to "equal sovereignty." (Courthouse News Service)
Appeals Court: California Emissions Standards Upheld (Planetizen)
Appeals Court Affirms California’s Longstanding Authority to Set Clean Vehicle Standards (Environmental Defense Fund)
North Dakota Joins Court Brief Challenging California’s Electric Vehicle Mandate (KNOX/North Dakota Monitor)

Excerpt from Earthjustice: Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2022 reinstatement of a waiver that authorizes California to set stronger vehicle greenhouse gas emissions standards than the federal government and to mandate that automakers sell an increasing number of zero-emissions vehicles in the state.

In Ohio v. EPA, the Ohio Attorney General and a group of like-minded state Attorneys General, along with oil, gas, and ethanol interests, challenged EPA’s reinstatement of California’s long-standing preemption waiver under the Clean Air Act for the state’s Advanced Clean Car program. The Sierra Club, co-counseled with Earthjustice, was a party to the litigation in support of the EPA. No automaker went to court against the EPA.

In response, Paul Cort, Director of the Right To Zero campaign at Earthjustice, released the following statement:

“California has long led the fight to clean up tailpipe pollution and address the climate crisis by accelerating a vital transition to clean cars and trucks. This ruling is a win for the millions of Americans living and breathing in the states that have adopted these life-saving tailpipe standards. It will also help protect our climate and provide automakers with regulatory stability as they plan for a future with zero-emissions vehicles and clean air.”

Nearly 50 years ago, Congress included special treatment in the Clean Air Act to preserve California’s leadership in adopting standards that are more protective than the federal government’s. Congress recognized California’s need to minimize vehicle pollution and to push the vehicle industry to develop cleaner technology. After EPA grants a waiver for California’s regulations, other states can then adopt California’s more protective regulations for the health and welfare of their own residents. READ MORE

Excerpt from KNOX/North Dakota Monitor: -Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird led a coalition of eight state attorneys general in filing a court brief supporting Ohio’s lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over California’s electric vehicle mandates. North Dakota is one of the states that signed the court filing.

According to the North Dakota Monitor California’s mandate requires all new cars and vehicles sold in California to be electric by 2035. The mandate passed in August 2022 by the California Air Resources Board was intended to improve air quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Bird and others allege the EPA violated the states’ equal sovereignty rights when the agency allowed California to pursue its own regulatory standards while preventing other states from doing so.

Bird said in a press release that California’s electric vehicle mandate will also increase costs for consumers in other states and limit options for new cars.

“I will not stand by as American families are forced to pay the price for California’s green car mandates,” Bird said in a press release. “California and the Biden-Harris EPA are eliminating purchasing options for families across the country and mandating they buy more expensive electric cars at a time when they are already struggling to make ends meet. The law is clear; California does not have the power to mandate the cars Iowans drive.”

In addition to North Dakota Attorney General Drew Wrigley, Bird is joined by the Republican attorneys general from the states of Idaho, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wyoming.

According to the amicus brief, California’s extreme market influence leads to its decisions forcing the automotive industry across the nation to change in order to match California regulations.

“That mandate surpasses the current market demand for such vehicles, compelling manufacturers to invest far more resources than they would absent the regulations. Those added expenses are inevitably passed down to consumers, including Petitioner States,” the brief reads. “Petitioner States are forced to subsidize California’s stringent regulatory framework while also being barred from adopting their own.”

This is not the first time Bird has fought against California electric vehicle rules.

Back in May, Bird joined a lawsuit challenging a California regulation that would have banned internal combustion engines in medium- and heavy-duty vehicles by 2045 and the sale of larger diesel vehicles in 2036.

Read the full brief here. READ MORE