RFA, Other Petitioners File Initial Brief in Lawsuit Over EPA’s Tailpipe Standards

(Renewable Fuels Association) In a detailed brief submitted late Friday to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the Renewable Fuels Association and 55 other parties argued that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency unlawfully exceeded its statutory authority and acted arbitrarily and capriciously by finalizing vehicle tailpipe emissions standards that would essentially phase out liquid-fueled engines and mandate increased production of electric vehicles.

“While we certainly share the Biden administration’s vision for reducing carbon emissions from transportation, EPA’s tailpipe rule is clearly the wrong way to pursue that goal and the agency obviously overstepped its authority,” said RFA President and CEO Geoff Cooper. “EPA’s rule effectively forces automakers to produce more battery electric vehicles based on the false premise that they are somehow ‘zero-emission vehicles.’ At the same time, the regulation strongly discourages manufacturers from pursuing other clean transportation technologies like flex fuel vehicles and low-carbon renewable fuels. EPA ignored the fact that high-octane ethanol and advanced internal combustion engines could achieve superior environmental performance at a lower cost to American consumers.”

In addition to RFA, the brief filed Friday included National Farmers Union, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Association of Convenience Stores, 14 state and national corn grower associations, numerous auto dealers, organizations representing trucking and shipping companies, manufacturing groups, energy trade associations, organized labor groups, and other parties.

“The Court should reverse EPA’s rule,” according to the petitioners’ brief, which notes that EPA projects at least 68 percent of new vehicles will need to be electric to comply with the standards by 2032. “EPA seeks to radically transform the nation’s vehicle fleet by effectively mandating a nationwide transition from internal-combustion-engine vehicles to electric vehicles. That bold assertion of regulatory power vastly exceeds EPA’s statutory authority. The Clean Air Act does not clearly authorize EPA to force Americans to buy electric vehicles.”

The groups also underscored that EPA’s final rule is arbitrary and capricious. According to the brief, EPA “…unreasonably treats electric vehicles as though they contribute zero emissions...” and “…arbitrarily refuse[d] to consider viable and obvious alternatives for reducing emissions from transportation.” Specifically, the brief notes that “EPA refused to even consider renewable fuels as an alternative to its push for electrification, unreasonably deeming those issues outside the scope of its rule. …Higher-octane fuels, biofuels, and flex-fuel vehicles are a documented solution to the issue of pollution from vehicle emissions.”

EPA likewise failed to consider how its tailpipe standards conflict with Congress’s Renewable Fuel Standard, according to the brief. EPA’s tailpipe standards rule “…conflicts with Congress’s mandate to increase the Nation’s use of renewable fuel,” the brief states.

Excerpt from Inside EPA: The liquid fuels sector and Republican-led states are detailing their legal arguments against EPA’s multi-pollutant standards for model year 2027-32 vehicles, claiming the regulation violates the Supreme Court’s “major questions” doctrine and improperly includes electric vehicles (EVs) in the rule’s fleet averaging compliance mechanism. In addition, critics are spotlighting what they view as EPA’s flawed cost-benefit analysis for the rule, asserting the agency’s social cost of carbon (SCC) metric used to monetize climate-related benefits is arbitrarily weighted to support strict.... READ MORE

Excerpt from DTN Progressive Farmer: "No law authorizes the federal government to mandate the sale of electric vehicles," the groups said in the brief.

"So in 2021, EPA began reverse-engineering a de facto electric-vehicle mandate. It did so by setting greenhouse-gas emission standards for light-duty vehicles that were so stringent that automakers could meet them only by decreasing production of internal-combustion-engine vehicles and dedicating an increasing percentage of their fleets to electric vehicles."

"In short, consumers and manufacturers are not irrational; they just do not value fuel economy above all else, as EPA apparently thinks they should," the brief said.

In a news release, RFA President and CEO Geoff Cooper said his group shares the Biden administration's vision of reducing carbon emissions.

"EPA's tailpipe rule is clearly the wrong way to pursue that goal and the agency obviously overstepped its authority," Cooper said.

"EPA's rule effectively forces automakers to produce more battery electric vehicles based on the false premise that they are somehow 'zero-emission vehicles.' At the same time, the regulation strongly discourages manufacturers from pursuing other clean transportation technologies like flex-fuel vehicles and low-carbon renewable fuels. EPA ignored the fact that high-octane ethanol and advanced internal combustion engines could achieve superior environmental performance at a lower cost to American consumers."

Read more on DTN: "Studies: Low-Carbon Fuel Standard, Flexible Fuel Vehicles Reduce More GHG Emissions Than Electric Vehicles," https://www.dtnpf.com/… READ MORE