Supreme Court signals it will decide California fuel emissions case – JURIST
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in a case that sees fuel industry groups challenging vehicle emission standards in California. The justices indicated that the plaintiffs have legal standing, and the Court is likely to issue a ruling in the case.
The lawsuit challenges California’s Advanced Clean Cars Program, which was launched in 2012. The program includes two key components: a low emission vehicle program to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in standard vehicles, and a zero emission vehicle program that requires manufacturers to produce more electric vehicles. To facilitate this program, California received a waiver from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2013. The Clean Air Act requires a waiver for any that state that wishes to enforce motor vehicle emissions in a manner that deviates from EPA regulations. Operating under the Trump administration, the EPA revoked California’s waiver in 2019. However, the waiver was then reinstated under the Biden administration in 2022.
Fuel industry groups filed suit to block the EPA waiver claiming it violates 42 USC § 7543, which permits state-specific emissions standards only under “compelling and extraordinary conditions.” The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit dismissed the lawsuit for lack of standing, stating that the plaintiffs failed to show that their injuries were redressable by a favorable decision — the implication being the court is unable to fix the problem cited in the lawsuit.
The Supreme Court justices on Wednesday indicated their disagreement with the court of appeals and are likely to make a ruling in this case. A common implication in the justices’ line of questioning was that the EPA waiver reduces fuel consumption, which throws doubt on the DC circuit’s reasoning behind its lack of standing determination. Justice Thomas asked, “Wasn’t…a goal of the California regulations to reduce the use of Petitioners’ fuel?” Justice Kagan echoed this question, “Didn’t the EPA…say that the effect of the reinstatement was going to be to reduce gasoline emissions?” This questioning suggests that reduced fuel consumption is the harm for which plaintiffs seek redress in this lawsuit.
The EPA has been under scrutiny by the Supreme Court in recent years. Last month, the Court barred the EPA from imposing certain types of water quality fines on the city of San Francisco. In 2022, the Supreme Court ruled that proposed EPA powerplant regulations were unconstitutional.
