Nick Pope
Contributor
Numerous trade associations are asking the Supreme Court to review a lower court’s decision that effectively allowed California to push electric vehicles (EVs) on the rest of the U.S.
The coalition of plaintiffs are asking the highest court in the land to take up a review of the D.C. Circuit’s dismissal of a previous challenge against the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) approval of a California Air Resource Board (CARB) request to pursue tailpipe emissions standards that are more stringent than federal requirements. If the Supreme Court were to take the case and decide favorably for the plaintiffs, the ruling could potentially deal a serious blow to California’s de facto ability to dictate emissions standards and force EVs on the rest of the country, a spokesperson for one of the involved trade associations suggested.
“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,” said Chet Thompson, AFPM’s president and CEO. “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.” (RELATED: Biden Admin Weighs California’s Latest Green Gambit That Could Set Off Chain Reaction Of Economic Pain)
Diamond Alternative v Envir… by Nick Pope
California is unique in that it can apply for Clean Air Act waivers to issue vehicle emissions rules that are tighter than those of the federal government; a number of states have voluntarily attached themselves to CARB’s standards. However, as policy experts have previously explained to the Daily Caller News Foundation, this dynamic is likely to essentially force manufacturers to either produce fleets for CARB-aligned states and non-CARB states, or to simply make their entire fleets CARB-compliant despite the fact that many states do not want to adhere to CARB’s policies.
“As a concurrent challenge of 17 States explains, there are serious constitutional concerns with a statute that allows only California to act as a junior-varsity EPA,” the filing states. “Simply put, the waiver and authority claimed here are key parts of a coordinated agency strategy to convert theNation from liquid-fuel-powered vehicles to electric vehicles.”
Organizations involved in the litigation include the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), the Domestic Energy Producers’ Alliance (DEPA), the National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS) and the Energy Marketers of America (EMA). The D.C. Circuit previously dismissed an appeal seeking to block the CARB waiver on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing.
“The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously rejected these challenges to clear direction by Congress, which it has repeatedly affirmed in the Clean Air Act over the past 5 decades,” a spokesperson for CARB told the DCNF. “The petitioners are wrong on the facts and on the law in their challenge to sensible, achievable emission standards that the auto industry fully complies with.”
The request to the Supreme Court specifically addresses the Clean Air Act waiver for CARB’s “Advanced Clean Cars I” rules, which required manufacturers to increase EV and zero-emissions vehicle sales over time. If the Supreme Court takes the review and rules against the regulators, the decision could also have implications for CARB’s “Advanced Clean Cars II” rule, which bans the sale of new gas-powered passenger vehicles in the state starting in 2035, the spokesperson for one of the organizations involved in the litigation suggested.
The EPA did not respond immediately to a request for comment.
California is unique in that it can apply for Clean Air Act waivers to issue vehicle emissions rules that are tighter than those of the federal government; a number of states have voluntarily attached themselves to CARB’s standards. However, as policy experts have previously explained to the Daily Caller News Foundation, this dynamic is likely to essentially force manufacturers to either produce fleets for CARB-aligned states and non-CARB states, or to simply make their entire fleets CARB-compliant despite the fact that many states do not want to adhere to CARB’s policies.
“As a concurrent challenge of 17 States explains, there are serious constitutional concerns with a statute that allows only California to act as a junior-varsity EPA,” the filing states. “Simply put, the waiver and authority claimed here are key parts of a coordinated agency strategy to convert theNation from liquid-fuel-powered vehicles to electric vehicles.”
Organizations involved in the litigation include the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), the Domestic Energy Producers’ Alliance (DEPA), the National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS) and the Energy Marketers of America (EMA). The D.C. Circuit previously dismissed an appeal seeking to block the CARB waiver on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing.
“The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously rejected these challenges to clear direction by Congress, which it has repeatedly affirmed in the Clean Air Act over the past 5 decades,” a spokesperson for CARB told the DCNF. “The petitioners are wrong on the facts and on the law in their challenge to sensible, achievable emission standards that the auto industry fully complies with.”
The request to the Supreme Court specifically addresses the Clean Air Act waiver for CARB’s “Advanced Clean Cars I” rules, which required manufacturers to increase EV and zero-emissions vehicle sales over time. If the Supreme Court takes the review and rules against the regulators, the decision could also have implications for CARB’s “Advanced Clean Cars II” rule, which bans the sale of new gas-powered passenger vehicles in the state starting in 2035, the spokesperson for one of the organizations involved in the litigation suggested.
The EPA did not respond immediately to a request for comment.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I have a feeling that my total ignorance on [American] lawfare is about to be remedied.
Labour ‘Lawfare Britain’ Would See Massive Increase In US Style Class Action Lawsuits.
https://order-order.com/2024/06/14/labour-lawfare-britain-would-see-massive-increase-in-us-style-class-action-lawsuits/
Nevermind the huge covid enhanced backlog in the courts.
Over the last few days the mad monk has been nowhere to be seen, strange given that he’s in pole position to start the deindustrialisation and decline. If it truly is a crisis, an emergency, what is going on?
“”Labour has put clean energy as one of its central missions for government, in a bid to end high bills “for good”””
I’ll hold him to that knowing he hasn’t a snowball in hell’s chance of doing it- without the North sea and fracking.
“”Miliband now faces the challenge of delivering the clean energy pledge by 2030 and advancing key emissions-cutting initiatives, despite Labour reducing its proposed £28 billion annual climate action budget.””
‘A fantastic day’: Former Labour leader Ed Miliband makes a return to Cabinet https://www.itv.com/news/2024-07-05/a-fantastic-day-former-labour-leader-ed-miliband-makes-a-return-to-cabinet
”Labour has put clean energy as one of its central missions for government, in a bid to end high bills “for good””
And as everyone knows, getting clean energy is very expensive which will push our high bills even higher with little chance of sane people reducing them quickly.
”Miliband now faces the challenge of delivering the clean energy pledge by 2030 and advancing key emissions-cutting initiatives, despite Labour reducing its proposed £28 billion annual climate action budget.”
A message for MiliTwat – you have already failed to meet your target as there is not the physical capacity to deliver your fantasy even if you had the money, which you don’t.
Let the delusion begin….
If SCOTUS accepts this case, EPA will lose yet again. From EPA’s website:
On this basis, SCOTUS can and probably will rule that EPA has no authority to allow CA or any other state to effectively ban internal combustion vehicles, that Congress in 1970 and again in the 1990 Amendments clearly had no intention to cause such a draconian outcome. SCOTUS is likely to rule that such compelling and extraordinary circumstances do not exist, and that if such circumstances do in fact exist, then Congress has the authority amend the CAA accordingly. This policy is entirely consistent with prior recent rulings by this SCOTUS.
Duane, that’s a good point, and I hope you are right. However, I think that this situation is different from the other recent cases in which the SCOTUS struck down rulemaking as exceeding Congressional authorization. In this situation, the Clean Air Act expressly allows California to seek a waiver, subject to the constraints in the statute, which are fairly vague. I think they are likely to uphold the waiver.
I don’t think we can blame just California for this one. It’s equally the fault of states that voluntarily hitched their wagon to California’s, and the car companies that failed to object to the California standard because that is exactly what they wanted to be forced to do. They were foolish, and the chickens are coming home to roost.
This is going to have to play out politically. The car companies can’t switch over to solely EVs and stay in business. The majority of the public is going to strenuously object to being forced to buy EVs, or paying exorbitant penalties in order to buy ICEs. California is going to have to backtrack, or there is a huge crash coming. California is going to learn there is more than one 500 pound gorilla in the room.
The conditions in Sect. 177 of CAA for granting an exemption to any state are not vague at all. SCOTUS will be happy to strike down EPA’s mindless approval of radically damaging state air pollution regulations, just as they did in Sackett and Loper, for exactly the same reasons.
If Congress intended that EPA and one or more states could effectively destroy all powered transport in America, then Congress would have said so in the CAA. SCOTUS no longer, after striking down Chevron, defers to administrative agencies who try to end-around Congress by effectively inventing and enforcing their own laws.
I think the guys who wrote the US constitution would side with California – if the state’s citizens want to do without something I think is useful then they can do that and it’s not any of the federal court’s business.
The federal government is responsible for interstate commerce so as it crosses state boundaries, it would fall to the federal government to decide if it was in the range of the federal governments power. One state isn’t allowed to control the commerce of another so either the federal government would decide or it wouldn’t be permitted.
Air pollution regulation is strictly reserved to the Federal government except as Congress explicitly says otherwise, in accordance with the supremacy and interstate commerce clauses of the Constitution.
So then the question becomes “What statutory conditions did Congress impose on EPA for granting any exemptions to Federal air pollution regulations to any state? Well, the plain English reading of Section 177 of the CAA is stated above and as stated on the EPA website makes it clear that completely banning ICVs is not germane to reasonably regulating vehicle emissions. It is emphatically clear the Congress never intended that EPA grant an exemption to California or any other state in order to make internal combustion powered vehicles illegal. If that was the intent of Congress, then Congress would have said so in the 1970 CAA and the 1990 CAA Amendments. Congress can say exactly that today if Congress votes to do so. That’s where the policy must be made.
That is precisely the reasoning SCOTUS applied to its decision overturning Chevron.
This case doesn’t apply to the EPA, this is a state level law.
story tip
Discovery of 2-million-year-old DNA in Greenland reveals new details about ancient life
Mastodons in northern Greenland! The scientist says it was about 10 deg C hotter 2 million years ago. This video is a year old so maybe discussed here, but I found it amazing- so sorry that it’s off topic but worth watching.
They know the score, Joseph. That’s why they try to erase it or play it down.
re: 10 deg C hotter 2m years ago:
See the first chart in Marine isotope stages.
that much hotter in northern Greenland- I’m no scientist but me thinks not everywhere was 10 deg hotter- one simple thing I’ve learned is that in warmer periods, much of the warming is in the high latitudes???
but the oceans didn’t boil and the planet didn’t burn up
Arguing for evolution and “unprecedented” climate change creates conflicts within the same groups. JZ’s video/observation highlights one of the biggest “having it both ways” conflicts those specific groups have to live with.
I used to watch the Nature documentaries on PBS Boston in the 1980’s. They were big on evolution and ice ages and rock layers in the Grand Canyon.
Just keep being stuck in the past while the rest of the world moves on
Distributed photovoltaic power dominates grid in East China’s
https://www.evwind.es/2024/07/08/distributed-photovoltaic-power-dominates-grid-in-east-chinas/99570
Now you can post graphs that are viable for maybe the next two years before it becomes clear to even the last one how the world is moving on to renewables and EVs.
You don’t see this at a petrol station…
Petrol stations?
https://www.dutchnews.nl/2024/07/half-of-petrol-stations-expected-to-close-in-next-decade/
Thank god we left the EU.
That’s corporate vandalism. It certainly isn’t what people want.
But it is… what you want.
I see that loserName still believes that government mandates are proof of market acceptance.
Do not feed the troll! There’s what looks like one poster with several accouints posting this stuff with no aim but to get a rise out of everyone.
Don’t rise to it!
Have you never ever enjoyed squatting a fly?
Getting the rise out of everyone with news from around the world that don’t fit the dogma? Now that was easy. I don’t need an several accounts to enjoy posting that in the end, after all those years of naysaying and delay tactics, renewables win out in the end. As was to be expected, hence the massive amount of money from fossil fuel companies to discredit them.
Even the argument about coal wonderland china will soon be history.
You serve as a weathervane for abject alarmism.
It can be useful, occasionally
Even Idiots are useful to the wrong cause
I don’t think he’s an idiot. Just incredibly well programmed by indoctrination centers (schools).
In 2023 coal in China provided 70% of China’s electricity and solar while equivalent to 20.9% of installed capacity at the end of 2023 provided 3% of China’s electricity.
Meanwhile China added a further 58GW of coal during the year.
You obviously need to get out more.
Installed:
1100 GW Coal
660 GW Solar
440 GW Wind
Share:
60% Coal
6% Solar
9% Wind
2024:
40GW new coal
70GW new Wind
190GW new Solar
And as usual, loserName can’t tell the difference between nameplate and and actual production.
That and the fact that it actually believes unsupported claims of propaganda outlets.
In Luser’s world, the wind in China always blows at the optimum speed.
He’s been brainwashed with the old canard “wind is free” but can’t learn that it doesn’t always blow at the optimum speed and costs a fortune to capture energy from it.
The math there is not right if I assume “Installed:” and “Share:” use the same data source. I’m guessing possible math error caused some downvotes.
As answer to Daves post it’s share of provided electricity. Sorry if it wasn’t clear.
No it’s not “provided electricity”. If it was, the figures would be in GWh, not GW. Important to know the difference.
share of provided electricity
That’s why it’s percent (%). Reading and understanding the full sentence and context is also important.
I’ll wager that 190GW new solar produces net zero increase in GWh attributable to solar especially after 5pm when solar produces ZERO regardless of how many useless GWs are installed
All that fake capacity of wind and solar…
.. to provide SO LITTLE !
And totally unreliable, to boot !
It looks like MUN’s “data”; is derived from the IEA 2024 Report. However, their 2024 figures were projections only, not factual data.
Thanks DA, that is the correct answer that regulars knew but were too lazy to post.
What do you think will happen to the coal plants?
Lowered capacity factor to supplement renewables, until batteries take over.
roflmao.
More delusional twaddle from the luser.
COAL is growing and growing all around the world.
Batteries will never take over, they required far too much mining and cost.
If you clap harder, Tinkerbell’s batteries will recharge.
Another socialist that can’t tell the difference between propaganda and reality.
Any source that supports what the party tells it to believe, instantly become both authoritative and unquestionable.
And we are not supposed to confront the nonsense he spews.
China is adding WAY more COAL than they are renewables.
The energy they get from wind and solar is a pittance.
But don’t let the facts get in the way of a pitiful piece of blatant propaganda. !
As the old adage goes, “Never wrestle with a pig; you both get filthy and the pig likes it.”
Or argue with a moron.
They’ll just bring you down to their level of irrationality, and beat you with experience.
How quaint, another source chatting about a lot of solar, wind, and biomass was generated.
No mention of how much of the power was consumed/consumable, or how much money was being spent to keep a backup supply on stand by.
Also, no mention of where energy comes from on poor performing days.
Also no mention of how much crop land or wild life habitat was destroyed for this solar excrement miracle.
It would take a much longer article to identify everything missing from the pointless, feel good drivel posted.
The slave class in China accept their poverty and unreliable power as the price for being allowed to live.
Also that absolutely none of the solar was produced when it was actually needed…during the evening peak demand times
Tell you what, I’ll drink you Kool-aid/Jim Jones juice when your magic beans can reliability power data centers and AI:
https://theconversation.com/power-hungry-ai-is-driving-a-surge-in-tech-giant-carbon-emissions-nobody-knows-what-to-do-about-it-233452
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/07/03/google-damage-control-over-ai-driven-48-co2-emissions-surge/
Until then, we’ll enjoy popcorn from a reliable power source while you churn in rinse, lather, repeat lala land.
You still believe you are shepherding the Western world into the future? You still arrogantly believe you know best?
In China, Solar works at night!
Mylusername clearly doesn’t understand the difference between installed capacity (units MW, or power) and energy (units MWh or Joules).
Nothing but a propaganda piece for the gullible while it is common knowledge that China is consuming more fossil fuels than the ROW saves.
It doesn’t take much propaganda to impress you.
Dictates in totalitarian government countries are no indicator of market acceptance of anything if the people were not able to exercise their free choices of goods & services.
Let’s remember too that it was China who inflicted the one-baby rule on their citizens.
(Of course, The Greens have since upped that ante to a NO babies policy)
Chinese statistics, lol.
China’s energy usage. Wind and solar barely visible
AND they are adding more COAL than they are “unreliables”
EV’s powered by COAL !!
And tell us, what do they use at night, and on cloudy and in winter.
You are gullibly delusional….. as always.!
Trump has said he is going to reduce the U.S. Department of Education to a skeleton staff in Washington DC and the department’s job of education the youth is going to be given back to the States.
Trump needs to do the same to the EPA.
Maybe he can end The Search For The Magic Battery by the DoE, total waste of money.
EVs and alternative energy aside, a magic battery would be super useful. I’d much rather NASA commit budget and personnel to energy storage research than staring at temperature charts. Some really, really smart people work … can’t say “for that company”, but you get it.
Just end the DoE, nothing it does is useful.
This is good news, if the Supremes take the case.
Just imagine all the green jobs that would be created if California were required to produce all their CARB compliant cars within state borders and the remainder of the US states could do as they please.
Ca, if you want stricter standards then produce your own folly
The court already allowed California to set hog farming standards that have national effect. Why and how is this different?
With 4000 days to build 500,000 charging stations, how many were built yesterday?
That’s about 12-13 stations per day
“California is unique in that it can apply for”
“likely to essentially force manufacturers to”
Stopped reading.
Made me think of all the products that have a warning label such as “The State of California has determined that …”. They show up on things all over the US.
I also wonder about the class action lawsuits law firms use to fish for clients.
“If you or a loved one used or were exposed to (fill in the blank) and now suffer from (fill in the blank), call the law firm of…”
I wonder where these suits were filed and won?
Tabasco won’t ship their color sticks to CA because of prop 65.
Really?
I didn’t know that.
(Is it “won’t” or “can’t”. If it’s “won’t”, other companies should follow their example.)
The Constitution gives Congress exclusive law making authority. Nowhere does it mention the EPA or any on the alphabet soup of Federal agencies. And yet these un-elected Federal bureaucrats have been passing rules that carry the force of law. We the people have no control over those agencies. So we no longer have a representative form of government. It’s high time the courts start striking those agencies down.
California leaders are so stupid it takes my breath away. It is time to stop fighting California and give them what they want. All fossil fuel and fossil fuel by products need to be blocked from entering California. California ports are important to us so they will remain open but be operated by non Californians. The products unloaded at the ports will be shipped out of California by out of staters. We may have to build a wall to keep Californians in California.
What governments can’t comprehend is the fact that consumer demand for EVs is limited regardless of cock & bull stories that they’re essential for reducing carbon emissions. Canada provides a typical example of how government incentives and mandates are consistently proving ineffectual in increasing the adoption of these machines. Seven of the 10 provinces as well as the federal government offer incentives of various types to purchase them; yet last year EVs nationally were only 11% of total vehicle sales. Canadians have the usual reasons for steering clear of them: they’re excessively expensive, there’s a shortage of public charging stations, consumers doubt their reliability in Canada’s winter climate, recent reports show that they’re almost 80% more likely to develop mechanical and electrical problems than ICE types, resale values are low, and whatever long-term savings they’re reputed to have are still questionable. Yet governments continue to allow themselves to be pressured by alarmists that EVs are essential cogs in efforts to avoid the climate catastrophes that people are skeptical about to begin with.
You can’t be both for and against the 10th amendment at the same time.