California’s ambitious targets for electric car adoption to combat climate change have faced opposition from various parties, leading to the case being taken to the U.S. Supreme Court. Energy companies, corn growers, and industry associations have long been at odds with California’s stringent environmental regulations. For decades, California has been the only state with the power to request a waiver from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set its own vehicle emissions regulations, which are often more stringent than the federal standard. The EPA granted this exception due to California’s unique factors, such as its geography and the high number of vehicles, which contribute to severe smog issues.
One significant advantage for California is that other states are allowed to adopt its stricter tailpipe emission rules. This benefits automakers, as they can avoid producing different vehicles for different states. However, opponents argue that the EPA’s grant of a waiver for California’s Advanced Clean Car program has allowed the state to function as a quasi-federal regulator on global climate change. They cite the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in West Virginia v. EPA, which emphasized the need for explicit congressional authorization before regulators can make consequential decisions on matters of vast economic, political, and societal impact.
Meanwhile, California Governor Gavin Newsom has positioned the state as a pioneer in the fight against climate change and targeted transportation as a key area for emission reduction. Transportation accounts for approximately 25% of the state’s emissions. However, critics have raised concerns about the impact on various industries. Oil companies, farming groups involved in ethanol production, trucking firms, and business associations have filed lawsuits in both state and federal courts to halt California’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from package delivery trucks to long-distance semi trucks.
The Clean Air Act does not explicitly address greenhouse gas emissions from mobile sources like cars and trucks, adding to the legal complexities surrounding California’s regulations. Opponents argue that California does not meet the requirement for “compelling and extraordinary” provisions that would justify a waiver. They claim that climate change should not be considered an extraordinary condition within California because it is a global issue, rather than a local one. Additionally, they question the need for California to have its own emissions standards to address global climate change, as they argue that California’s efforts would have no discernable effect on the state’s conditions.
The plaintiffs highlight the significance of whether California has the authority to set greenhouse gas emissions not only for itself but also for other states. They argue that this question is undeniably major, especially considering California’s request to end the sales of gasoline-only vehicles by 2035. The plaintiffs assert that the waiver and authority claimed by California are part of a larger strategy to transition the nation from liquid-fuel-powered vehicles to electric vehicles. They contend that this shift would negatively impact the demand for petroleum fuels and biofuels.
Among the plaintiffs are prominent entities such as Valero Energy Corp’s Diamond Alternative Energy, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, Kansas Corn Growers Association, and the National Association of Convenience Stores. Collectively, these groups seek to challenge California’s power to set environmental regulations that significantly affect multiple industries across the country. Their case will now undergo review by the U.S. Supreme Court, adding another chapter to the ongoing battle between California’s climate change initiatives and those who oppose them.
