Brief highlights case against emissions standards
A new legal brief explains in greater detail why a federal appeals court should support a Minnesota Corn Growers Association (MCGA) backed legal challenge to new federal vehicle emissions standards. Finalized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) this spring, the standards rely on the inaccurate premise that electric vehicles (EVs) have zero greenhouse gas emissions, even when running on electricity generated by carbon-emitting sources. Considering that faulty assumption and the stringency of the standards, they will effectively restructure the American vehicle market, requiring automakers to produce mostly EVs by 2032.
The brief, filed on Sept. 6 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, outlines multiple reasons why the standards should be struck down. It says that federal agencies must have clear congressional authorization to enact policies with such vast economic and political significance, which the EPA does not have in this case. In fact, it notes that Congress has already considered and explicitly rejected a wholesale shift to EVs.
The brief also says that the EPA effectively tries to have it both ways by incorporating the faulty assumption that EVs produce zero emissions. If that were indeed the case, the brief notes, then the EPA couldn’t include EVs at all in its standards. That’s because the Clean Air Act only allows the agency to set standards for vehicles that contribute to air pollution.
The EPA “cannot manipulate the averages by treating electric vehicles as having zero emissions and ‘averaging’ in all those zeros to reach the share of electric vehicles that [it] wants to see,” the brief says.
To that end, the brief also says the standards must be struck down because they don’t accurately account for the lifecycle emissions of EVs. And, it says, the EPA’s cost-benefit analysis of the standards was flawed, since it included implausibly low costs for developing and implementing expensive and novel EV technology.
The brief also notes how the EPA irrationally failed to consider better alternatives to EVs such as higher-octane gasoline and biofuels. “EPA arbitrarily ignored this option too, on its drive toward electrification.”
Lawsuit background
In June, MCGA, 12 other state corn grower associations, and several other organizations sued the EPA in federal court to prevent implementation of the standards. The groups argued that the standards were arbitrary, capricious, and not in accordance with federal law.
The lawsuit was one of eight filed against the standards. Over 80 parties are involved in the lawsuits, including 26 states, the National Corn Growers Association, American Farm Bureau Federation, National Farmers Union, Renewable Fuels Association, and trade groups representing auto dealers and energy producers. The eight cases have been consolidated into one case, known as Kentucky vs. EPA.
The EPA’s response to the brief is due by Nov. 26, according to the Renewable Fuels Association. MCGA will continue to update members on the lawsuit as it progresses.
(Editor’s note: The Sept. 6 brief was filed by 50-plus non-state entities suing the EPA, including MCGA.)
