The Trump administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to put on hold proceedings over whether oil and gas companies should be allowed to sue the U.S. EPA for allegedly illegally giving the state of California special permission to implement vehicle fuel standards which oil and gas companies and others say are intended to essentially ban, or at best, phase out, traditional internal combustion-powered cars and trucks and shut down their industry by government order.
In the filing, the Department of Justice said it believes the new administration may move to rescind the waiver granted by their predecessors in the Biden administration altogether, which could alter the legal calculus in the case, perhaps removing any legal controversy to be decided.
The filing, however, notes the oil and gas companies who are suing the EPA will oppose their request, as they appear to desire to continue with the case, as they seek a ruling from the high court that could allow them to move forward with their case to prevent a future Democratic president from again reinstating California's special waiver and forcing them to return to court to defend their businesses once more.
On Jan. 24, Sarah M. Harris, acting U.S. Solicitor General, filed a motion before the high court, asking the court to hold in abeyance proceedings in the legal challenge brought by a subsidiary of energy company Valero; gas station trade group the National Association of Convenience Stores; and others, to the Biden EPA waiver.
That waiver would allow California to carry out its so-called "Advanced Clean Cars" program. That program would slap stringent regulations onto automobiles sold in California, seeking to eventually force every vehicle sold in the state to be "zero emission" by 2035, in the name of fighting so-called "climate change" allegedly caused, in large part, by so-called "greenhouse gas" emissions from the exhaust of petroleum powered cars..
Since the 1960s, from the earliest days of the landmark federal Clean Air Act, California secured a special waiver from federal vehicle emissions standards, allowing the Golden State to impose stricter regulations than those required by federal law.
In granting California the expanded authority, the federal Environmental Protection Agency said the waiver was needed to allow California the regulatory flexibility to address its supposedly unique pollution problems, exacerbated by its geography and the large number of vehicles on its roadways.
In the decades since, other states have been given the opportunity to either abide by federal tailpipe emissions standards or adopt rules matching California's. To date, 17 other states and the District of Columbia have adopted California's emissions standards and goals. Those states include Colorado, Nevada, New York, New Jersey, Washington, Oregon and Pennsylvania, among others.
However, as California's economy and population has grown in the ensuing decades, its buying power relative to the rest of the country has essentially allowed California the outsized power to set vehicle emission standards for the rest of the country, and much of the world.
Automakers would neither make vehicles that would be unique to California, but neither would they willingly surrender the ability to sell cars in the Golden State's massive markets.
In 2019, the EPA under the first Trump administration, the EPA moved to rescind that waiver a at the urging of oil and gas companies and other industry advocates, to force California and its follower states to abide by the relatively less stringent federal Clean Air rules.
The Trump administration and oil and gas industry has said allowing California to move ahead with its emissions mandates would allow the state to essentially set vehicle standards for the entire country, if not the world, by forcing automakers to abide by the mandates and ultimately eradicate internal combustion cars and trucks.
California challenged that decision in federal court, arguing only Congress could revoke its waiver, because it was granted under a provision of the Clean Air Act itself.
But while the lawsuit was in court, the Biden EPA reinstated the waiver, triggering, in turn, a legal challenge from oil and other energy companies and their advocates.
In the new lawsuit, the energy companies argue the provision of the Clean Air Act under which California's waiver was granted is unconstitutional. They argue that provision violates the bedrock federalist principle of the Constitution, which states the federal government must treat all states the same, regardless of their size and market share.
The legal challenge was dismissed at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, where it was filed because it addresses EPA action.
In the ruling, the D.C. Circuit judges said the plaintiffs couldn't sue over the waiver because they can't show they will be harmed by the policy's end goal of eliminating internal combustion engine emissions in California by 2035.
The energy companies then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking to toss out the appeals' court ruling and allow them to continue their legal challenge to the waiver.
On Jan. 27, the energy company plaintiffs filed their opening brief in the case, asserting the D.C. Circuit's ruling was nonsense. They said it is clear that if California is allowed to all but ban internal combustion engines in 10 years, as they have stated is their desire, that the market for their product would be all but shut down, not by market forces, but by a state using outsized economic leverage and a special grant of governmental power available to no other states to issue an edict putting them out of business, not just in California, but throughout the country.
"This case really is this simple: petitioners make and sell liquid fuels," the energy companies wrote in their opening brief. "EPA’s waiver allows California to enforce standards requiring fewer cars that run on liquid fuel.
"Indeed, California’s goal is to eliminate reliance on petitioners’ products entirely. Removing EPA’s waiver would thus likely cause at least a single customer to purchase at least a dollar’s worth more of petitioners’ products. The legality of EPA’s actions may raise controversial statutory or political questions, but their justiciability should never have been in doubt," they wrote.
The high court has ordered the EPA to respond to the energy companies' brief by Feb. 26.
The Justice Department, however, said it wishes for the case to be paused while the Trump administration determines whether it wishes to again seek to rescind the California waiver.
"After the change in Administration, EPA’s Acting Administrator has determined that the agency should reassess the basis for and soundness of the 2022 reinstatement decision (under Biden)," Acting Solicitor General Harris wrote in her motion. "Such a reassessment could obviate the need for this Court to determine whether petitioners had ... standing to challenge that decision."
The energy companies have not yet filed a response to the Justice Department's motion.