US can't target fossil fuel producers through regulations, then argue they don't have standing, SCOTUS says
Fossil fuel companies have standing to sue the Environmental Protection Agency for approving California’s requirement for the production of more electric vehicles, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday in a 7-2 decision.
The Supreme Court said the fossil fuel companies have Article III standing because they will make less money as a result of California’s regulations, an issue that can be redressed if the regulations are invalidated.
“The government generally may not target a business or industry through stringent and allegedly unlawful regulation, and then evade the resulting lawsuits by claiming that the targets of its regulation should be locked out of court as unaffected bystanders,” wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh in the majority opinion.
The Clean Air Act sets nationwide emissions standards for new vehicles. But the law allows California, in limited circumstances, to set more stringent standards for in-state vehicle sales to fight local problems such as smog. Other states may adopt California’s standards, but they can’t set their own.
California regulations limit average greenhouse gas emissions for new vehicles sold in the state and require automakers to manufacture a certain percentage of electric vehicles as part of their fleets.
Seventeen states and the District of Columbia have implemented part of or all of California’s regulations.
California had intervened in the case. The EPA and the state argued that the fuel producers hadn’t established that their economic injury could be redressed by a court win because of strong consumer demand for electric vehicles.
The Supreme Court disagreed.
“Even ‘one dollar’ of additional revenue for the fuel producers would satisfy the redressability component of Article III standing,” Kavanaugh said. “In all events, record evidence confirms what common sense tells us: Invalidating the regulations likely (not certainly but likely) would make a difference for fuel producers because automakers would likely manufacture more vehicles that run on gasoline and other liquid fuels.”
The George W. Bush administration denied California’s first request for electric vehicle regulations, reasoning that the state was trying to fight global climate change, rather than local problems.
“Since then, as presidential administrations have come and gone,” Kavanaugh wrote, the “EPA has repeatedly altered its legal position on whether the Clean Air Act authorizes California regulations targeting greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles.”
President Donald Trump has directed the EPA to reconsider its approval of California’s regulations.
The Supreme Court returned the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to consider the merits of the producers’ claims.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.
The case is Diamond Alternative Energy v. Environmental Protection Agency.
Hat tip to SCOTUSblog, which had early coverage of the case.
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
