The U.S. Supreme Court announced on Friday that it will review a legal challenge brought by fuel producers against California’s vehicle emission and electric car standards, a significant case that will test the state’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The case centers on an appeal from Valero Energy and fuel industry groups following a lower court’s decision to uphold the Biden administration’s approval of California’s ability to set its own regulations.
At the heart of the dispute is a 2022 decision by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reinstate California’s waiver, allowing the state to establish stricter vehicle emissions limits and a zero-emission vehicle mandate through 2025. The waiver, granted under the Clean Air Act, reversed a 2019 move by the Trump administration that had rescinded it. While federal law generally prohibits states from setting their own emissions standards, the Clean Air Act provides an exception, allowing the EPA to grant California authority to impose stricter regulations.
California has received more than 75 such waivers since 1967, setting increasingly stringent standards for emissions and electric vehicle sales. Valero’s Diamond Alternative Energy and associated groups argue that the EPA exceeded its authority in reinstating the waiver, claiming the decision harms their business by reducing demand for liquid fuels. In April, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed the challenge, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue.
Fuel producers now turn to the Supreme Court, invoking the “major questions” doctrine, a legal principle that gives the court broad discretion to overturn executive actions unless Congress has clearly authorized them. The Supreme Court, with its conservative 6-3 majority, has previously limited the EPA’s regulatory powers, including blocking the EPA’s “Good Neighbor” rule in June and curbing its authority over wetlands and carbon emissions in recent years. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for both California’s climate policies and the future of federal environmental regulation.
