Description: Proceedings challenging the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's rule preempting state limits on tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions and zero-emission vehicle mandates and EPA's withdrawal of California's waiver.
-
Union of Concerned Scientists v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 06/29/2022 Order Download Case held in abeyance. Courts Holding Challenges to Trump-Era Vehicle Standards and Policies in Abeyance While Challenges to Biden Reversals Proceed. In June 2022, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued orders that will continue to hold in abeyance cases filed in 2019 and 2020 that challenge the Trump administration’s greenhouse gas emission and fuel economy standards for model year 2021-2026 light-duty vehicles, the 2019 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration rule preempting state limits on tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions and zero-emission vehicles mandates, and EPA’s withdrawal of California’s waiver for such regulations. The D.C. Circuit will hold these cases in abeyance while it considers lawsuits challenging the Biden administration’s revised greenhouse gas emissions standards for 2023 and later model year light-duty vehicles, fuel economy standards for model years 2024-2026, and reinstatement of California’s waiver. The D.C. Circuit denied a request by states that had intervened to defend revocation of California’s waiver to allow the case challenging the waiver revocation to move forward. Those states argued that Clean Air Act’s provision for the California waiver violated the equal-sovereignty doctrine and that the 2019 suit presented “a golden opportunity to resolve the equal-sovereignty question that has dogged California’s special status for years.” 04/14/2022 Motion Download Joint motion to govern further proceedings filed. Parties other than the respondent-intervenor states told the court that case should be held in abeyance pending the resolution of any forthcoming challenges to EPA's reinstatement of California's waiver. 04/11/2022 Motion Download Motion filed by intervenor states for case to proceed. States Urged D.C. Circuit to Consider Constitutionality of California’s Clean Air Act Waiver. After EPA reinstated California’s authority under the Clean Air Act to implement its own greenhouse gas emission standards and zero emission vehicle mandate, states that had intervened in challenges to the Trump administration’s revocation of the waiver argued to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals that reinstatement of the waiver did not moot the case. The states contended that there was a reasonable prospect that the 2019 revocation would go back into effect, and that the D.C. Circuit should return the case to the active docket to consider the states’ argument that the waiver is unconstitutional because it violates the equal-sovereignty issue. 03/15/2022 Notice Download Notice filed regarding EPA's conclusion of its portion of the reconsideration. 02/09/2022 Order Download Ordered that cases remain in abeyance. 01/26/2022 Motion Download Motion to govern filed by respondents. 01/26/2022 Motion Download Motion to govern filed by state and local government petitioners. 01/21/2022 Motion Download Motion filed by intervenor states to continue holding case in abeyance. 12/27/2021 Notice Download Notice filed by respondents regarding NHTSA final rule. 11/08/2021 Status Report Download Status report filed by respondents. 08/09/2021 Status Report Download Status report filed by NHTSA and EPA. 05/10/2021 Status Report Download Status report filed by respondents. 02/22/2021 Order Download Coalition for Sustainable Automotive Regulation, Inc. and Automotive Regulatory Council, Inc. motion to withdraw as intervenors granted. 02/08/2021 Order Download Motion to hold cases in abeyance granted. D.C. Circuit Granted Biden Administration Motion for Abeyance in Cases Challenging Actions Preempting State Regulation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Vehicles. On February 8, 2021, the D.C. Circuit granted the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA’s) motion to hold in abeyance the cases challenging the Trump administration’s regulations preempting state vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards and zero emission vehicle mandates and the withdrawal of California’s waiver for such regulations. The cases will be held in abeyance while the agencies conduct their review under President Biden’s Executive Order on Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis. States that had intervened to defend EPA and NHTSA’s actions opposed the abeyance motion. 02/05/2021 Reply Download Reply filed by federal respondents in support of motion to hold cases in abeyance. 02/03/2021 Opposition Download Response filed by intervenor states in opposition to respondents' motion to hold case in abeyance. 02/02/2021 Motion Download Motion to withdraw as intervenors filed. Automotive Trade Group Withdrew from Cases. On February 2, 2021, the Coalition for Sustainable Automotive Regulation, Inc. and Automotive Regulatory Council, Inc. moved to withdraw as respondent-intervenors in the cases, as well as in a related district court case challenging the preemption regulations. 02/01/2021 Motion Download Motion filed by United States to hold cases in abeyance pending conclusion of potential reconsideration. 12/04/2020 Notice Download Amended corporate disclosure statement filed by Coalition for Sustainable Automotive Regulation. GM, Nissan Withdrew from Defense of Rule Preempting State Low-Carbon Vehicle Standards. On November 25, 2020, the Coalition for Sustainable Automotive Regulation—which intervened as a respondent in proceedings challenging the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule Part One: One National Program—filed an amended disclosure in the D.C. Circuit to reflect that General Motors LLC (GM) was no longer a member. The Coalition intervened to defend the rulemaking in which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration preempted state vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards and zero emission vehicle mandates and EPA withdrew California’s waiver for such regulations. Briefing in the case was completed in October. On November 23, GM announced that it was withdrawing from the litigation. On December 4, the Coalition filed another amended disclosure that indicated Nissan was no longer a member of the Automotive Regulatory Council, which is a member of the Coalition. Nissan announced that day that it would work with California and the federal government to establish “common-sense” national standards. 11/25/2020 Notice Download Amended corporate disclosure statement filed by Coalition for Sustainable Automotive Regulation. 10/13/2020 Reply Download Reply brief filed by state and local government petitioners and public interest petitioners. 10/13/2020 Reply Download Reply brief filed by petitioners National Coalition for Advanced Transportation et al. 09/24/2020 Order Download Alaska motion to withdraw granted. 09/22/2020 Brief Download Brief filed by Coalition for Sustainable Automotive Regulation and other trade group intervenors. 09/22/2020 Motion Download Motion to withdraw filed by respondent-intervenor State of Alaska. 09/21/2020 Brief Download Brief filed by state respondent-intervenors. 09/16/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief of amicus curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed in support of respondents. 09/16/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief of amicus curiae Urban Air Initiative, Inc. filed in support of respondents. 09/09/2020 Brief Download Initial brief filed by respondents. Brief Filed in Support of EPA and NHTSA’s Actions Restricting State Authority to Regulate Vehicle Emissions. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) defended their rulemaking that withdrew California’s waiver for its Advanced Clean Car program and explicitly preempted state and local regulations of tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions and zero-emission vehicle mandates. They argued in a brief filed in the D.C. Circuit that NHTSA had authority to issue the preemption regulations under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), that EPCA expressly and impliedly preempted state mandates and standards, and that the National Environmental Policy Act did not apply to NHTSA’s preemption regulations. They also argued that jurisdiction for review of the regulation was properly in the D.C. Circuit. The respondents also argued that EPA has authority to reconsider and withdraw waivers and that it properly withdrew California’s waiver. 07/28/2020 Amicus Brief Download Corrected brief filed by National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the International Municipal Lawyers Association as amici curiae in support of petitioners. 07/06/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by Edison Electric Institute as amicus curiae in support of petitioners. Ten additional amicus briefs were filed in support of the petitioners on July 6 by organizations representing municipal governments, the Edison Electric Institute, Lyft, Inc., members of Congress, the Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU Law School, a law professor at the University of Michigan, scientists who study the impacts of climate change on California, the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, former Secretaries of Transportation and EPA Administrators, and other former regulatory officials and legislative advisors who worked on the drafting and implementation of the Clean Air Act. 07/06/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by law professor as amicus curiae in support of petitioners. 07/06/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by California climate scientists as amici curiae in support of petitioners. 07/06/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by five former Secretaries of the Department of Transportation and four former Administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency as amici curiae in support of petitioners. 07/06/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by the Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU Law School as amicus curiae in support of petitioners. 07/06/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by Thomas C. Jorling, Michael P. Walsh, and Margo T. Oge as amici curiae in support of petitioners. 07/06/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by Lyft, Inc. as amicus curiae in support of petitioners. 07/06/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by members of Congress as amici curiae in support of petitioners. 07/06/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by National Association of Clean Air Agencies as amicus curiae in support of petitioners. 07/02/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by the American Thoracic Society et al. as amici curiae in support of public interest petitioners. As of July 3, 2020, two amicus briefs had been filed in support of the petitioners, one by the National Parks Conservation Association and Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks, who argued that California’s waiver was necessary to protect national parks in California and other states from climate change and air quality harms, and the other by not-for-profit public health and scientific organizations, who argued that California’s standards were “crucial” to California’s compliance with the Clean Air Act and addressed “compelling and extraordinary conditions presented by climate change.” 07/01/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by National Parks Conservation Association and Coalition to Protect America's National Parks as amici curiae in support of state and local government and public interest petitioners. 06/29/2020 Brief Download Brief filed by state and local government petitioners and public interest petitioners. Opening Briefs Challenged Lawfulness of EPA and NHTSA’s Actions to Restrict California and Other States’ Authority to Regulate Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Petitioners filed their opening briefs in the D.C. Circuit cases challenging the Trump administration’s “One National Program Rule,” in which EPA and NHTSA finalized regulations that withdrew California’s waiver for greenhouse gas and zero-emission vehicle standards, declared that the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) preempted such standards, and provided that other states could not adopt or enforce California’s greenhouse gas emissions standards. The primary brief filed by states, local governments, and public interest petitioners argued both that EPA lacked authority to withdraw the waiver and that EPA’s grounds for the withdrawal—that California’s standards were not needed “to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions” and that EPCA preempted the standards—were invalid. The petitioners also argued that the Clean Air Act “unambiguously authorizes” other states to adopt California’s standards for any pollutant, including greenhouse gases. Regarding the preemption rule adopted by NHTSA, the petitioners asserted that the D.C. Circuit did not have original jurisdiction to review the rule but that, in any event, the preemption rule exceeded NHTSA’s authority, that NHTSA’s interpretation was contrary to statute, and that NHTSA violated NEPA by failing to prepare any environmental review documents. 06/26/2020 Brief Download Opening brief filed by industry petitioners. A group of “industry petitioners” that included utilities and a coalition of companies and organizations supporting electric vehicle and other advanced transportation technologies and related infrastructure filed a secondary brief that adopted the primary brief’s arguments but also put forward additional arguments. The industry petitioners contended that withdrawal of California’s waiver contravened the Clean Air Act’s “technology-forcing” design and disregarded “significant industry reliance interests” and that the preemption regulation was contrary to statute because Energy Policy and Conservation Act’s text and purpose do not support preemption of standards that mandate that certain percentages of sales be zero-emission vehicles. 06/03/2020 Order Download Motions to consolidate granted. 05/20/2020 Order Download Order issued setting briefing format and schedule. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order setting a briefing schedule. The petitioners’ opening briefs are due June 26, several weeks earlier than the petitioners’ requested but two weeks later than the briefs would have been due under the schedule endorsed by the respondents. Briefing will be complete on October 27, 2020. The D.C. Circuit also referred the petitioners’ motion to complete the administrative record to the merits panel and directed the parties to address the issues presented in the motion in their briefs. The motion seeks to have EPA’s record include public comments and supporting documents that were submitted after the comment deadline. 05/11/2020 Opposition Download Opposition filed by respondents to petitioners' second supplemental response to request for briefing proposals. 05/11/2020 Opposition Download Opposition filed by intervening states to petitioners' second supplemental response to court's order. 05/11/2020 Response Download Response filed by intervenor trade groups to plaintiffs' second supplemental response to request for briefing proposals. 05/04/2020 Response Download Second supplemental response filed by petitioners to order requesting proposed briefing formats. Petitioners Sought More Time for Briefing in Challenge to Vehicle Standard Preemption Actions. Petitioners requested that the D.C. Circuit set a briefing schedule with the opening briefs due on July 21 and briefing completed on November 23. The proposed schedule would move the opening brief deadline approximately two months later than the deadline originally proposed jointly by the parties in early March. In April, the petitioners had requested a schedule that would require opening briefs to be filed in June, but the petitioners’ May request asked for additional time “[i]n light of the lengthy and extraordinary effects of the COVID-19 pandemic” on the petitioners and their counsel, as well as due to new briefing obligations in another case for one lawyer. 04/03/2020 Response Download Supplemental response filed by petitioners to order requesting proposed briefing formats. 03/16/2020 Reply Download Reply filed in support of motion to complete the record. 03/09/2020 Opposition Download Opposition filed by federal respondents to motion to complete administrative record. 03/05/2020 Not Available Download Joint proposed briefing format and schedule filed. 02/27/2020 Motion Download Motion to complete administrative record filed by petitioners. Petitioners filed a motion seeking to require the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to complete its administrative record by including public comments and supporting documents submitted after the comment period closed, including a scientific study published after the comment period closed that the petitioners said showed that greenhouse gases emitted from California sources have direct and localized impacts in the state. The petitioners argued that EPA had agreed to consider comments submitted after the comment closing date unless they were received too late “to practicably consider.” The petitioners noted that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration made the identical commitment and included all comments and supporting documents received prior to final action. The petitioners also said EPA had “selectively considered after-arising evidence it deemed favorable.” 02/04/2020 Order Download Motions to expedite and motions to hold case in abeyance denied. D.C. Circuit Declined to Speed Up or Slow Down Challenges to Withdrawal of California Waiver and Preemption of State Authority to Regulate Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions. In cases challenging EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s final rule withdrawing the waiver for California’s greenhouse gas and zero emissions vehicle programs and preempting other such state programs, the D.C. Circuit denied motions to expedite (by respondents and respondent-intervenors) and motions to hold the cases in abeyance (by petitioners). The court said the respondents and respondent-intervenors had not articulated “strongly compelling” reasons for expedition of the proceedings. The court directed the parties to submit a proposed format for briefing within 30 days. One reason the petitioners asked the D.C. Circuit to hold the cases in abeyance was to allow the federal district for the District of Columbia to resolve cases challenging NHTSA’s action that raise similar legal issues. 01/28/2020 Order Download Motions to intervene granted. The court granted the motions of states and American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers to intervene in support of the respondents. 01/17/2020 Reply Download Reply filed by the Coalition for Sustainable Automotive Regulation and the Automotive Regulatory Council in support of their motion to expedite. 01/17/2020 Reply Download Reply filed by Public-Interest Petitioners in support of motion for abeyance. 01/17/2020 Reply Download Reply filed in support of State and Municipal Petitioners' motion to hold case in abeyance. 01/17/2020 Reply Download Reply filed by federal respondents in support of motion to expedite. 01/10/2020 Notice Download Notice of name change filed by intervenor Association of Global Automakers, Inc. Association of Global Automakers, Inc. changed its corporate name to the Automotive Regulatory Council, Inc., effective January 2, 2020. 01/10/2020 Opposition Download Opposition filed by intervenors to petitioners' motions for abeyance. 01/10/2020 Opposition Download Response filed by Public-Interest Petitioners in opposition to respondents' and intervenors' motions to expedite. 01/10/2020 Opposition Download Opposition filed by respondents to motions to hold petitions in abeyance. 01/10/2020 Opposition Download Opposition filed by state and local government petitioners to motions for expedited consideration. 01/10/2020 Response Download Response filed by industry petitioners in opposition to motion to expedite. 12/26/2019 Motion Download Motion to hold case in abeyance filed by State and Municipal Petitioners. 12/26/2019 Motion Download Motion of Public-Interest Petitioners for abeyance. Challengers Asked D.C. Circuit to Put Proceedings on Hold. On December 26, 2019, both the State and Municipal Petitioners and the Public-Interest Petitioners moved to hold all of the consolidated cases in abeyance. The State and Municipal Petitioners asked the court to hold the cases in abeyance pending final action on pending administrative reconsideration petitions and resolution by the federal district court for the District of Columbia of cases addressing some of the same legal issues. The Public-Interest Petitioners sought abeyance for the duration of the district court proceedings and argued that judicial economy favored abeyance. They argued that the district court must hear the challenge to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) preemption rule first and that petitions for review of EPA’s revocation of the waiver was predicated on the preemption rule. 12/26/2019 Statement of Issues Download Statement of issues filed by petitioners. 12/24/2019 Motion Download Motion by intervenors for expedited consideration and expedited briefing schedule. On December 24, 2019, automaker groups that intervened on behalf of the defendants also moved to expedite briefing. The automaker groups asserted that “protracted litigation” would cause them to suffer irreparable injury and would drive up costs for both manufacturers and consumers. 12/20/2019 Not Available Download Certificate filed by petitioners in Case Nos. 19-1230 and 19-1243. 12/18/2019 Motion Download Motion to expedite filed by federal respondents. EPA, DOT, and Automakers Sought to Speed Up Challenge to Vehicle Emission Standard Preemption Actions. On December 18, 2019, the federal respondents in lawsuits in the D.C. Circuit challenging federal actions preempting state authority to set greenhouse gas vehicle emission standards and withdrawing California’s waiver for its greenhouse gas vehicle standards asked the D.C. Circuit to expedite briefing in the cases. The government said an expedited schedule was warranted due to the case’s potential impact on “the near-term decision-making of a significant sector of the economy” and on the vehicles that will be available to the public. 11/27/2019 Notice Download Notice filed by Coalition for Sustainable Automotive Regulation and Association of Global Automakers, Inc. regarding their understanding of the order granting their motion to intervene. 11/26/2019 Motion Download Motion filed by petitioners to align initial deadlines in consolidated cases. 11/26/2019 Motion to Intervene Download Motion filed by Ohio and 12 other states for leave to intervene as respondents. 11/21/2019 Order Download Association of Global Automakers, Inc. and Coalition for Sustainable Automotive Regulation motion for leave to intervene granted. 11/19/2019 Reply Download Reply filed by Coalition for Sustainable Automotive Regulation in support of motion for leave to intervene. 11/12/2019 Opposition Download Response filed by petitioners in opposition to intervention by the Coalition for Sustainable Automotive Regulation. 10/31/2019 Motion to Intervene Download Motion for leave to intervene filed by Coalition for Sustainable Automotive Regulation and Association of Global Automakers, Inc. 10/28/2019 Petition for Review Download Petition for review filed. Union of Concerned Scientists, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), and other groups filed a protective petition for review after the federal government sought to dismiss or transfer to the D.C. Circuit a case filed in federal court in D.C. challenging the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's final rule withdrawing California’s waiver for its greenhouse gas and zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) program and preempting state programs that regulate vehicle greenhouse gas emissions or create ZEV mandates. EDF filed another protective petition in September, which it sought to dismiss voluntarily a day after filing this petition. Some states and automaker trade groups sought to intervene in that earlier proceeding. -
California v. Wheeler
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 12/26/2019 Statement of Issues Download Non-binding statement of issues to be raised filed by state and municipal petitioners. 12/13/2019 Motion to Intervene Download Motion for leave to intervene in support of respondents filed by American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers. 11/15/2019 Petition for Review Download Petition for review filed. On November 15, 2019, 23 states, the District of Columbia, and the Cities of New York and Los Angeles filed a petition for review in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeal challenging EPA’s withdrawal of the waiver allowing California to implement its greenhouse gas and zero emission vehicle program. The petition for review also included a protective petition challenging the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA’s) related preemption of state programs regulating tailpipe emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The states and municipalities previously filed a separate challenge to the NHTSA action in federal district court, which they believe has exclusive original jurisdiction to review the NHTSA preemption regulation. -
South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 11/15/2019 Petition for Review Download Petition for review filed. Three air quality management districts in California filed a petition for review of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's withdrawal of California's waiver. The California air quality management districts also filed a complaint in federal district court in D.C. seeking a declaration that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration preemption rule is invalid. -
National Coalition for Advanced Transportation v. EPA
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 11/15/2019 Petition for Review Download Petition for review filed. The National Coalition for Advanced Transportation—a “coalition of companies and non-profit organizations that supports electric vehicle and other advanced transportation technologies and related infrastructure”—filed a petition for review of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's withdrawal of California's waiver. -
Sierra Club v. EPA
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 12/26/2019 Statement of Issues Download Statement of issues to be raised filed by Sierra Club et al. 11/22/2019 Petition for Review Download Petition for review filed. Eleven environmental and citizen groups—nine of which previously filed the Union of Concerned Scientist protective petition challenging the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's preemption rule (No. 19-1230)—filed a second petition for review challenging U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's withdrawal of the California waiver. -
Calpine Corp. v. EPA
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 01/02/2020 Statement of Issues Download Non-binding statement of issues filed by petitioners. 11/25/2019 Petition for Review Download Petition for review filed. A group of power and utility companies filed a petition for review of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's withdrawal of California's waiver. -
City & County of San Francisco v. Wheeler
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 11/25/2019 Petition for Review Download Petition for review filed. -
Advanced Energy Economy v. EPA
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 11/25/2019 Petition for Review Download Petition for review filed. Advanced Energy Economy—a “not-for-profit business association dedicated to making energy secure, clean, and affordable”—filed a petition challenging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's withdrawal of California's waiver. -
National Coalition for Advanced Transportation v. EPA
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 06/02/2020 Motion Download Motion filed by petitioners to consolidate cases with Case No. 19-1230 and dispense with initial submission. -
Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 05/28/2020 Petition for Review Download Petition for review filed.