Taking EPA’s Intrusive Tailpipe Emissions Rule to Court

Mark Green
Posted June 14, 2024

The Biden administration’s move to drive Americans away from liquid-fueled cars and trucks and toward electric vehicles is a clear example of intrusive government.

Remember how Ronald Reagan used to joke that Americans dreaded someone appearing on their doorstep and saying, “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help”? Through EPA’s tailpipe emissions rule, which amounts to a de facto ban on gasoline vehicles, the Biden administration is generating similar dread: “We’re from the government, and we’re here to take your truck.”

The administration’s effort to force the marketplace to sell EVs – new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards also are a government mandate against gasoline vehicles – is the impetus for API’s decision to challenge EPA’s rule in the D.C. Circuit Court. API is joined in the lawsuit by a broad coalition of the National Corn Growers Association, the American Farm Bureau Federation and a group of auto dealers who collectively operate dozens of dealerships in major U.S. markets.

Ryan Meyers, API senior vice president and general counsel:

“Today, we are taking action to protect American consumers, U.S. manufacturing workers and our nation’s hard-won energy security from this intrusive government mandate. EPA has exceeded its congressional authority with this regulation that will eliminate most new gas cars and traditional hybrids from the U.S. market in less than a decade. We look forward to making our case in court.”

EPA finalized new vehicle emissions standards for light- and medium-duty vehicles earlier this year, requiring that 68% of new passenger vehicles be EVs or plug-in hybrids by 2032. Similarly, the rule requires 43% of new medium-duty trucks and vans to be electric by 2032.

API outlined major concerns with the rule in comments last summer including:

• Washington picks winners and losers – The rule is not technology-neutral, favoring EV technology over gasoline-fueled engines. The rule discourages the development of other technologies for the existing fleet of 270 million vehicles that can reduce emissions in those vehicles on a faster timeline at a lower cost
• Impacts Americans’ freedom – EVs make sense for some Americans, but they do not fit the transportation needs of the vast majority. The rule restricts Americans’ freedom to select the vehicle they drive.
• Security put at risk – The rule effectively makes the U.S. more reliant on China, which produces and processes the majority of the critical minerals needed to make EV batteries. Creating dependence on China impacts America’s energy and overall security.

Don’t just take it from us. Here’s what others said about challenging the EPA rule.

Harold Wolle, National Corn Growers Association president and Minnesota farmer:

“By approving tailpipe standards that focus exclusively on electric vehicles, EPA has ignored the proven benefits corn ethanol plays in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and combatting climate change. While it could take decades to get enough electric vehicles on the road to significantly lower GHG emissions, ethanol is a critical and effective climate solution that is available now. We have tried to make this case to EPA to no avail, and now we will make our case in court.”

Zippy Duvall, American Farm Bureau Federation president:

“Farmers answered the call to help America be more sustainable by growing the crops necessary for renewable fuels. Now, the rug is being pulled out from underneath them with unrealistic emissions goals that put years of investment at risk. Impractical standards for light-duty and medium-duty trucks will drive up the cost of farm vehicles and force farmers to rely on a charging network that does not yet exist in rural areas.”