OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued the following statement regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to reverse a lower court’s order dismissing a challenge to California’s 2013 Clean Air Act waiver governing the adoption of emission standards for new vehicles:
“While we are disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision to allow this case to go forward in the lower court, we will continue to vigorously defend California’s authority under the Clean Air Act,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Congress intended for California to be able to regulate emissions from new vehicles sold in our state, and we remain firmly committed to advancing and implementing strong standards that safeguard public health and reduce climate pollution. The fight for clean air is far from over.”
Background
Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set emission standards for air pollutants from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines that cause or contribute to air pollution and endanger public health or welfare. Under the Clean Air Act, California may adopt emission requirements independent from EPA’s regulations that are more stringent than federal standards, and EPA is required to waive preemption for those requirements absent certain, limited circumstances not present in this case.
Petitioners, who are in the oil and biofuel industries, did not challenge the waiver for California’s Advanced Clean Cars I emissions standards when the waiver was first issued in 2013. Instead, they filed their challenge nearly a decade later, after the federal waiver was reinstated in 2022 following an unlawful rescission in 2019. Petitioners argued that the reinstated waiver exceeded EPA’s authority under federal law. Attorney General Bonta, along with Governor Gavin Newsom and the California Air Resources Board, led a group of states and local governments in intervening in the case to defend against the challenge. In April 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that the petitioners lacked legal standing because by the time the petitioners’ case began, automakers were producing large numbers of zero-emission vehicles due to consumer demand and the automakers past investments, and the petitioners failed to show that judicial relief would likely redress their asserted harm by increasing fuel sales.