{"id":9047,"date":"2023-09-26T13:57:00","date_gmt":"2023-09-26T13:57:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ncjolt.org\/?p=9047"},"modified":"2023-10-13T14:04:05","modified_gmt":"2023-10-13T14:04:05","slug":"d-c-circuit-seems-skeptical-of-claim-that-epa-tailpipe-emissions-standards-are-unconstitutional-under-major-questions-doctrine","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/blogs\/d-c-circuit-seems-skeptical-of-claim-that-epa-tailpipe-emissions-standards-are-unconstitutional-under-major-questions-doctrine\/","title":{"rendered":"D.C. Circuit Seems Skeptical of Claim that EPA Tailpipe Emissions Standards Are Unconstitutional Under Major Questions Doctrine"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

In oral arguments, a D.C. Circuit panel seemed skeptical<\/a> of the claim that the EPA\u2019s stringent tailpipe emissions regulations are unconstitutional under the major questions doctrine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The outcome of the\u00a0case<\/a>\u00a0will likely have major implications for the environment and automakers. If left in place, the challenged emissions standards are projected to reduce greenhouse gases emissions for new vehicles\u00a0by 56%<\/a>. That\u2019s a big deal considering vehicles are the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the nation, accounting for\u00a028% of emissions<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Whereas\u00a0West Virginia<\/em>\u00a0involved a completely redesigned regulatory scheme for power plants, this case involves an unaltered regulatory scheme that merely changed the pollution thresholds it would enforce. ‘They\u2019re turning the knob up from a four to an eight,’\u00a0<\/p>Judge Katsas<\/a><\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The petitioners claim the EPA\u2019s tailpipe regulations violate the major questions doctrine, which requires<\/a> an agency to have express authorization from Congress before developing rules that could have a major political or economic impact. The doctrine was invoked last year by the Supreme Court in West Virginia v. EPA<\/em><\/a> when it struck down<\/a> an EPA regulatory scheme for coal-fired powerplants.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThis case is West Virginia<\/em> all over again,\u201d the petitioners argued<\/a>. Judges on the panel, though, seemed skeptical. Judge Gregory Katsas pointed to differences<\/a> between the current tailpipe regulations and the regulatory scheme for coal-fired powerplants at issue in West Virginia<\/em>. Whereas West Virginia<\/em> involved a completely redesigned regulatory scheme for power plants, this case involves an unaltered regulatory scheme that merely changed the pollution thresholds it would enforce. \u201cThey\u2019re turning the knob up from a four to an eight,\u201d said Judge Katsas<\/a>. \u201cThat\u2019s very costly, but it\u2019s not a sharp difference in kind.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Claiming the emissions standards would force automakers to produce electric vehicles, the petitioners argue<\/a> that the standards are in essence a de facto mandate for electric vehicle production. Judge Florence Pan, however, disputed this claim<\/a>, pointing to the fact that Subaru is expected to be able to comply with the standards without producing any electric vehicles. Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan also expressed interest<\/a> in this point, asking whether other manufacturers would be able to do the same.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The petitioners contended that, regardless of Subaru\u2019s ability to comply, the regulation\u2019s impact on the auto industry would be major. But Judge Katsas disputed<\/a> this, pointing out that the regulation is projected to only increase the amount of electric vehicle sales from 7% to 17% of all new vehicle sales. He said this relatively minor change in market share was only probative<\/a>\u2014not conclusive\u2014for determining whether the regulation is a de facto mandate for electric vehicle production.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The panel also seemed skeptical of the petitioners\u2019 arguments on a second, more fundamental issue: whether they even had standing to bring the suit in the first place. The petitioners argued that the court could hear the case even though they did not exhaust their administrative remedies during the rulemaking process. Judge Katsas seemed skeptical,\u00a0saying<\/a>\u00a0this line of reasoning would essentially mean \u201cno statutory argument is ever subject to exhaustion.\u201dThe potential impact of this case is magnified by the fact that other emissions regulations are also under attack.\u00a0Another case<\/a>\u00a0at the D.C. Circuit is challenging\u00a0whether the EPA has the authority<\/a>\u00a0to grant the waiver that has allowed California to enact its own, stricter tailpipe emissions regulations for the last several decades. Historically, California\u2019s emissions standards have served as a model for many other states, and at least 15 states and the District of Columbia have\u00a0adopted<\/a>\u00a0California\u2019s emissions standards. Moreover, the House voted for\u00a0a measure<\/a>\u00a0that\u00a0would bar any state<\/a>\u00a0from imposing such emissions regulations at all. Both of these threaten to hamstring the efforts of any state wanting to impose emissions standards stricter than those imposed at the federal level\u2014making the enforceability of the EPA\u2019s standards all the more important.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Abe Loven<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Abe Loven is a second-year law student at the University of North Carolina School of Law. He is interested in criminal and civil litigation and has special interests in environmental law and artificial intelligence. Before studying law, he studied journalism and political science as an undergraduate student in the Hussman School of Journalism and Media at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In oral arguments, a D.C. Circuit panel seemed skeptical of the claim that the EPA\u2019s stringent tailpipe emissions regulations are unconstitutional under the major questions doctrine. The outcome of the\u00a0case\u00a0will likely have major implications for the environment and automakers. If left in place, the challenged emissions standards are projected to reduce greenhouse gases emissions for new vehicles\u00a0by …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[51],"tags":[513,355,510,511,509,512],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9047"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9047"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9047\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9049,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9047\/revisions\/9049"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9047"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9047"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9047"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}