California joins suit over fuel standards
Case targets Trump administration’s sweeping rollback
California and more than two dozen other states and cities sued the Trump administration Wednesday for its sweeping rollback of fuel economy standards, claiming the new rules will increase air pollution, harm the economy and risk lives when the nation can least afford it.
The challenge to the president, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, is one of the boldest in a series of lawsuits across the country that seek to block the federal government from loosening environmental regulations.
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra is one of the leaders of a coalition, which includes San Francisco, attempting to strike down a federal rule that became final on March 31 and replaced an Obamaera policy requiring fewer smogforming pollutants and less heattrapping gases in vehicle emissions. A dozen conservation, science and nonprofit groups also filed a separate lawsuit Wednesday against the administration.
“These new rules will leave us with some of the weakest fuel economy standards in the world,” said Becerra, who made the announcement with Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser and Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel. “We won’t retreat when it comes to fighting the No. 1 source of greenhouse emissions. Not now, not ever.”
Transportation is the nation’s biggest driver of climate change, primarily from greenhouse gases spewed from exhaust pipes.
The Obama administration rolled out national emissions standards in 2012 requiring automakers to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants and increase overall mileage to roughly 50 miles per gallon by model year 2025.
The Clean Car Standards rule, designed to encourage production of zeroemission vehicles and reduce the number of gas guzzlers on the highways, was attacked by President Trump as too costly.
The new federal rule, written by the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency, called for a 1.5% annual boost in vehicle fuel efficiency, down from 5% under the Obama rule. Trump’s Safer Affordable FuelEfficient Vehicles, or SAFE, rule means that by 2026, new cars will have to average about 40 mpg instead of closer to 50 mpg.
Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao said the old rules forced people to drive older, less safe vehicles, and she wanted to make “newer, safer, cleaner vehicles more accessible for Americans.”
Some automakers, but not all of them, have sided with the Trump administration, claiming the Obama regulations were too burdensome.
The legal documents filed Wednesday assert that the rollback of the Clean Car Standards rule violates congressional mandates to improve fuel efficiency and unlawfully relies on an analysis that was riddled with errors, omissions and unfounded assumptions to justify a desired result.
“You hate to use the word ‘lie’ with this administration ... but they are clearly inflating and misrepresenting what this rule does,” Becerra said. “This case is about trying to prove that the administration’s rule not only doesn’t work, but would be a violation of the laws that require us to make progress when it comes to the environment.”
Becerra and the other petitioners said Trump’s alternative standards sabotage investments in clean fuel technology. Any savings at the car dealership, they say, would be offset by the need to buy more gasoline for lessefficient cars. The result will be dirty air and more devastating impacts from climate change, harming the economy even more when it is already suffering as a result of shutdowns during the coronavirus pandemic.
Becerra said the EPA’s own estimates show that the rule will cost 13,474 Americans their jobs. The dirty air, he said, will result in an estimated 250,000 more people getting asthma and 350,000 more cases of respiratory illness.
Environmental groups accused the federal agencies of ignoring potential harm to the climate, public health and endangered species.
“The Trump administration’s reckless rollback will poison people, plants and animals while worsening the climate crisis,” said Katherine Hoff, a lawyer for the Center for Biological Diversity, one of 12 conservation groups that also filed an appeal of the Trump ruling in Washington, D.C. “It’s despicable for Trump to take advantage of the pandemic to slash environmental protections, knowing this virus preys on people with health problems linked to dirty air. We hope a court agrees that this rollback is as illegal as it is dangerous.”
California has been leading the fight against President Trump’s efforts to gut climate policies and roll back protections for air, water and wildlands. The 22 other states and four cities in the lawsuit have long expressed support for stronger fuel efficiency standards.
“The science is clear: Vehicle emissions are a major cause of global warming. We need protections like national Clean Car Standards to slow emissions and climate change,” said Dennis Herrera, San Francisco’s city attorney. “We will not let the Trump administration block decades of progress because they refuse to accept science.”
Last September, the Trump administration revoked the waiver that has long allowed California to set its own mileage standards. Obama’s fuel efficiency standards were an attempt to match California’s more strict policies, which were supported by Ford, Honda, BMW of North America and
Volkswagen Group of America.
The waiver, and a pending deal with the four automakers to meet the stricter standards, are also the subject of a lawsuit against the Trump administration.
The legal wrangling creates uncertainty for the auto industry. With the standards in limbo, manufacturers are unclear how to proceed on their 2022 fleet.
The other states in the lawsuit are Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin, along with the District of Columbia.
Besides San Francisco, the cities of Los Angeles, New York and Denver also joined the lawsuit. The California Air Resources Board is also a party to the suit.