California’s Aggressive Vehicle Emission Standards Under Threat

By: Andrew Eads

For the past fifty years, California has consistently held a leadership position in the fight against climate change. Following President Trump’s announcement to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement, California was integral to the creation of the U.S. Climate Alliance (Alliance). The Alliance members sought to fill the vacancy created by a lack of U.S. national leadership in the fight against climate change. As part of this fight, California highlighted the importance of regulations that target vehicle emissions. However, after the announcement that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will withdraw California’s ability to set its own stringent vehicle emissions standards, California and other Alliance members are left with uncertainty.

Image Credit: Los Angeles Times

I.              Regulations Targeting the Transportation Sector are Vital 

Senate Bill No. 32 (SB 32) guides California’s ambitious climate change goals. SB 32 obligates the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below the 1990 level by 2030. Along with SB 32, California also passed Assembly Bill No. 197 (AB 197). AB 197, among other mandates, requires CARB to develop a climate change Scoping Plan in order to analyze the requirements for satisfying the 40 percent emissions reduction mandated by SB 32. The Scoping Plan details the importance of California’s regulations for vehicle emissions and estimates the transportation sector accounts for 37 percent of California’s carbon emissions.

Historically, California has been able to rely on its own strict standards for vehicle emissions. A special exemption under the Clean Air Act (CAA), enables California to take a tougher stance on vehicle emissions than the federal government mandates. However, on September 19, 2019, the EPA announced the withdrawal of this special exemption, which may significantly hinder California’s environmental initiatives. For example, CARB stated a revocation of the CAA exemption would “foreclose our ability to rein in air pollution and greenhouse gases.” CARB further commented that the revocation would be identical to adding 2.8 million cars onto California roads. The Alliance also noted that the revocation would “limit the ability” of Alliance states to achieve climate change goals.

II.            Constraints on Subnational Initiatives

Since President Trump’s announcement that the U.S. intends to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, we have seen a wave of alliances, declarations, and coalitions sweep into action. These subnational initiatives can positively contribute towards climate change mitigation, but as the CAA exemption revocation exemplifies, there are legal constraints that can limit their effectiveness. One legal constraint is the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution is the basis for the fundamental understanding that U.S. federal law is the “supreme law” and states must follow in step. States must be careful not to circumvent federal law by creating a regulation that would violate the supremacy of the federal government.

The U.S. Supreme Court acknowledges three ways in which a state’s power can be preempted by the federal government. First, if Congress passed legislation explicitly preempting state law. Second, if the federal government impliedly occupies an entire regulatory field. And third, if it is a “physical impossibility” to comply with the federal and state law or if state law creates an obstacle to accomplishing the federal objective. Programs like California’s Cap-and-Trade regulation do not violate the Supremacy Clause because the federal government has not legislated a federal cap and trade program. However, other programs, such as California’s vehicle emission regulations, are constrained because the CAA federally regulates vehicle emissions and explicitly preempts state action in the field.

In response to the revocation of California’s preemption exemption, 22 states and the District of Columbia have joined California in challenging the Trump Administration’s ability to revoke the exemption. This potentially lengthy legal battle may have serious consequences for both California and the auto industry. California stands to lose one of the more effective tools in fighting climate change, while the auto industry is left with “costly uncertainty.” Because humans contribute to climate change in a multitude of ways, law and policy need to be developed in a range of different sectors. It is clear that California and 23 attorneys general view vehicle emissions regulations as a necessary tool in fighting climate change. Unfortunately, everyone must now wait and see how the courts will analyze this critically important legal battle.