California says feds can’t sue over state vehicle emission regs

A California judge wondered if the state regulations on greenhouse gas emissions and zero-emission vehicles had any practical effect that conflicted with federal policy.SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) — The California Air Resources Board argued Thursday that a judge should dismiss a lawsuit filed against it by the federal government over its emissions standards, as the Trump administration has suffered no injury.The federal government in March challenged what it called state-specific rules and sought to block California from enforcing its zero-emission vehicle and greenhouse gas emission standards. Then-Attorney General Pam Bondi said at the time the vehicle mandates increased consumer costs and violated federal law.On Thursday, air resources board attorney Caitlan McLoon said the federal government had no standing to bring the complaint.“They haven’t shown that it’s actually making an impact,” McLoon said.U.S. District Judge Daniel Calabretta appeared unconvinced, indicating the federal government’s greenhouse gas emission claim would proceed. He made no decision on the zero-emission vehicle claim and he issued no formal ruling that day.For Calabretta, a Joe Biden appointee, the issue boiled down to whether the state regulation had any practical effect. A state statute on the books that simply exists and could face federal preemption doesn’t mean federal authorities have standing. However, if it caused an effect, standing would exist.McLoon in her motion argued the challenged regulations either have expired or reached their zenith.The requirement for zero-emission vehicle sales ended with model year 2025. And the greenhouse gas emission regulation reached its maximum effect for model year 2025, meaning the most impact it had occurred over a year ago.“I think it’s a per se injury if the law is still in effect,” Calabretta said.The zero-emission vehicle regulations called for manufacturers to meet certain zero-emission vehicle credit percentage requirements, which they could achieve in different ways. Methods included the creation of credits through sales, and purchasing credits from other manufacturers.When Calabretta noted that some manufacturers must spend money to buy credits, McLood argued a claim might exist for that manufacturer but not the federal government.“They’re alleging interference with federal law,” the judge countered.The federal government created a policy and California made one that’s contrary to it, leading vehicle manufacturers to spend more money, Calabretta said, questioning why that wouldn’t be enough to have standing.McLoon said it’s because the federal government still must show it’s been injured.“I think I understand your point,” the judge said. “I just disagree with it.”Calabretta asked Ian Swenson, representing the United States, whether he must show harm to have standing. Swenson said if the laws are in effect, the government has a per se injury.According to Swenson, one of the air resources board’s regulations expires this year. However, some manufacturers could request a three-year extension if they haven’t yet attained their goals.“At some point, it becomes hypothetical,” Calabretta said. “They’re building cars. The cars are built.”“I still think it’s a per se injury,” Swenson said.Rebutting that point, McLoon said the federal government must wait until the regulations have an impact on the marketplace before they could state a claim. Additionally, California’s standards have worked harmoniously with federal rules for decades before the March complaint.In her motion to dismiss, McLoon said California made new standards in 2012, which at the time was its latest move to mitigate air pollution. Fourteen years later — and nine years after the new standards applied to California vehicle sales — the United States and its Transportation Department filed suit against the air resources board.Calabretta gave no timeline for when he’d issue his ruling.“At least the greenhouse gas claims are going go forward,” he said.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads