Attorney General Bonta Urges U.S. Supreme Court to Affirm Decision Dismissing Challenge to Clean Air Act Waiver

OAKLAND— California Attorney General Rob Bonta today filed a brief urging the United States Supreme Court to affirm the court of appeals’ decision in Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency. The case concerns a waiver of preemption, granted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2013, which authorized the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to enforce standards—promulgated in 2012—requiring automakers to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and increase production of zero-emission vehicles. 

Petitioners, who are in the oil and biofuel industries, did not challenge the waiver when it was first issued. 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, with Governor Gavin Newsom and the California Air Resources Board, led a group of States and local governments to intervene 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 challenge, ruling that the petitioners lacked legal standing. That was because by the time petitioners’ case began, automakers were producing large numbers of zero-emission vehicles due to consumer demand and the automakers’ past investments, and petitioners failed to show that judicial relief would likely redress their asserted harm by increasing fuel sales.

“Congress recognized that California has special expertise and experience in protecting our people, our health, and our environment from preventable pollution through vehicle emissions standards,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “Our solutions have encouraged advancements in cleaner automotive technologies, and improved the health and well-being of communities statewide, showing how strong environmental policies and economic growth go hand in hand. That’s why we intervened, to make sure there would be a strong defense of California’s authority. These challengers waited nearly a decade to bring this suit, and then they didn’t even show that that they would benefit from increased sales if their suit succeeded. We will defend the dismissal of this case on standing grounds, and we will continue to defend California’s authority in future cases that may arise.”

“For more than 50 years, the Clean Air Act has helped usher in clean air and healthier communities across the nation and the globe,” said CARB Executive Officer Dr. Steven S. Cliff. “Again and again, California’s experience shows environmental protection and economic prosperity go together. We remain committed to holding our ground, fully defending our authority and ensuring American competitiveness.”  

Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act requires the 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, and EPA is required to waive preemption for those requirements absent certain, limited circumstances. 

In the brief, Attorney General Bonta explains that: 

• California’s 2012 standards originally set ambitious goals for automakers to increase their sales of zero-emission vehicles and reduce fleetwide average greenhouse gas emissions. The standards were designed to spur investment and technological innovation.  
• In the following years, automakers invested heavily in new technologies and manufacturing capabilities, and consumer comfort with zero-emission vehicles increased. Consumers showed themselves willing to pay price premiums and endure wait times for sought-after vehicles, and sales increased faster than regulators had predicted. By 2022, when this challenge began, automakers were selling large numbers of vehicles that satisfy California’s standards for their own reasons—to profit from their investments and take advantage of that consumer demand. 
• As a result, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed petitioners’ challenge for lack of standing. The petitioners failed to show that a court’s vacatur of the waiver in 2022—when petitioners filed their challenge—would increase fuel sales and alleviate petitioners’ asserted injuries. 

A copy of the brief can be found here.