The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed to consider the National Association of Convenience Stores’ challenge to California’s electric vehicle (EV) mandate.
NACS and its coalition partners filed a petition in a case challenging the state of California’s Advanced Clean Cars I rule. The court said it will accept briefs and hear oral argument in the case, and it should decide on the case by early July 2025, NACS said in a Friday news alert.
“We are pleased that the Supreme Court will hear this case,” said Doug Kantor, NACS general counsel. “The question of who decides vehicle standards for the nation is too important for courts to hide behind unsupported legal technicalities of ‘standing.’ We need a federal standard that makes the entire nation’s interests in lower emissions and a strong economy its priority rather than arbitrarily picking one technology over others, regardless of results.”
NACS said it has concerns that picking one technology over others leads to worse outcomes for the environment and the economy.
In 2022, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) granted California a waiver to set its own emission standards and to adopt a zero-emission-vehicle mandate. Many states have followed California’s lead, adopting those same standards.
The California rule set standards requiring 22% of new vehicles sold in the state to be zero emission in model year 2025. It is a precursor to pending California rules that over time would require 100% of new vehicles sold in California to be zero emission, Alexandria, Virginia-based NACS said.
The EPA waiver was supposed to be based upon the specific air quality needs in California, NACS said, but California instead asked for a waiver based on its concern about global climate change.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against NACS on the grounds that automakers would do the same thing regardless of whether the rules were in place. But the Supreme Court will now consider whether that is the correct reading of the law, NACS said.
“While the Supreme Court agreeing to hear the case does not guarantee what the court will decide, it keeps the case alive and is a major milestone in attempts to raise the issue of whether the California mandate comports with federal law,” NACS said.
Members help make our journalism possible. Become a CSP member today and unlock exclusive benefits, including unlimited access to all of our content. Sign up here.