U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Consider NACS’ Challenge to Electric Vehicle Mandate

A petition was granted for challenging the state of California’s Advanced Clean Cars I rule.

December 13, 2024

The U.S. Supreme Court late today granted the petition filed by NACS and its coalition partners in a case challenging the state of California’s Advanced Clean Cars I rule. That means that the Court will accept briefs and hear oral argument in the case—and should decide it by early July 2025.

“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.”

The California rule set standards requiring 22% of new vehicles sold in the state to be “zero emission” in model year 2025. The rule is a precursor to pending California rules that over time would require 100% of new vehicles sold in California to be “zero emission.”

For California to set its own rules, it must be granted a waiver to do so by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Those waivers are supposed to be based upon the specific air quality needs in California. Instead, California asked for a waiver based on its concern about global climate change, not California-specific air quality. NACS, coalition partners in the traditional and renewable fuels industries, and several other states filed challenges to the waiver on the basis that global issues must, under the law, be addressed by national standards.

NACS has concerns and presented evidence that picking one technology over others leads to worse outcomes for the environment and the economy.

Earlier, the DC 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. In the court’s view, that left NACS and its partners without any legal complaint because invalidating the rule would not help them.

The Supreme Court will now consider whether that is the correct reading of the law and whether the case can proceed to the ultimate question of the legality of EPA’s waiver for California. 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.

The case before the Court is Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA and the Court’s notice agreeing to consider the case can be viewed here.