Minnesota to Dismiss Clean Cars Rule in Legal Win for NACS

The state sought to have electric vehicles exceed 6% of all new, light-duty vehicle sales.

May 14, 2026

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison on Wednesday submitted a letter to the U.S. District Court initiating the process to dismiss the Clean Fuels Development Coalition v. Kessler case (Minnesota Clean Cars Rule), a litigation filed and led by NACS and the Minnesota Service Station & Convenience Store Association (MSSA).

The Clean Cars rule, adopted in 2020, had a goal of electric vehicles exceeding 6% of all new, light-duty vehicle sales in Minnesota.

“We are pleased to see that Minnesota has recognized it cannot defend mandating a single vehicle technology,” said Doug Kantor, NACS General Counsel. “That mandate undermined the state economy and was worse on environmental goals than common-sense alternatives. This is a win for the convenience industry and a competitive market that benefits consumers. We will keep pursuing similar outcomes in other states.”

“Amazing to see great organizations collaborating together supporting the future of liquid fuels risking political capital in a state like Minnesota,” said Lance Klatt, executive director of the Minnesota Service Station and Convenience Store Association (MSSA). “MSSA board of directors took the stance protecting the members of the Association and the integrity of our industry.”
 

The Ellison letter states:

“The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has finalized the language of its proposed rulemaking to rescind the Minnesota Clean Cars Rule at issue in this litigation and has initiated the State’s internal review process. The MPCA anticipates that final internal review leading up to formal publication in the State Register will take several weeks, after which a public comment period will follow.

In the meantime, the parties have negotiated in good faith to reach an agreement to hold the case in abeyance as that rulemaking proceeds and, after the conclusion of the rulemaking and resolution of any challenges to it, to stipulate dismissal. The agreement negotiation is largely complete, with one remaining blank: a specific date on which publication of the rescission notice will occur. Defendants do not yet have precise information on that date. Once the publication date is confirmed, the parties expect to submit a motion for abeyance during the MPCA’s rulemaking for the Court’s review and approval.”