Investigating Environmental Cases, Part 1: EPA v. Diamond Alternative Energy

     Amidst the tumultuous political climate our country is currently experiencing, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finds itself caught in the middle of a few prominent legal battles involving the Clean Air Act (CCA). According to the agency, the CCA “defines EPA’s responsibilities for protecting and improving the nation’s air quality and the stratospheric ozone layer.” One notable case is the EPA v. Diamond Alternative Energy lawsuit, which arose from a dispute over whether or not it is legal for the EPA to—through the CCA—grant California the ability to set state-specific emission standards for their vehicles.

Case Background

     The situation began in 2012 when California applied for a waiver to implement a state-wide policy known as the Advanced Clean Cars Program (ACCP) (Oyez). This program is an extension of the CCA and allows the state to set emission standards for their vehicles that are stricter than federal standards (EPA). Under the CCA, “emission standard” refers to the maximum quantity of a certain air pollutant that a specific source—in this case, cars—can release into the atmosphere (Jones-Kennelly). 

     Two main sections comprise the 2012 ACCP. The first consists of a Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) Program aiming to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from cars manufactured between 2017 and 2025 by 34%, and the second details a Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Program requiring 15% of all manufacturers’ cars to be electric by 2025 (Oyez).

     California applied for the waiver to combat its extreme smog problem and poor air quality, deciding that emission standards more stringent than federal ones were necessary to adequately curb these issues (California Air Resources Board). Typically, the EPA does not allow states to create their own emission standards. However, exceptions will be made if the state can prove it has “compelling and extraordinary conditions” that are not “arbitrary and capricious” to justify the implementation of the state-specific standard (EPA). The EPA determined that California’s smog was a legitimate “compelling and extraordinary condition” and therefore approved the waiver in 2013, allowing it to enact the ACCP (Supreme Court).

     Furthermore, the EPA granted California the waiver for two other significant reasons. Firstly, it was the only state that worked to improve its air quality before the CCA was ratified (Howe). Secondly, starting in 2009, the state made efforts to go beyond simply regulating local air pollutants and began actively reducing greenhouse gas emissions (Howe). These actions had positive global effects and made California a leader in air pollution regulation, thus influencing the EPA’s decision to let it continue putting forth state-led efforts to fight climate change.

     Under the ACCP, automobile manufacturers can either comply with the program’s unique standards, thereby gaining access to California’s vehicle market or may alternatively opt to meet federal standards, thus losing their ability to sell their vehicles within the state (Elwood).

     In 2019, the Trump Administration retracted the waiver on the grounds that emission standards should only be determined by federal laws and that California’s stricter regulations were not necessary to combat their poor air quality (Oyez). The administration also argued that nobody had drawn a clear connection between California’s air quality problems and its greenhouse gas emissions, and there was therefore no way to justify allowing the state to implement the ACCP (Oyez).

     Following the waiver’s withdrawal, certain automakers, including Honda, Ford, and BMW, continued adhering to the ACCP’s standards as they had already invested in meeting them and were experiencing an increasing demand for electric vehicles (EVs) (Oyez). 

     Then, in 2022, under the Biden Administration, the EPA allowed California to reinstate a waiver similar to the 2012 version (Oyez). This waiver not only allowed the state to enact the original ACCP but also permitted it to require all passenger vehicles sold within the state to be 100% zero emission by 2035 (Howe). The goal of these efforts is to improve California’s air quality, reduce its usage of liquid fuel, and ultimately help reduce climate change at a global level (Elwood).

Case Petitioners

     This 2022 action elicited pushback from companies in the fuel industry, including Diamond Alternative Energy (Elwood). They argue that California should not be granted the waiver because climate change is not a “compelling and extraordinary condition” and, therefore, not a justifiable reason to allow any state to set its own emission standards (Oyez). They also worry that California’s unique emission standards and efforts to transition to EVs will disrupt business for them and cause them to arbitrarily lose money (Mountain States Legal Foundation).

     The companies’ case is joined by 16 states, including Ohio and Texas, who filed a separate petition arguing that granting California eligibility to receive a waiver for their emission standards gives the state too much power and violates the Constitution by infringing upon their right to equal treatment with all the other states (Elwood).

Case Respondents

     In response to the challenge, the EPA, joined by California and various environmental organizations and car manufacturers, is defending the reinstatement of the waiver (Oyez). They argue that the widespread negative health effects from the “compelling and extraordinary conditions” affecting California’s air quality, the state’s previous leadership in curbing emissions, and the abundant backing the state has received for their actions justify the waiver’s reestablishment (Jones-Kennelly).

Court Decisions 

    The conflict was eventually brought to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which rejected the petitioners’ arguments on the grounds that they did not have a legal right to sue the respondents (Elwood). Referencing Article III of the Constitution, the court stated that the petitioners could not prove that their “injuries were redressable by favorable action” (Oyez). In other words, they did not demonstrate that the withdrawal of the waiver would remedy the injustices or economic harm they claimed to experience.

     Shortly thereafter, the petitioners filed a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court (SCOTUS Blog). The Supreme Court agreed to review the Court of Appeals’ decision (SCOTUS Blog). This will likely occur in 2025.  

     As of right now, the EPA is still able to grant California waivers under the CCA, including the one giving them the ability to implement the ACCP (Jones-Kennelly). This will remain the case until further developments occur in 2025. 

My evidence-backed reasons for siding with the respondents 

 

Number 1: 

      California’s main reasons for wanting to receive the waiver to implement the ACCP are its smog, poor air quality, and climate change—real phenomena that can be scientifically proven. In other words, these reasons comprise “compelling and extraordinary conditions” that are not “arbitrary or capricious.” Therefore, the EPA did not violate any laws under the CCA by letting the state enact the ACCP. 

Number 2: 

     From a public health standpoint, instating the ACCP in California is entirely necessary. According to the California Air Resources Board, “90% of Californians breathe unhealthy levels of one or more air pollutants at some point during each year.” Additionally, seven of the ten American cities with the highest levels of air pollution are located in California (California Air Resources Board). And research shows that the number of hospitalizations, emergency room visits, and premature deaths that occur in California every year is exacerbated by its poor air quality (California Air Resources Board). These impacts are extreme, unhealthy, and abnormal and should be mitigated through state-specific environmental policies, like the ACCP, that are stricter than federal ones.

 

Number 3: 

     California’s sunny and dry climate is also one of the “compelling and extraordinary conditions” that makes it especially susceptible to air quality issues. According to the National Weather Service, “sunshine can cause some pollutants to undergo chemical reactions, resulting in the development of smog.” California is a state far more likely to experience this scientific phenomenon than others—a fact that justifies its implementation of state-specific plans to deal with it. 

     Additionally, the National Weather Service says that “rain typically results in less pollution since it washes away particulate matter.” Because much of California's climate is so dry, its chances of suffering from poor air quality become heightened, setting it apart from states that receive regular rain and providing it with yet another valid reason to enact special emission standards. 

Number 4: 

     Apart from causing air quality deterioration, pollution from cars has, in part, warmed temperatures in California, which has, in turn, increased other environmental issues in the state, such as wildfires, melting snowpack in the mountains, and rising seas (California Air Resources Board). To reduce the severity of these problems, statewide emission policies are necessary.

 

Number 5: 

     Having driven through the entirety of California multiple times and seeing everything from major cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco to the rural farmlands in the central part of the state, I can vouch for the gravity of its air quality issues. When I stayed in LA, there were some days when the air was so thick with smog that almost all visibility was obscured, and when passing through the countryside, the sunny skies were not a clear blue but rather had a hazy gray tint. Additionally, the pollutants in the air make it difficult to exercise outside, and I noticed myself coughing more frequently than usual when directly exposed to them for too long. These conditions should not be the norm, which is why I believe it is essential that California is allowed to enact its own policies to alleviate them.

Addressing the petitioners’ arguments

Number 1: 

     The case’s petitioners argue that allowing California to implement its own emission standards is unconstitutional, violating Amendment IV, among others, and taking power away from Congress (Mountain States Legal Foundation). Permitting California to do this does indeed strip Congress of some power and somewhat infringes upon the second section of Amendment IV, where it is written, “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” If the waiver is approved, California will, in fact, have different “privileges and immunities” than the other states. 

     However, given the extreme severity of California’s air quality issues, I think bypassing Congress and giving them different “privileges and immunities” than the other states is justifiable. Climate change and environmental damage are situations that need to be handled both with a sense of urgency and in ways that pinpoint the specific areas most affected. Requiring Congress to approve every environmental improvement plan and prohibiting states with unique circumstances from implementing state-specific laws would undermine efforts to curb climate change and environmental damage; therefore, I believe the EPA's and California's slight infractions are warranted. 

Number 2: 

     As the Court of Appeals concluded, the petitioners’ “injuries” are not necessarily “redressable by favorable action.” This is required for a case to have standing (American Cornerstone Institute). If the waiver is revoked, the economic hardships and inequalities fuel companies claim to face due to its implementation may not be entirely mitigated. The sale of EVs could still increase even if there is no mandate explicitly ordering it since manufacturers have spent years putting extensive time and investments into EV production (Gurley). Whether the waiver is repealed or not, the transition to EVs will continue, meaning that the fuel industry will experience impacts either way. This means that the petitioners' entire argument may be invalid.

 

What’s next?

     Given the recent administration transition, many changes can be expected, particularly regarding the EPA, whose new leader, Lee Zeldin, said that he plans to “ensure fair and swift deregulatory decisions that will be enacted in a way to unleash the power of American business." His goals are very different from those of the last EPA administrator, who focused on environmental justice, climate change, and public health (EPA). What this indicates is that the agency may not be as keen on advocating for stricter emission standards and other environmental protection plans as it is now. This is likely to have some effect on the case, as well as the agency’s willingness to provide future waivers for state-specific environmental policies.

     Additionally, in Trump’s recently released executive order titled Unleashing American Energy, he wrote that he plans to terminate “state emission waivers that function to limit sales of gasoline-powered automobiles.” This statement is sure to apply to California’s waiver, meaning that if the EPA v. Diamond Alternative Energy case is dropped or the respondents win, Trump will still try to repeal the waiver. 

     For now, we’ll just have to wait and see what happens next as the case is heard by the Supreme Court and the Trump administration continues to make changes…

Sources

“Overview of the Clean Air Act and Air Pollution.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Overview of the Clean Air Act and Air Pollution | US EPA

“Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency.” Oyez, Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency | Oyez

Jones-Kennelly, Sedalia. “SCOTUS Declines to Review California’s Clean Air Act Preemption Waiver—Current Implications and Expected Response from the Incoming Administration.” National Law Review, 08 Jan. 2025, Supreme Court Denies Review of EPA’s Authority on CA Emission Waiver

“California and the Waiver: The Facts.” California Air Resources Board, California & the waiver: The facts

“Vehicle Emissions California Waivers and Authorizations.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Vehicle Emissions California Waivers and Authorizations | US EPA

Howe, Amy. “Justices take up cases on religious tax exemption and California climate change mandate.” SCOTUS Blog, 13 Dec. 2024, Justices take up cases on religious tax exemption and California climate change mandate - SCOTUSblog

Elwood, Jon. “Redistricting, campaign contributions, and California’s role in emissions regulation.” SCOTUS Blog, 17 Oct. 2024, Redistricting, campaign contributions, and California’s role in emissions regulation - SCOTUSblog

“Defending energy livelihoods: The fight against EPA’s delegation of national energy policy to California.” Mountain States Legal Foundation, Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al - Mountain States Legal Foundation

“Article III.” Cornell Law School, Article III | U.S. Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

“Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency.” SCOTUS Blog, Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency - SCOTUSblog

“Health and Air Pollution.” California Air Resources Board, Health & Air Pollution | California Air Resources Board

“Clearing the Air on Weather and Air Quality.” National Weather Service, Clearing the Air on Weather and Air Quality

“The United States Constitution.” National Constitution Center, Full Text of the U.S. Constitution

“What is “standing,” and why is it required for a court to hear a case?” American Cornerstone Institute, 22 July, 2024, What is “standing,” and why is it required for a court to hear a case? - American Cornerstone Institute