Buckeye Reporter

On September 13, 2024, The Buckeye Institute filed an amicus brief in the case of Kentucky v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to rule that the EPA's new emissions regulation exceeds its Congressional authority by effectively mandating electric vehicles.

"Congress created the U.S. EPA to combat acute environmental health risks, not to run the U.S. automotive industry," stated David C. Tryon, director of litigation at The Buckeye Institute. "Nevertheless, that is what the EPA did when it exceeded its Congressional authority and imposed a de facto electric-vehicle mandate on Americans."

The Buckeye Institute's brief contends that the cost-benefit analysis employed by the EPA in issuing its emissions rule for cars and trucks is flawed and relies on unproven methods to justify substantial costs. The institute bases its argument on four main points:

1. The EPA incorrectly assumed that low demand for electric vehicles was due to a "market failure" or an "energy paradox."

2. The EPA ignored the presumption that Congressional statutes focus on domestic concerns and improperly included global benefits in its analysis.

3. The agency's analysis relied on speculative projections about the rule's impact over 30 years, exceeding acceptable time frames.

4. The EPA overlooked various reasons why Americans may be reluctant to adopt electric vehicles, such as concerns about performance, range, and charging infrastructure.

Tryon added, "Congress simply never authorized the EPA to use these nebulous concepts to impose the government’s will upon American consumers and manufacturers."