A Columbus-based think tank has filed an amicus brief saying a federal agency is trying to use regulatory powers it does not possess to mandate electric vehicles that drivers don’t want to buy.
The Buckeye Institute filed the brief in a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which consolidates eight cases.
In its brief, the group calls on the court to stop the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration from imposing de facto electric vehicle mandates. It contends that Congress did not give the NHTSA the power to impose the rule and “restructure the American car market.”
Like amicus briefs filed in cases involving the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the think tank argues that the cost-benefit analysis NHTSA used to set fuel economy standards for heavy-duty pickups and vans is deeply flawed. They contend it improperly depends on “unproven” and “unauthorized” methods to justify the rule’s costs.
“Just as they have done with the Clean Air Act, the Biden administration is attempting to expand the powers of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to impose a de facto electric-vehicle mandate on American businesses,” David C. Tryon, The Buckeye Institute’s director of litigation, said in an announcement. “Congress simply did not give NHTSA the power to force this illegal bureaucratic boondoggle on people who rely on heavy-duty trucks and vans.”
NHTSA issued its final rule, titled “Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks for Model Years 2027-2032 and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Heavy-Duty Pickup Trucks and Vans for Model Years 2030-2035,” on June 24. It published an updated version on July 29 to correct “technical errors.”
Under the proposed Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, passenger cars must have 58.7 miles per gallon by 2031.
“NHTSA ignored key facts and issues to justify a regulatory scheme that American consumers do not want and which Congress did not authorize,” Tryon said.
The Buckeye Institute centered its argument on four points.
The group argues that the federal agency ignored many reasons Americans do not want electric vehicles, citing concerns about performance, range, charging capabilities and battery life limitations. It also alleged that the NHTSA’s rule-making process erroneously assumed low demand for electric vehicles stemmed from a “market failure” or an “energy paradox.”
The group said the NHTSA improperly analyzed global benefits, ignoring a well-established presumption that congressional statutes concern domestic application. It also argued that the NHTSA’s analysis depended on unscientific speculation about the final rule’s impact over three decades, which it said is beyond the courts’ accepted time frame.
“While mythical soothsayers pretend to see 20 years into the future, it is inconceivable that the government can do so accurately,” the group said in its brief.
“NHTSA also asserts that businesses would be able to meet fuel standards in the Final Rule without a total switch to an EV fleet,” the group said in its brief. “Even presuming that this is the case, there are still massive costs associated with mixed fleets. Since different vehicles require different routing and have different capabilities, the operation of a mixed fleet will still increase costs for businesses anywhere between 56% to 67% that must be shouldered by American companies.”
Ohio is ahead of other states with its National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Program. The Buckeye State was the first state in the country to activate an NEVI charging station.
In May, Republican Gov. Mike DeWine announced the state awarded roughly $16 million for 22 new electric vehicle fast-charging stations on interstates and federal highways across the state.
The funding is part of the second round of the NEVI initiative, which saw billions of taxpayer dollars flow to states. Ohio officials said the $16 million was in addition to more than $4 million from private companies selected to install and operate the charging stations.
