Biden's EPA faces lawsuit over new emission standards: 'Forcing a switch'



The American Petroleum Institute, along with a coalition of energy and trucking groups, recently filed lawsuits against the Biden administration's Environmental Protection Agency to block its new emission standards.

The groups filed a lawsuit on Thursday in the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit against the EPA's finalized emission standards for light- and medium-duty vehicles. On Tuesday, they filed another lawsuit in the same court against the latest emission requirements for heavy-duty vehicles.

'Devastate the reliability of America's supply chain and ultimately increase costs.'

The Biden administration announced in March that it had finalized the "strongest ever greenhouse gas standards" for freight trucks and buses, Blaze News previously reported. The restrictions impact vehicles for model years 2027 through 2032. The EPA also touted its "strongest ever" emission standards for passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and other medium-duty vehicles.

According to the administration, its recently finalized standards will "avoid more than 7 billion tons of carbon emissions and provide nearly $100 billion of annual net benefits to society, including $13 billion of annual public health benefits due to improved air quality, and $62 billion in reduced annual fuel costs, and maintenance and repair costs for drivers."

The standards will require up to 56% of all new car sales to be electric or other zero-emissions alternatives between 2030 and 2032, Reuters reported.

A number of other groups, including Exxon Mobil, Chevron, the American Farm Bureau, the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, the National Corn Growers Association, and many others, joined the legal action against the EPA.

Ryan Meyers, API's senior vice president and general counsel, stated, "The EPA is forcing a switch to technology that simply does not presently exist for these kinds of vehicles — and even if it were someday possible, it will almost certainly have consequences for your average American."

Meyes said API is taking the action to "protect American consumers, U.S. manufacturing workers and our nation's hard-won energy security from this intrusive government mandate."

National Corn Growers Association President Harold Wolle said, "EPA has tried to impose a one-size-fits-all approach to addressing climate change by prioritizing electric vehicles over other climate remedies like corn ethanol."

Todd Spencer, president of the OOIDA, expressed concern that the strict regulations would force small-business truckers, who make up 96% of trucking, "out of existence."

"This rule would devastate the reliability of America's supply chain and ultimately increase costs for consumers. Mom-and-pop trucking businesses would be suffocated by the sheer cost and operational challenges of effectively mandating zero-emission trucks, but this administration appears intent on forcing through its deluge of misguided environmental mandates," Spencer remarked.

The EPA declined a request for comment from Reuters.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Vermont lawmakers want fossil fuel companies to pay for damages caused by weather events: 'Climate Superfund'



The Vermont Senate voted 21-5 on Friday to advance the Climate Superfund Act, which would force fossil fuel companies to pay into a fund covering weather event-related damages.

If passed into law, Senate Bill 259 would create a "Climate Superfund Cost Recovery Program" to finance "climate change adaptive or resilience infrastructure projects" in Vermont.

"Under the Program, an entity or a successor in interest to an entity that was engaged in the trade or business of extracting fossil fuel or refining crude oil between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2019 would be assessed a cost recovery demand for the entity's share of fossil fuel extraction or refinement contributing to greenhouse gas-related costs in Vermont. An entity would only be assessed a cost recovery demand if the Agency determined that the entity's products were responsible for more than one billion metric tons of covered greenhouse gas emissions," the bill read.

The fund would be used to "avoid, moderate, repair, or adapt to negative impacts caused by climate change," such as "implementing nature-based solutions and flood protections; upgrading stormwater drainage systems; making defensive upgrades to roads, bridges, railroads, and transit systems; preparing for and recovering from extreme weather events; undertaking preventive health care programs and providing medical care to treat illness or injury caused by the effects of climate change."

Additionally, the program would cover the costs of relocating sewage treatment plants, installing cooling systems in public and private buildings, upgrading that state's electrical grid, addressing toxic algae blooms, and managing the loss of topsoil.

The legislation is sponsored by Sens. Anne Watson (D), Dick Sears Jr. (D), Christopher Bray (D), and 17 other Democratic senators.

According to Sears, the legislation is "built on the long-standing principle that the polluter pays," Mountain Times reported.

"The damage that fossil fuels are causing in our communities continues to grow, with flooding in the last year alone resulting in massive costs to our state," Sears claimed.

Sen. Nader Hashim (D) told lawmakers on Friday, "In order to remedy the problems created by washed out roads, downed electrical wires, damaged crops and repeated flooding, the largest fossil fuel entities that have contributed to climate change should also contribute to fixing the problem that they caused."

"We can place the burden on Vermont taxpayers or we can keep our fingers crossed that the federal government will help us or we can have fossil fuel companies pay their fair share," Hashim said.

Under the legislation, the Vermont state treasurer would provide a report detailing the cost imposed on residents as a result of the "emission of greenhouse gases for the period that began on January 1, 2000 and ended on December 31, 2019." The report would assess the impact of fossil fuels on public health, natural resources, agriculture, economic development, and flood preparedness.

The American Petroleum Institute stated that it opposes the bill and shared objections to the legislation in a letter to the state Senate last week, the Associated Press reported.

The group is concerned that the bill "retroactively imposes costs and liability on prior activities that were legal, violates equal protection and due process rights by holding companies responsible for the actions of society at large; and is preempted by federal law."

"Additionally, the bill does not provide potentially impacted parties with notice as to the magnitude of potential fees that can result from its passage," the API added.

Similar bills have also been introduced in Maryland, Massachusetts, and New York.

ExxonMobil did not respond to the AP's request for comment.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

‘Simply Not True’: Biden Says He Isn’t Holding Back US Energy Production

'Simply not true'

Biden Asks FTC To Probe Alleged Price Gouging By Gasoline Providers: ‘Mounting Evidence’

'Mounting evidence of anti-consumer behavior'

Democratic Rep Fundraises Off Upcoming ‘Big Oil’ Hearing

'They’re going to answer for it all'

Biden Begs Oil Industry To Lower Prices As Energy Crisis Looms: REPORT

'Using every tool at our disposal'

Biden drilling ban would cost 1M jobs and cause $700B drop in GDP: Industry study

Joe Biden's pledge to block oil and gas drilling on federal lands and waters would force the United States to rely more on foreign energy sources, cost nearly 1 million jobs by 2022, and cause carbon emissions to increase by prompting a rebound in coal.