
Photo: Peterbilt
In a move that seems more politically motivated than rooted in legal principle, 24 of the 27 Republican attorneys general, including South Carolina’s Alan Wilson, have joined a lawsuit to block the Biden-Harris administration’s electric vehicle (EV) mandate for heavy-duty trucks. While the legal argument centers around claims of federal overreach by the EPA, critics argue that the opposition is more about maintaining partisan lines than addressing the actual legal standing of the mandate. With climate change increasingly in the public spotlight, this resistance appears to be part of a broader effort by Republican-led states to challenge green energy policies, regardless of their economic and environmental merits.
CC News Network has reviewed the mandate and the lawsuit and here are the potential flaws in their position:
1. Authority of the EPA under the Clean Air Act
- The attorneys general claim the EPA does not have the authority to impose this rule, stating that it presents a “major question” Congress has not addressed. However, the Clean Air Act gives the EPA the mandate to regulate air pollution, including emissions from motor vehicles. Historically, courts have upheld the EPA’s authority to set emissions standards, and similar regulations on passenger vehicles were implemented under previous administrations.
- Critics of the AGs’ stance argue that the EPA is acting within its jurisdiction to combat climate change and reduce harmful pollutants, which aligns with its legally granted powers.
2. “Major Questions” Doctrine
- The attorneys general invoke the “major questions” doctrine, suggesting that Congress did not explicitly authorize such a significant shift in vehicle manufacturing through electric trucks. However, this doctrine is somewhat vague and has been used selectively in court. Critics may argue that this is an overly narrow interpretation of the EPA’s powers under existing law, and it undermines the agency’s flexibility to address emerging environmental threats.
- Moreover, advocates for the EPA’s position believe that reducing emissions from trucks—significant contributors to air pollution—is a necessary extension of the EPA’s core responsibilities.

3. Economic Concerns vs. Environmental Necessity
- The Republican AGs argue that pushing for electric trucks will increase consumer prices and strain the electric grid. While this is a valid concern, studies show that long-term benefits of reducing emissions, such as improved public health and climate mitigation, may outweigh short-term economic disruptions.
- The Biden administration and EPA proponents argue that a transition to electric trucks can help reduce the transportation sector’s significant contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, which is crucial to meeting U.S. climate goals. Additionally, while upfront costs of electric trucks are higher, they are expected to reduce fuel and maintenance costs in the long run.
4. Impact on the Trucking Industry
- The attorneys general warn of a potential slowdown in the transport of goods due to the limited availability of electric trucks. However, technological innovation and incentives can accelerate the production and availability of electric trucks. Federal investments in EV infrastructure and incentives for manufacturers are aimed at addressing these concerns.
- In the past, similar arguments were made against emissions standards for passenger vehicles, but the automotive industry adapted and benefited from improved fuel efficiency and lower emissions. Critics argue that the trucking industry could undergo a similar transformation with the right support and policies.
5. Legal and Legislative Path
- The AGs argue that these regulations bypass important policy discussions that should involve Congress. However, critics counter that the regulatory framework, which allows the EPA to make rules based on scientific findings, is a well-established process. Relying on Congress for each new regulation might delay necessary actions on urgent environmental issues like climate change.
Conclusion
The Republican attorneys general argue that the EPA is overstepping its authority, but there are strong legal precedents for the EPA regulating vehicle emissions under the Clean Air Act. While concerns about economic impacts and grid strain are important, proponents of the rule argue that the long-term environmental and public health benefits make the transition to electric vehicles essential. Critics of the AGs’ stance believe the EPA is acting within its scope and that the electric vehicle transition is both feasible and necessary for climate goals.