Columbus, OH – On Friday, The Buckeye Institute filed an amicus brief in Kentucky v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), calling on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to tell the U.S. EPA that its new emissions rule—that effectively imposes a de facto electric-vehicle mandate—exceeds the agency’s Congressional authority.

“Congress created the U.S. EPA to combat acute environmental health risks, not to run the U.S. automotive industry,” said 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.”

In its brief, The Buckeye Institute argues that the cost-benefit analysis the U.S. EPA used in issuing its emissions rule for cars and trucks is deeply flawed and improperly relies on unproven and unauthorized methods to justify the rule’s extraordinary costs. Buckeye’s argument is grounded on four facts:

1. In its rule-making process, the EPA erroneously assumed that low demand for electric vehicles was due to a “market failure” or an “energy paradox.” 
2. The EPA ignored the well-established presumption that Congressional statutes are concerned with domestic application and improperly included global benefits in its analysis.
3. The EPA’s analysis relied on unscientific speculation of the final rule’s impact over 30 years, well beyond the time frame courts accept. 
4. The EPA ignored many reasons Americans do not want electric vehicles, including concerns about performance, range, and charging capabilities.

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

# # #