On Tuesday, The Buckeye Institute submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in a case involving the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The case, In Re: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation, Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standard, consolidates eight related cases.
The Buckeye Institute argues that NHTSA is attempting to impose an electric-vehicle mandate without Congressional approval. "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," said David C. Tryon, director of litigation at The Buckeye Institute. He further stated that Congress did not authorize NHTSA to enforce such measures on individuals who depend on heavy-duty trucks and vans.
In its brief, The Buckeye Institute claims that NHTSA's cost-benefit analysis for setting fuel economy standards for heavy-duty pickups and vans is flawed. According to Tryon, "NHTSA ignored key facts and issues to justify a regulatory scheme that American consumers do not want and which Congress did not authorize."
The organization supports its argument with four main points:
1. NHTSA incorrectly assumed low demand for electric vehicles was due to a "market failure" or an "energy paradox."
2. It improperly included global benefits in its analysis despite Congressional statutes focusing on domestic application.
3. The analysis relied on speculative impacts over 30 years, exceeding acceptable time frames.
4. It overlooked reasons Americans are hesitant about electric vehicles, such as performance concerns and charging capabilities.