More than 55 parties representing diverse interests joined to submit a detailed brief to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals last week arguing that the Environmental Protection Agency “unlawfully exceeded its statutory authority and acted arbitrarily and capriciously by finalizing vehicle tailpipe emissions standards that would essentially phase out liquid-fueled engines and mandate increased production of electric vehicles.”

The brief filed Friday was submitted by the Renewable Fuels Association, National Farmers Union, American Farm Bureau Federation, National Association of Convenience Stores, 14 state and national corn grower associations, as well as auto dealers, trucking and shipping company organizations, manufacturing groups, energy trade associations, and other parties.

“The Court should reverse EPA’s rule,” according to the petitioners’ brief, which notes that EPA projects at least 68 percent of new vehicles will need to be electric to comply with the standards by 2032. “EPA seeks to radically transform the nation’s vehicle fleet by effectively mandating a nationwide transition from internal-combustion-engine vehicles to electric vehicles. That bold assertion of regulatory power vastly exceeds EPA’s statutory authority. The Clean Air Act does not clearly authorize EPA to force Americans to buy electric vehicles.”

The brief also holds that EPA “…unreasonably treats electric vehicles as though they contribute zero emissions…” and “…refused to even consider renewable fuels as an alternative to its push for electrification, unreasonably deeming those issues outside the scope of its rule…Higher-octane fuels, biofuels, and flex-fuel vehicles are a documented solution to the issue of pollution from vehicle emissions.” In addition, EPA failed to consider how its tailpipe standards conflict with the Renewable Fuel Standard.

EPA’s response to Friday’s brief is due by November 26.

Meanwhile, Congress may be looking at a legislative way to overturn the tailpipe emissions rule via a Congressional Review Act resolution proposed in May by Rep. John James (R-MI) that would “disapprove” the rule.