There is no penalty for failing to achieve reductions, and federal officials say the rule simply builds on an existing system of targets for road safety and infrastructure conditions. But states and Republican members of Congress nonetheless have argued that the federal government did not have the authority to enact a new system of climate-focused targets, and a lawsuit was widely expected.
“The Final Rule exceeds the statutory authority granted to [the Department of Transportation] by Congress; is arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; and is contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity,” Texas’s lawyers wrote in a complaint filed in federal district court in Lubbock. “The Court must vacate the Final Rule.”
The Federal Highway Administration declined to comment on the lawsuit. Paxton’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Democratic officials and environmental groups since the Obama administration have been pushing to require states to track emissions and set targets. They have argued that requiring the goals would be a reflection of how choices by state transportation agencies affect whether Americans choose to drive or use other, greener ways of getting around. A number of state transportation departments backed the new rule, but others argued they have only limited ability to shape people’s behavior.
The dispute underscores the difficulty of quickly reducing emissions from transportation in a heavily car-dependent country — even as manufacturers begin the switch to battery-powered vehicles — and the limited ability Biden administration officials have to influence the priorities of the states. In its lawsuit, Texas argued that bringing down emissions would be disruptive to drivers.
“To achieve declining targets year over year would require substantial changes to how the citizens of Texas use the Interstate and National Highway System and would drastically impact the economy because Texas has major national and international ports and distribution centers,” the state wrote.
Republican lawmakers have said they explicitly declined to include authority for a greenhouse gas rule in the 2021 infrastructure law. But Biden administration officials concluded they had the power to create the system under existing laws, announcing regulations before Thanksgiving and giving states until February to set their initial targets. State transportation departments would be required to track their progress by calculating carbon emissions based on sales of gas and diesel.
Shailen Bhatt, the federal highway administrator, said in November that he was confident the system would survive any legal challenge.
“We feel that we’re absolutely within our authority,” Bhatt said. “We would not have moved forward if we didn’t feel we had the authority.”
Texas is urging a judge to reject the Federal Highway Administration’s legal reasoning and throw out the rules, saying the state would be harmed if they are allowed to go into force.
“Congress has not authorized it to consider climate change for the purposes of implementing performance measures,” the state wrote.
The rules are part of an ongoing effort by the Transportation Department under President Biden to nudge state transportation agencies to adopt environmental goals. The infrastructure law provided tens of billions in new transportation funding, but much of it is passed directly to the states, and federal officials have limited say over how it is spent.
State officials have pushed back against previous attempts by officials in Washington to influence their priorities, with some challenging a guidance memo the highway administration issued shortly after the passage of the infrastructure law urging states to prioritize maintenance over new road construction. The memo was rescinded after a review by the Government Accountability Office left it vulnerable to a challenge in Congress.
