California Crush

Why the Supreme Court's decision against California's climate crusade matters:

Court watchers are familiar with the Article III standing requirements that every lawsuit must meet: injury, causation, and redressability. Kavanaugh’s opinion is thick with economic math from California’s filings, which predict multi-billion-dollar drops in gasoline demand over the next decade; see supremecourt.gov. That evidence, plus the commonsense link between mandating electric vehicles and selling less fuel, persuaded the Court that the challengers were not crying wolf. This was no minor technicality. Environmental activists wanted the Court to erect a procedural fence that would keep most industry plaintiffs out for lack of “direct” harm. The conservative majority refused, and even uber-liberal Justice Elena Kagan quietly joined five Republican appointees and Chief Justice John Roberts. .... The Economic Stakes in Plain English Imagine a lemonade stand that must compete with a city-owned juice bar offering free drinks paid for by ratepayers. Few neighborhood kids will buy your lemonade. That's how Valero and ethanol farmers view California’s rulebook: a direct subsidy for electric vehicle makers disguised as environmental virtue. The Court agreed that if the city hands out free juice, the lemonade kid can sue. Billions ride on this fight. California alone accounts for roughly 10% of U.S. gasoline demand. Suppose every major state copied its zero-emission mandate; refined fuel demand could crater. Ethanol producers in Iowa, biodiesel plants in Texas, and refinery workers in Pennsylvania all see existential threats. Friday’s ruling gives them a chance to plead their case before a judge rather than a bureaucrat.

Put the law where it belongs...