A new legal case in Maine targets the state’s electric vehicle (EV) policy, aiming to expedite climate action by holding the state accountable for not meeting emission targets. Filed by the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), Sierra Club, and Maine Youth Action, the lawsuit argues that the state has neglected its duty to enforce rules necessary for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, especially in the transportation sector. The case stands out for its specific focus on EV policies as a means to address broader climate goals.
Similar legal efforts have been observed in other states, although many have primarily targeted the energy sector. For instance, Massachusetts faced legal action for not adhering to its 2008 emissions law, and Hawaii recently settled a case requiring transportation sector decarbonization by 2045. Unlike those general approaches, the Maine suit narrows its focus to EV adoption, setting a precedent for addressing specific policy areas within broader climate laws.
Advocates Focus on EV Rulemaking
The 2019 Maine state law mandates a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 45% from 1990 levels by 2030 and 80% by 2050. Columbia Law School professor Michael Gerrard emphasized that regulations are crucial for translating these goals into actionable requirements for state agencies. Despite transportation being the largest source of Maine’s emissions, the state has failed to meet its EV targets, currently having only 12,300 EVs on the road compared to a goal of 41,000 by the next year.
CLF criticizes Maine’s decision against adopting California’s Advanced Clean Cars II rule, which would have enforced stricter EV sales standards. The state has also chosen not to consider the Advanced Clean Trucks rule, despite its climate action plan’s recommendations. The state’s climate roadmap explicitly supports Clean Cars II as essential for electrifying Maine’s light-duty vehicles over the next two decades.
State Says Harms Are Uncertain
Maine’s Attorney General’s office moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the state’s climate law does not obligate regulators to adopt specific recommendations from the climate plan. The state has enacted some rules under the climate law, including emission tracking and energy efficiency measures for appliances. However, the state contends that the potential harms cited by the plaintiffs are too uncertain to require immediate regulatory action.
CLF’s response highlights various climate-related harms already experienced by its members, ranging from health issues to agricultural damage. The organization insists that enforceable standards are necessary to ensure accountability and complement existing investments and outreach efforts. Gerrard noted that delays in emission reductions exacerbate the problem and that binding rules are essential for meaningful progress.
Experts observe that focused lawsuits like Maine’s can be more effective than broader legal challenges. Past cases, such as the 2016 Massachusetts suit and Hawaii’s recent settlement, demonstrate the impact of targeted legal action on state climate policies. While broad lawsuits risk becoming entangled in political debates, narrower cases grounded in state law are likely to succeed. Gerrard and other experts suggest that state-level cases are often easier to argue than federal ones, given the specificity of state statutes.
Beyond legal victories, such lawsuits can significantly influence public opinion and awareness. Though federal cases like Juliana v. United States have not succeeded in court, they have highlighted the urgent need for climate action. Recent trends indicate a growing success rate among climate lawsuits as plaintiffs refine their strategies. However, courts remain a challenging venue for rapid systemic change, necessitating continued legal and public advocacy efforts.
In Maine, initial attempts by climate groups to push for Clean Cars II through regulatory petitions were unsuccessful, leading to the current lawsuit. The outcome of this case could set a significant precedent for future state-level climate litigation and policy enforcement.
