This article was republished with permission from WTOP’s news partners at .聽Sign up for today.
Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown has filed or signed onto聽聽by states challenging Trump administration actions.
But not this one.
When California聽聽last week to defend its ability to set tougher vehicle emission standards 鈥� standards aimed at speeding adoption of electric vehicles 鈥� 10 states that had adopted the standards quickly joined the suit. Even though Maryland has adopted the California rules, it did not join.
A spokesperson for Brown said the attorney general鈥檚 office聽is 鈥渕onitoring the California lawsuit while we assess the best path for the State to remain vigilant in enforcing standards that will help us achieve these climate goals.鈥�
鈥淗ere in Maryland, we have made it a priority to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, setting ambitious goals to preserve our clean air and water,鈥� wrote Kelsey Hartman, the spokesperson.
But environmental groups, still smarting from Gov. Wes Moore鈥檚 (D) decision in April to delay penalties under聽the California rules, were not pleased by Brown鈥檚 hesitation.
鈥淚f it is a 鈥榩riority鈥� for Maryland to reduce greenhouse gases, then we should be first in line to sue over the Trump effort to remove our legal right to require cleaner cars,鈥� said Mike Tidwell, executive director of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, in a statement.聽鈥淚nstead we are completely missing in action on one of the most important climate lawsuits of the Trump era.鈥�
Tidwell called it 鈥渋nconceivable that Attorney General Brown is not joining California and ten other Clean Car states in fighting President Trump in court.鈥�
The Maryland chapter of the Sierra Club urged the state to join California鈥檚 suit 鈥渁nd use every other tool at its disposal to defend our clean vehicle programs.鈥� Lindsey Mendelson, the club鈥檚 senior transportation campaign representative, said in a statement that it鈥檚聽important for Maryland to help keep the California regulations 鈥渙n the books,鈥� saying the congressional votes upending the program were 鈥渃learly unlawful.鈥�
President Donald Trump has issued聽聽to roll back clean energy programs, including a freeze on billions of dollars for states to build electric vehicle charging stations along key highways under the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program. Maryland joined 15 other states to聽聽in court.
The action reining in the California regulations was an act of Congress, not an executive order.
Ram贸n Palencia-Calvo, senior director for Chispa Maryland, a program of the Maryland League of Conservation Voters, said Tuesday the league is 鈥渟till trying to seek clarification鈥� on why Brown had not joined California鈥檚 suit. While it鈥檚 still possible Maryland could join the suit, Palencia-Calvo said, the EV rules are 鈥渒ey programs鈥� for reducing climate pollution, particularly in vulnerable communities that tend to surround busy state highways.
鈥淗ere at Maryland LCV, we continue to support implementation of these two programs,鈥� he said.
It鈥檚 not the first disappointment this year for Maryland advocates over the聽California rules.
In April, Moore issued an executive order that allows the state to聽聽for car manufacturers that do not meet sales targets that were set to kick in next year with the introduction of model year 2027 electric vehicles.
翱谤颈驳颈苍补濒濒测,听聽sold in Maryland in model year 2027 were supposed to be zero-emission. Under Moore鈥檚 order, penalties would not be applied for the 2027 and 2028 model years, unless California officials reach a new agreement on the rule鈥檚 requirements with car manufacturers representing at least 40% of the market share.
The order did not change the ultimate goal of the program, which is to require that聽聽in the state by model year 2035 be electric.
Administration officials noted that, as of 2024, EV sales聽聽of new car purchases in Maryland, according to the Maryland Department of Transportation. Moore鈥檚 order relaxing the penalties was needed to give 鈥渕anufacturers, dealers, and Marylanders a fair shot to prepare鈥� for the higher sale targets, they said.
Maryland auto dealers had expressed concern that car manufacturers would send fewer vehicles to the state in order to ensure that the percentage of EVs would be high enough to meet the state鈥檚 target. State officials had previously argued that manufacturers could trade credits with one another to significantly reduce their obligations.
In May, with California鈥檚 Advanced Clean Cars program under fire, Moore joined聽聽in an 鈥淎ffordable Clean Cars Coalition鈥� to 鈥渟ustain America鈥檚 transition to cleaner and more affordable cars, support U.S. automotive manufacturers and workers, and preserve states鈥� clean air authority,鈥� according to a Department of the Environment news release.
Moore鈥檚 April executive order also created a working group to study how the Advanced Clean Cars rule can be 鈥渟uccessfully implemented鈥� in Maryland.
Peter Kitzmiller, president of the Maryland Auto Dealer鈥檚 Association, said he is excited for that group to convene, because his members are eager to sell EVs, having already invested in the vehicles and their charging technology.
鈥淲e have to sell these vehicles and we need to sell them in bigger numbers than we鈥檙e doing,鈥� Kitzmiller said. 鈥淲e鈥檝e got to get a return on our investment.鈥�
Kitzmiller said he is also concerned about other federal action on EVs, including the possible end to a $7,500 tax credit for buyers. That loss could drive EV purchases down in the short term, he said, but he is hoping that any decline would be temporary.
鈥淭hat鈥檚 going to be the thing to look at: What鈥檚 the impact going to be on the market?鈥� Kitzmiller said.
The California rules were aimed at helping create a market for EVs. In order to set emissions standards stricter than the federal government鈥檚, California receives a waiver from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Under that authority, California has set the EV sales rules.
But the Republican-led Congress adopted resolutions disproving of the waivers under the Congressional Review Act. Trump signed the measures June 12, saying聽聽that the resolutions were 鈥渆nding the electric vehicle mandate for good.鈥�
鈥淚t is the Federal Government, not States, that should establish vehicle emissions standards given the inherently interstate nature of air quality; a patchwork of State vehicle regulations on this subject is unworkable,鈥� Trump wrote. 鈥淥ur Constitution does not allow one State special status to create standards that limit consumer choice and impose an electric vehicle mandate upon the entire Nation.鈥�
In its lawsuit, California argued that the Congressional Review Act could not be used to overturn its waivers, because the waiver decisions are not considered formal federal rules.
鈥淭he CRA has never before been used in any context that resembles this one. It has certainly never been used, as it was here, to negate particular state laws,鈥� reads the lawsuit, which was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
The suit says the review act was simply an end run around the lengthy process of rolling back the waivers through an administrative process at EPA, which Trump did during his first administration. Congressional leaders and administration officials 鈥渢ook these unprecedented steps because they saw the CRA as a quick and easy way to 鈥榯ake 鈥� down鈥� California鈥檚 regulations,鈥� the lawsuit said.
Kitzmiller said he was 鈥渁 little surprised鈥� not to see Maryland on the list of litigants beside California.
But he said he 鈥渨ouldn鈥檛 read too much into it.鈥� It was always expected that California would lead the litigation countering the Trump administration鈥檚 efforts to end the program, Kitzmiller said.
鈥淚t doesn鈥檛 mean that Maryland doesn鈥檛 care about EVs, or anything like that,鈥� he said.
