EMA Regulatory Alert: EMA and NACS Urge EPA to Repeal Unlawful GHG Standards

EMA and the National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS) have submitted joint comments to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) supporting its proposal to repeal greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards for light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles. While highlighting the economic value of fuel distributors and retailers, the Associations argued that current GHG standards function as a de facto national electric vehicle (EV) mandate, exceed EPA’s authority under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), and rest on an arbitrary rulemaking process that ignored essential inputs for a defensible cost-benefit analysis. On those grounds, EMA and NACS urged for a repeal.

De Facto EV Mandates Exceed EPA’s Legal Authority

The Associations highlighted two principal legal flaws with the GHG standards. First, by effectively mandating a nationwide transition to EVs, the standards impose sweeping economic and political consequences without clear congressional authorization. Under the “major questions doctrine,” agencies may not undertake actions of vast significance without clear statutory authority. Section 202 of the CAA provides no such authorization. EMA and NACS stressed that EPA’s action mirrors the unlawful “generation shifting” regulatory approach of the GHG emission standards in the power sector struck down by the Supreme Court in West Virginia v. EPA.

Second, the CAA authorizes EPA to regulate emissions from individual motor vehicles, not through fleetwide averaging mechanisms. Yet the GHG standards rely on a fleetwide system that incorporates EVs as “zero-emission” vehicles, despite EVS not emitting pollutants at the tailpipe. Section 202 makes clear that EPA’s authority extends only to “the emission of any air pollutant” from motor vehicles. EVs, by definition, fall outside that scope, making EPA’s reliance on them in a fleetwide average unlawful.

Arbitrary and Capricious Rulemaking

Beyond exceeding its authority, EPA’s rulemaking process was arbitrary and capricious in at least two key respects:

• Flawed Cost-Benefit Analysis: EPA understated the cost of EVs and overstated consumer benefits. It projected incremental vehicle costs of only a few thousand dollars, despite real-world EV-ICE price differentials often being substantially higher. The analysis also assumed the longevity of federal EV incentives that are set to expire at the end of the month. Notably, EPA also ignored lifecycle emissions from EV battery production and electricity generation, treating EVs as “zero emission” technologies based solely on tailpipe performance. EMA has consistently argued that such omissions violate EPA’s obligation to take a hard look at all relevant factors, including a full account of the costs and benefits of regulation.
• Failure to Consider Alternatives: EPA dismissed renewable and advanced liquid fuels that could deliver meaningful emissions reductions without forcing consumers into costly new EV purchases.

Fuel Distributors and Retailers Interests

EMA and NACS underscored that their members are invested in a broad array of transportation energy technologies, emphasizing that regulatory policy should remain technology-neutral, enabling market forces to drive innovation and reduce emissions most efficiently. By mandating EV adoption, the GHG standards not only suppress innovation and consumer choice but also threaten inflationary impacts while undermining the economic viability of the fuel marketing industry.

Following the Supreme Court’s recent recognition that fuel stakeholders have constitutional standing to challenge EV mandates, it is imperative for distributors and retailers to have a unified voice in automotive standards. Repealing the current standards would help moderate electrification pressures and ease downward impacts on liquid fuel demand.

“EMA will remain engaged on behalf of energy marketers to ensure that any policy shift preserves consumer choice and ensures a level playing field for our vital industry,” said EMA President Rob Underwood. “We value our coalition with NACS and will continue to highlight industry interests while supporting a lawful approach to automotive standards.”

Click here to read the comment letter.

Inside the Beltway Update

Activity in DC this week is overshadowed by a looming possibility of a partial government shutdown, as both the House and Senate failed to agree on a short-term funding bill, leaving only days before the September 30 deadline. Last Friday, the House narrowly passed a continuing resolution (CR) to fund the government through November 20. To avoid a government shutdown, the Senate must pass the CR prior to government funding expiring at midnight on September 30. The House and Senate were on Recess this week, and the Senate is expected to consider the CR when they return to Session on Monday. Questions remain whether Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) can secure the seven Democratic votes to meet the 60-vote threshold to pass the CR.

Meanwhile, the Trump Administration is advancing broad spending cuts. DOE canceled $13 billion in clean energy funding and is reviewing $15 billion in Biden-era awards. Energy Secretary Chris Wright defended the move as relief from costly subsidies driving up electricity prices. DOE also plans to use emergency powers to keep aging fossil-fuel plants online, citing grid reliability and AI-driven power demand. Critics argue this raises consumer costs and overextends federal authority; Michigan is challenging the orders in court.

In preparation for a possible government shutdown, The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) ordered agencies to draft reduction-in-force (RIF) plans for permanent layoffs. This is a shift from past shutdowns when workers were furloughed and later recalled. Directed by OMB Director Russ Vought, the memo targets programs dependent on discretionary funds and not aligned with President Trump’s priorities, using the threat of job cuts to pressure Democrats in funding talks. Essential services would continue, but other positions could be permanently eliminated if funding lapses on October 1. Democrats called the move intimidation, while OMB said plans will be unnecessary if Congress passes a stopgap bill.

Meanwhile, President Trump announced a series of new tariff actions through posts on his Truth Social account, all of which we expect are being undertaken pursuant to Section 232 investigations announced earlier this year. The President specifically called out heavy trucks:

Effective October 1, the United States will impose a 25% tariff on all imports of heavy trucks. President Trump did not reference medium-duty trucks, medium- and heavy-duty truck parts, and their derivative products, which together with heavy-duty trucks were the subject of a Section 232 investigation launched earlier this year.

USDA Proposes to Increase SNAP Stocking Requirements

On Wednesday, Secretary of Agriculture Brooke L. Rollins announced that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) is proposing to strengthen the stocking requirements for retailers participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Currently, SNAP retailers are required to stock three varieties of food in each of four staple food categories – dairy, protein, grain, and fruits and vegetables – 12 foods total. The proposed rule:

• Increases variety requirements to seven per staple food category, possibly making it harder for retailers to abide by the new requirements, especially smaller sized convenience stores,
• Closes loopholes that allow certain snack foods to count as staple foods,
• Simplifies how foods are classified, making the standards easier for retailers to understand and FNS to enforce according to the Trump Administration.

USDA reports that nearly 266,000 retailers redeem $96 billion in SNAP benefits per year. The proposed changes support the Trump Administration’s promise to turn the tide on chronic disease and Make America Healthy Again. USDA is actively reorienting SNAP towards better nutrition and emphasizing whole, healthy food for program participants. This includes approving 12 states to exclude certain unhealthy foods from purchase with SNAP benefits.

EMA will provide comments outlining concerns with the stocking proposal prior to the November 24, 2025 deadline. The full text of the rule is available on the FNS website.

EMA’s Fall Meeting at the NACS Show 2025 - October 13-14
Website and Registration Open!

EMA will hold its Fall Meeting in conjunction with the NACS Show on October 13-14 at the InterContinental Chicago Magnificent Mile. The EMA meeting will begin with a New Attendee Orientation/Federal Legislative Update mid-afternoon on October 13. The NACS/EMA Reception Salute to State Association Executives (all EMA members are welcome) will follow at the McCormick Place Convention Center in the Hunter Club Lounge. On the morning of October 14, there will be a Buffet Breakfast followed by Region and Committee Meetings. The EMA Board of Directors meeting is scheduled after the Distinguished Service Award Luncheon honoring Louisiana Marketer and EMA’s Past Chair Grady Gaubert sponsored by EMA Board of Director Council Partner Federated Insurance.

An invitation was sent to your inbox on September 7. Responding to the links on the invitation email is the recommended way to register. Housing registration deadline is September 19, 2025 (subject to change) for Sunday, October 12, rooms are sold out, for Monday, October 13, 92 percent is sold out, for Tuesday, October 14, 78 percent is sold out and for Wednesday, October 15, 79 percent is sold out so please do not delay in making plans! Members have access to all other hotels with availability in the block. If the general block has rooms, you will continue to see those options.

Remember, the NACS Show registration is separate from EMA’s Fall Meeting registration.

Special EMA Members Code for NACS Show 2025 Registration

Using the 2025EMANS code provides EMA with $100 for every retailer or marketer paid registration at any rate. EMA encourages EMA state execs to promote and share with your state association's member companies. Click here for the flyer.

**Please note that EMA state execs are comped for NACS Show registration. Additionally, the NACS Show registration is separate from EMA's Fall Meeting registration.

Click here for full instructions to register.

Questions registering for NACS Show? Contact NACS Show registration customer service at nacs@maritz.com or 469-513-9489, Monday-Friday, 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. EST, for assistance.

THANK YOU to EMA’s Partner Sponsors for Fall Meeting!

EMA wants to give a huge THANK YOU to our EMA Board of Directors Council and Executive Committee Council Corporate Partner Sponsors: Federated Insurance, Reynolds American, Altria Group Distribution Company, Marathon Petroleum Company LP, Philip Morris International, Valero Energy Corporation, StoneX Financial Inc., Citgo Petroleum Corporation, ExxonMobil, Chevron Renewable Energy Group, HF Sinclair Refining & Marketing, BP Products North America Inc. and Shell!

We appreciate the loyalty and support of each of our EMA Corporate Partners and their continuous commitment to the energy sector. For more information on our Partner Programs, please contact Rob Underwood.

Cash, Cash, Cash & More Cash: MDF Raffle Being Held During EMA’s Fall Meeting at the NACS Show

Get your EMA Marketers Defense Fund (MDF) raffle tickets now for a chance to win $1,000 in cash. The EMA MDF will hold a raffle during the Chicago, Illinois October 13-14 conference. The winner will be identified on October 14 and does not have to be present to win. If you are not attending the conference, you will be notified the week following the October drawing if you are the $1,000 “richer” raffle winner.

The proceeds of the raffle will benefit the EMA MDF. The EMA Marketers established the MDF to assure that the industry’s best interests are represented on the legislative and regulatory front. This fund has already effectively defeated regulatory initiatives such as proposed requirements to place the point of compliance for fuel quality at the retailer, to force a 10-micron diesel filter mandate as well as a costly wetlines retrofit and automatic temperature compensation (ATC) at retail.

A marketer can make corporate contributions by check or credit card to this program and there is no limit on the amount of contribution. All the money is used to support EMA lobbying goals. You can donate online by clicking here or scanning the QR code on the flyer.

Tickets are $25 each or five for $100. Advanced tickets are available until October 10. Ticket sales will continue at the Energy Marketers of America’s conference in Chicago until the drawing on October 14. Tickets can be purchased with personal or corporate funds by MasterCard, VISA, American Express, cash or check (checks should be made out to the Energy Marketers of America Marketer Defense Fund). To purchase advanced tickets before October 12, please email completed MDF Raffle flyer to Sabrina Pitcher.

Weekend Reads

Fed divide deepens as officials go public with rate views | yahoo!finance

Major automakers call for EPA to ease tailpipe emissions rules | MSN

Trump Admin Pulls The Plug On ‘Green New Scam,’ Returns $13 Billion To Taxpayers | MSN

Federated Insurance Employment Practices Network HR Question of the Month

Federated Insurance’s HR Question of the Month focuses on employment-related practices liability issues. This month’s question is: Different Perks for Different Employees. One of our high-level employees is requesting additional vacation hours. For example, if her kids have a day off from school, she wants extra vacation hours to spend time with them. She gets the same amount of vacation as everyone else at our company, and we don’t want other employees to claim that we’re being unfair or are discriminating if we give her more. However, we also don’t want to risk losing this valuable employee. Are we allowed to give one employee more vacation time than everyone else?

However, even if this kind of discrimination is not expressly unlawful, there can be significant issues associated with providing certain employees (or just one) with enhanced perks. Those who do not enjoy the perks may resent the employer for the differentiation, and this can lower morale and have consequences for employee relations. Additionally, even though an employer’s policy may appear neutral on its face, if it has a disproportionate effect upon a protected class of workers, there may be exposure to discrimination claims on a theory of disparate impact.

A claim in such a scenario may be able to be defended with evidence of legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for an exception (for example, sometimes employers need to provide enhanced vacation perks to attract or retain talent).That said, employee relations and potential discrimination risks exist even if the facts do not legally support such claim. In other words, while an employer is generally within its rights to establish different policies or provide an enhanced perk along neutral and legitimate lines, doing so may not necessarily be the best practice if there will be employee relations backlash as a result. Generally, it is best practice to have uniformity and consistency in company policies and perks.

For additional information or to discuss this in further detail, please contact your Federated regional representative or EMA’s National Account Executive Jack West at 262.719.7750 for any additional information or risk management questions. Federated is a Partner in EMA’s Board of Directors Council.

At Federated Insurance, It’s Our Business to Protect Yours®

The Question of the Month is provided by Zywave^®, a company wholly independent from Federated Insurance. Federated provides its clients access to this information through the Federated Employment Practices Network with the understanding that neither Federated nor its employees provide legal or employment advice. As such, Federated does not warrant the accuracy, adequacy, or completeness of the information herein. This information may be subject to restrictions and regulations in your state. Consult with your own qualified legal counsel regarding your specific facts and circumstances.