Case 3:22-cv-02583 Document 1 Filed 04/28/22 Page 1 of 32

1 ROB BONTA
Attorney General of California
2 DAVID A. ZONANA
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
3 GEORGE TORGUN, State Bar No. 222085
Deputy Attorney General
4 1515 Clay Street, 20th Floor
P.O. Box 70550
5 Oakland, CA 94612-0550
Telephone: (510) 879-1002
6 Fax: (510) 622-2270
E-mail: [email protected]
7
Attorneys for Plaintiff State of California
8
[Additional counsel listed on signature page]
9
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11

12 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, STATE OF Case No. __________________

NEW YORK, COMMONWEALTH OF
13 PENNSYLVANIA, STATE OF
CONNECTICUT, STATE OF COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
14 DELAWARE, STATE OF ILLINOIS, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
STATE OF MAINE, STATE OF
15 MARYLAND, PEOPLE OF THE STATE
OF MICHIGAN, STATE OF NEW
16 JERSEY, STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, STATE
17 OF OREGON, STATE OF RHODE
ISLAND, STATE OF VERMONT, STATE
18 OF WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, CITY OF NEW YORK, and
19 the BAY AREA AIR QUALITY
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT,
20 Plaintiffs,
v.
21
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,
22 and LOUIS DEJOY, in his official capacity
as United States Postmaster General,
23
Defendants.
24

25 INTRODUCTION
26 1. The United States Postal Service has one of the largest civilian vehicle fleets in the

27 world. Its vehicles are on the road, six days a week, in every community in the United States.

28 While they play a critical role delivering the nation’s mail, these vehicles also pollute the air in
1
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
 Case 3:22-cv-02583 Document 1 Filed 04/28/22 Page 2 of 32

1 the communities where they operate and emit significant amounts of greenhouse gases. As its

2 current vehicle fleet nears the end of its useful life, the Postal Service has been presented with a

3 tremendous opportunity to convert its fleet to zero-emission, electric vehicles, a change that

4 would alleviate pollution in overburdened communities and help tackle the climate crisis.

5 2. Given the transformational nature of this change and its significant environmental and

6 public health implications, the Postal Service was obligated to follow a process mandated by the

7 National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 4321, et seq., to take a “hard look” at

8 the impacts of its “Next Generation Delivery Vehicle Acquisitions” program – to look before it

9 leaps. The Postal Service failed to do so here. Instead, the Postal Service first chose a

10 manufacturer with minimal experience in producing electric vehicles, signed a contract, and made

11 a substantial down payment for new vehicles. Only then did the Postal Service publish a cursory

12 environmental review to justify the decision to replace 90 percent of its delivery fleet with fossil-

13 fuel-powered, internal combustion engine vehicles, despite other available, environmentally

14 preferable alternatives. In doing so, the Postal Service failed to comply with even the most basic

15 requirements of NEPA.

16 3. In particular, the Postal Service violated well-established legal precedent prohibiting

17 “an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources” before completing the NEPA process

18 by signing contracts with a defense company (Oshkosh Defense, LLC) to procure vehicles six

19 months before even releasing its draft environmental review, and a year prior to issuing the Final

20 Environmental Impact Statement (“Final EIS”) and Record of Decision.

21 4. The Postal Service also failed to consider and evaluate reasonable alternatives to its

22 action. During its environmental review, the Postal Service put forward a proposed action that

23 would largely continue the status quo by replacing 90 percent of its fleet with fossil-fuel powered,

24 internal combustion engine vehicles. The Postal Service then evaluated only 10 percent electric

25 and 100 percent electric vehicle options, while arbitrarily rejecting any consideration of fleets

26 with a larger mix of electric vehicles.

27 5. The Postal Service further failed to take the required “hard look” at these alternatives.

28 Specifically, the Postal Service did not properly evaluate several environmental impacts of its
2
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
 Case 3:22-cv-02583 Document 1 Filed 04/28/22 Page 3 of 32

1 action, including air quality, environmental justice, and climate harms, by simply assuming that

2 any upgrade to its vehicle fleet would have positive impacts on the environment.

3 6. The Postal Service also failed to ensure the scientific integrity of its analysis by

4 relying on unfounded assumptions regarding the costs and performance of electric vehicles,

5 infrastructure, and gas prices, and refusing to identify the source of the data relied upon in the

6 Final EIS.

7 7. Finally, the Postal Service failed to consider inconsistencies of its Preferred

8 Alternative with Plaintiffs’ laws and policies to reduce fossil fuel consumption and to electrify the

9 transportation sector.

10 8. Accordingly, Plaintiffs State of California, State of New York, Commonwealth of

11 Pennsylvania, State of Connecticut, State of Delaware, State of Illinois, State of Maine, State of

12 Maryland, People of the State of Michigan, State of New Jersey, State of New Mexico, State of

13 North Carolina, State of Oregon, State of Rhode Island, State of Vermont, State of Washington,

14 District of Columbia, the City of New York, and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District

15 (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) seek a declaration that the Postal Service’s Final EIS and Record of

16 Decision for its Next Generation Delivery Vehicle Acquisitions program violated NEPA, request

17 that the Court vacate and set aside the Final EIS and Record of Decision, and enjoin actions by

18 the Postal Service under its Next Generation Delivery Vehicle Acquisitions program until it has

19 complied with NEPA.

20 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

21 9. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (action arising under the

22 laws of the United States), 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (civil action against the United States), 39 U.S.C.

23 § 401 (authorizing suits against the Postal Service), and 39 U.S.C. § 409 (suits by and against the

24 Postal Service). An actual controversy exists between the parties within the meaning of 28

25 U.S.C. § 2201(a), and this Court may grant declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and other relief

26 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–02 and its equitable powers.

27 10. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(C) and 39 U.S.C.

28 § 409 because this is the judicial district in which Plaintiffs State of California and the Bay Area
3
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
 Case 3:22-cv-02583 Document 1 Filed 04/28/22 Page 4 of 32

1 Air Quality Management District reside, and this action seeks relief against agencies and/or

2 officers of the United States.

3 11. Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 3-5(b) and 3-2(c), there is no basis for assignment of

4 this action to any particular location or division of this Court.

5 PARTIES
6 12. Plaintiff STATE OF CALIFORNIA brings this action by and through Attorney

7 General Rob Bonta. The Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer of the State and

8 has the authority to file civil actions in order to protect public rights and interests, including

9 actions to protect the natural resources of the State. Cal. Const. art. V, § 13; Cal. Gov’t Code

10 §§ 12511, 12600-12612. This challenge is brought in part pursuant to the Attorney General’s

11 independent constitutional, statutory, and common law authority to represent the people’s

12 interests in protecting the environment and natural resources of the State of California from

13 pollution, impairment, or destruction. Id.; D’Amico v. Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, 11 Cal. 3d 1 (1974).

14 13. Plaintiff STATE OF NEW YORK brings this action by and through Attorney General

15 Letitia James. The Attorney General is the chief legal officer of the State of New York and

16 brings this action on behalf of the State and its citizens and residents to protect their interests, and

17 in furtherance of the State’s sovereign and proprietary interests in the conservation and protection

18 of the State’s natural resources and the environment.

19 14. Plaintiff the COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA is a sovereign state of the

20 United States of America. This action is brought on behalf of the Commonwealth by Attorney

21 General Josh Shapiro, the “chief law officer of the Commonwealth.” Pa. Const. art. IV, § 4.1.

22 Attorney General Shapiro brings this action on behalf of the Commonwealth pursuant to his

23 statutory authority. 71 Pa. Stat. § 732-204.

24 15. Plaintiff STATE OF CONNECTICUT brings this action by and through Attorney

25 General William Tong. The Attorney General of Connecticut is generally authorized to have

26 supervision over all legal matters in which the State of Connecticut is a party. He is also

27 statutorily authorized to appear for the State “in all suits and other civil proceedings, except upon

28 criminal recognizances and bail bonds, in which the State is a party or is interested ... in any court
4
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
 Case 3:22-cv-02583 Document 1 Filed 04/28/22 Page 5 of 32

1 or other tribunal, as the duties of his office require; and all such suits shall be conducted by him

2 or under his direction.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 3-125.

3 16. Plaintiff STATE OF DELAWARE is a sovereign state of the United States of

4 America. This action is brought on behalf of the State of Delaware by Attorney General Kathleen

5 Jennings, the “chief law officer of the State.” Darling Apartment Co. v. Springer, 22 A.2d 397,

6 403 (Del. 1941). Attorney General Jennings also brings this action on behalf of the State of

7 Delaware pursuant to her statutory authority. Del. Code Ann. tit. 29, § 2504.

8 17. Plaintiff STATE OF ILLINOIS brings this action by and through Attorney General

9 Kwame Raoul. The Attorney General is the chief legal officer of the State of Illinois (Ill. Const.,

10 art V, § 15) and “has the prerogative of conducting legal affairs for the State.” EPA v. Pollution

11 Control Bd., 372 N.E.2d 50, 51 (Ill. Sup. Ct. 1977). He has common law authority to represent

12 the People of the State of Illinois and “an obligation to represent the interests of the People so as

13 to ensure a healthful environment for all the citizens of the State.” People v. NL Indus., 604

14 N.E.2d 349, 358 (Ill. Sup. Ct. 1992).

15 18. Plaintiff STATE OF MAINE brings this action by and through its Attorney General,

16 Aaron M. Frey. The Attorney General of Maine is a constitutional officer with the authority to

17 represent the State of Maine in all matters and serves as its chief legal officer with general charge,

18 supervision, and direction of the State’s legal business. Me. Const. art. IX, Sec. 11; Me. Rev.

19 Stat. tit. 5, §§ 191 et seq. The Attorney General’s powers and duties include acting on behalf of

20 the State and the people of Maine in the federal courts on matters of public interest. The Attorney

21 General has the authority to file suit to challenge action by the federal government that threatens

22 the public interest and welfare of Maine residents as a matter of constitutional, statutory, and

23 common law authority.

24 19. Plaintiff STATE OF MARYLAND brings this action by and through its Attorney

25 General, Brian E. Frosh. The Attorney General of Maryland is the State’s chief legal officer with

26 general charge, supervision, and direction of the State’s legal business. Under the Constitution of

27 Maryland, and as directed by the Maryland General Assembly, the Attorney General has the

28 authority to file suit to challenge action by the federal government that threatens the public
5
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
 Case 3:22-cv-02583 Document 1 Filed 04/28/22 Page 6 of 32

1 interest and welfare of Maryland residents. Md. Const. art. V, § 3(a)(2); Md. Code Ann., State

2 Gov’t § 6-106.1.

3 20. By and through Michigan State Attorney General Dana Nessel, Plaintiff PEOPLE OF

4 THE STATE OF MICHIGAN brings this action to defend their sovereign and proprietary

5 interests. MCL 14.28. Conserving Michigan’s natural resources is of “paramount public

6 concern.” Mich. Const. art IV, § 52.

7 21. Plaintiff STATE OF NEW JERSEY is a sovereign state of the United States of

8 America and brings this action on behalf of itself and as a trustee, guardian and representative of

9 the residents and citizens of New Jersey. The Attorney General is authorized to file civil suits to

10 vindicate the State’s rights and interests, and as he deems necessary to protect the public. N.J.

11 Stat. Ann. § 52:17A-4; Alexander v. New Jersey Power & Light Co., 21 N.J. 373, 380 (1956);

12 N.J. Stat. Ann. § 23:2A-2. Acting Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin brings this action in

13 defense of the State’s sovereign interest to protect the public health and the environment.

14 22. Plaintiff STATE OF NEW MEXICO brings this action by and through Attorney

15 General Hector Balderas. The Attorney General of New Mexico is authorized to prosecute in any

16 court or tribunal all actions and proceedings, civil or criminal, when, in his judgment, the interest

17 of the State requires such action. NMSA 1978, § 8-5-2. Under the Constitution of New Mexico,

18 “protection of the state’s beautiful and healthful environment is ... declared to be of fundamental

19 importance to the public interest, health, safety and the general welfare.” N.M. Const. art. XX,

20 § 21. This provision “recognizes that a public trust duty exists for the protection of New

21 Mexico’s natural resources ... for the benefit of the people of this state.” Sanders-Reed ex rel.

22 Sanders-Reed v. Martinez, 350 P.3d 1221, 1225 (N.M. Ct. App. 2015).

23 23. Plaintiff STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA brings this action by and through

24 Attorney General Joshua H. Stein. The North Carolina Attorney General is the chief legal officer

25 of the State of North Carolina. The Attorney General is empowered to appear for the State of

26 North Carolina “in any cause or matter … in which the state may be a party or interested.” N.C.

27 Gen. Stat. § 114-2(1). Moreover, the Attorney General is authorized to bring actions on behalf of

28 the citizens of the state in “all matters affecting the public interest.” Id. § 114-2(8)(a).
6
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
 Case 3:22-cv-02583 Document 1 Filed 04/28/22 Page 7 of 32

1 24. Plaintiff STATE OF OREGON brings this suit by and through Attorney General

2 Ellen Rosenblum. The Oregon Attorney General is the chief legal officer of the State of Oregon.

3 The Attorney General’s duties include acting in federal court on matters of public concern and

4 upon request by any State officer when, in the discretion of the Attorney General, the action may

5 be necessary or advisable to protect the interests of the State. Ore. Rev. Stat. § 180.060(1).

6 25. Plaintiff STATE OF RHODE ISLAND brings this action by and through Attorney

7 General Peter F. Neronha. The Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer of the State

8 and has the authority to file civil actions in order to protect public rights and interests, including

9 actions to protect the natural resources of the State. R.I. Const. art. I, § 17; R.I. Gen. Laws R.I.

10 § 10-20-1, et seq. This challenge is brought in part pursuant to the Attorney General’s

11 independent constitutional, statutory, and common law authority to represent the people’s

12 interests in protecting the environment and natural resources of the State of Rhode Island from

13 pollution, impairment, or destruction. Id.; Newport Realty, Inc. v. Lynch, 878 A.2d 1021 (R.I.

14 2005).

15 26. Plaintiff STATE OF VERMONT brings this action by and through Attorney General

16 Thomas J. Donovan, Jr. The Attorney General is the chief legal officer of the State of Vermont.

17 See Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 3, § 152 (“The Attorney General may represent the State in all civil and

18 criminal matters as at common law and as allowed by statute.”). Vermont is a sovereign entity

19 and brings this action to protect its own sovereign and proprietary rights. The Attorney General’s

20 powers and duties include acting in federal court on matters of public concern. This challenge is

21 brought pursuant to the Attorney General’s independent constitutional, statutory, and common

22 law authority to bring suit and obtain relief on behalf of the State of Vermont.

23 27. Plaintiff STATE OF WASHINGTON is a sovereign entity and brings this action to

24 protect its sovereign and proprietary rights by and through its Attorney General, Robert W.

25 Ferguson. The Attorney General is the chief legal adviser to the State of Washington, and his

26 powers and duties include acting in federal court on matters of public concern. See WASH. REV.

27 CODE § 43.10.030. This challenge is brought pursuant to the Attorney General’s statutory

28 authority to bring suit and obtain relief on behalf of the State of Washington.
7
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
 Case 3:22-cv-02583 Document 1 Filed 04/28/22 Page 8 of 32

1 28. Plaintiff the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA is a municipal corporation empowered to

2 sue and be sued and is the local government for the territory constituting the permanent seat of the

3 government of the United States. The District is represented by and through its chief legal

4 officer, the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Attorney General Karl Racine. The

5 Attorney General has general charge and conduct of all legal business of the District and all suits

6 initiated by and against the District and is responsible for upholding the public interest. D.C.

7 Code § 1-301.81(a)(1).

8 29. Plaintiff the CITY OF NEW YORK brings this action by and through the Corporation

9 Counsel Hon. Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix. The Corporation Counsel is the chief legal officer of the

10 City of New York and brings this action on behalf of the City and its residents to protect New

11 York City’s sovereign and proprietary interest in the conservation and protection of its natural

12 resources and the environment and the health of its residents. See New York City Charter Chap.

13 17, § 394.

14 30. Plaintiff BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (“BAAQMD”),

15 acting to protect the public health, welfare, and resources of the State of California, brings this

16 action by and through its Acting District Counsel, Adan A. Schwartz. BAAQMD is a body

17 corporate and politic, organized pursuant to Chapter 4 of Part 3 of Division 26 of the California

18 Health and Safety Code (“Health & Saf.”) with the power to bring this action in its own name and

19 on behalf of the People of the State of California. Health & Saf. Code §§ 40700, 40701 and

20 42403(a). BAAQMD is the governmental agency charged with the primary responsibility for

21 controlling air pollution from non-vehicular sources, adopting and enforcing BAAQMD rules and

22 regulations relating to air pollution, and maintaining healthy air quality in the San Francisco Bay

23 Area. Health & Saf. Code §§ 39002, 40000, 40200, 40702 and 42402.

24 31. Plaintiffs have a strong interest in preventing the adverse environmental and public

25 health impacts of fossil fuel development and combustion, including air quality degradation and

26 public health harms associated with the use of fossil fuel powered vehicles. Not only does the

27 transportation sector account for a significant percentage of emissions of both criteria pollutants

28 and greenhouse gases, but Postal Service facilities are often located within environmental justice
8
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
 Case 3:22-cv-02583 Document 1 Filed 04/28/22 Page 9 of 32

1 communities that are exposed to disproportionate emissions from mail delivery vehicles. For

2 example, in the San Francisco Bay Area, tailpipe emissions from 5.3 million light duty vehicles

3 account for approximately 31% of the region’s carbon monoxide and 12% of its nitrogen oxides,

4 as well as 28% of the region’s greenhouse gas emissions. The Postal Service operates a major

5 mail distribution facility at 675 7th Street in West Oakland, a site that contributes to the heavy

6 pollution burden already experienced in neighboring communities from industrial facilities, an

7 adjacent port, highways, and distribution centers. The Postal Service’s San Francisco Processing

8 & Distribution Center is located in the Bayview neighborhood, where the population is

9 predominantly Black, Hispanic or Latino, and Asian, and which is already overburdened by air

10 pollution and the related negative health effects from multiple industrial facilities operating in and

11 around the neighborhood.

12 32. Transportation is currently the largest in-state source of greenhouse gas emissions in

13 Delaware, as well as a significant source of carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, and particulate

14 matter, which disproportionately affects communities near highways and industrial centers.

15 33. Likewise, in New York City, a 2016 study estimated that fine particulate (PM 2.5)

16 emissions from vehicle traffic alone caused 320 premature deaths in the City each year (5,850 life

17 years lost), as well as 870 asthma-related emergency room visits and cardiovascular or respiratory

18 hospitalizations.1 The health impacts were especially severe in neighborhoods where poverty is

19 very high, such as East New York, Brooklyn, where a major Postal Service distribution facility is

20 located at 1050 Forbell Street. Those neighborhoods are burdened with 70% more PM 2.5

21 emissions from trucks and buses, and over eight times as many asthma-related emergency room

22 visits attributable to those emissions, compared to low poverty neighborhoods.

23 34. Plaintiffs also have a strong interest in preventing and mitigating harms that climate

24 change poses to human health and the environment, including increased heat-related deaths,

25 damaged coastal areas, increased wildfire risk, disrupted ecosystems, more severe weather events,

26
1
See Iyad Kheirbek, et al., The contribution of motor vehicle emissions to ambient fine
27 particulate matter public health impacts in New York City: a health burden assessment,
Environmental Health Vol. 15, Article 89 (2016), https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-016-0172-6
28 (article) and https://a816-dohbesp.nyc.gov/IndicatorPublic/Traffic/index.html (infographic).
9
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
 Case 3:22-cv-02583 Document 1 Filed 04/28/22 Page 10 of 32

1 and longer and more frequent droughts. See Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 521 (2007).

2 For example, California is already experiencing the adverse effects of climate change, including

3 increased risk of wildfires, a decline in the average annual snowpack that provides approximately

4 35 percent of the State’s water supply, increased erosion of beaches and low-lying coastal

5 properties from rising sea levels, and increased formation of ground-level ozone (also known as

6 smog), which is linked to asthma, heart attacks, and pulmonary problems, especially in children

7 and the elderly. In Washington, warmer temperatures have led to diminished snowpack, harming

8 downstream communities that rely on snowmelt for hydroelectric power, drinking water, and

9 agriculture. 2

10 35. For these reasons, among others, Plaintiffs have long been leaders in adopting laws

11 and plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and slow the pace of climate change, including

12 policies to promote the electrification of the transportation sector.

13 36. For example, California’s laws and plans include (1) California’s statutory target of

14 reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, Cal. Health &

15 Safety Code § 38566; (2) the California Air Resources Board’s plan to reduce fossil fuel

16 consumption by 45 percent by 2030 to meet this target; (3) California’s policies to phase out the

17 sale of new conventional passenger cars and trucks by 2035 and achieve 100% zero-emission

18 medium and heavy duty vehicle sales by 2045, Executive Order N-79-20; and (4) California’s

19 policy to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045, Executive Order B-55-18. Local requirements are

20 often complementary or stricter. For example, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District

21 has set a target that 90 percent of vehicles in the Bay Area should be zero emissions by 2050,

22 with an interim target of 1.5 million such vehicles by 2030. Access to electric vehicle charging

23 stations will increase as governments work to meet these targets.

24

25

26
2
27 See H.A. Roop, et al., Univ. Wash. Climate Impacts Group, Shifting Snowlines and Shorelines
(2020), https://cig.uw.edu/wp-
28 content/uploads/sites/2/2020/02/CIG_SnowlinesShorelinesReport_2020.pdf.
10
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
 Case 3:22-cv-02583 Document 1 Filed 04/28/22 Page 11 of 32

1 37. Connecticut must reduce the level of greenhouse gas emissions in the state by at least

2 45 percent below the 2001 level by 2030 and by at least 80 percent below the 2001 level by 2050.

3 Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-200a(a).

4 38. Pursuant to the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, New York must

5 reduce economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and at

6 least 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. See N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. L. § 75-0107(1).

7 39. Washington must reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions in the state by 45 percent

8 below 1990 levels by 2030. Wash. Rev. Code § 70A.45.020(1)(a)(ii).

9 40. In response to the dangers posed by greenhouse gases, New Mexico has enacted an

10 Energy Transition Act, which sets standards for electric utilities of 50% renewable energy by

11 2030, 80% by 2040, and zero-carbon resources by 2050.

12 41. Pennsylvania has adopted a Climate Action Plan to comply with the governor’s

13 commitment to reach a 26 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2025 and an 80 percent

14 reduction by 2050. Executive Order 2019-01. 3

15 42. In Rhode Island, these laws and plans include, among others: Rhode Island’s 2021

16 Act on Climate which, inter alia, mandates greenhouse gas emission reductions to forty-five

17 percent (45%) below 1990 levels by 2030; eighty percent (80%) below 1990 levels by 2040, and

18 to net-zero emissions by 2050. See R.I. Gen Laws § 42-6.2-9. As of 2026, there will be a

19 statutory right to bring actions, including actions against the State and its agencies, for failure to

20 comply with the 2021 Act on Climate. See R.I. Gen Laws § 42-6.2-9.

21 43. Effective June 1, 2022, Maryland law requires the State to reduce greenhouse gas

22 emissions 60 percent below 2006 levels by 2031, and to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas

23 emissions by 2045. Climate Solutions Now Act of 2022, 2022 Md. Laws, ch. 38, §§ 3-4.

24 44. The City of New York has committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions 80

25 percent below 2005 levels by 2050, see NYC Admin. Code § 24-803, and has issued numerous

26

27 3
https://www.governor.pa.gov/newsroom/executive-order-2019-01-commonwealth-leadership-
in-addressing-climate-change-and-promoting-energy-conservation-and-sustainable-governance/
28 and https://www.dep.pa.gov/Citizens/climate/Pages/PA-Climate-Action-Plan.aspx.
11
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
 Case 3:22-cv-02583 Document 1 Filed 04/28/22 Page 12 of 32

1 plans describing its path to achieving this goal, all of which call for increased electrification of the

2 transportation sector.

3 45. The Postal Service failed to consider the impacts of its decision on state and local

4 government laws and policies. The Postal Service’s procurement of a new gas-powered fleet will

5 adversely impact Plaintiffs by continuing substantial and unnecessary emissions of air pollutants,

6 including greenhouse gases; adversely affecting public health; and undermining and increasing

7 the costs of Plaintiffs’ efforts to address these critical problems.

8 46. Plaintiffs also rely upon the Postal Service’s compliance with the procedural

9 requirements of NEPA in order to obtain timely and accurate information about activities that

10 may have significant adverse effects on the environment, so that Plaintiffs and their residents can

11 meaningfully participate in the decisionmaking process. The Postal Service’s failure to comply

12 with NEPA adversely affects Plaintiffs by thwarting public participation and by failing to

13 adequately protect the environment. An adequate NEPA review that identifies and evaluates

14 those impacts would provide additional information that could result in a different decision

15 regarding the program – a termination of the program, modification of the program, or other

16 mitigations that would redress Plaintiffs’ injuries.

17 47. Therefore, Plaintiffs have suffered legal wrong because of the Postal Service’s action,

18 have been adversely aggrieved by the approval of the Final EIS and Record of Decision, and have

19 standing to bring this action.

20 48. Defendant UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE is “an independent establishment

21 of the executive branch” of the U.S. government, 39 U.S.C. § 201, and bears responsibility, in

22 whole or in part, for the acts complained of in this Complaint.

23 49. Defendant LOUIS DeJOY is the United States Postmaster General and bears

24 responsibility, in whole or in part, for the acts complained of in this Complaint.

25 STATUTORY BACKGROUND
26 I. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
27 50. NEPA “is our basic national charter for protection of the environment.” Ctr. for

28 Biological Diversity v. Bernhardt, 982 F.3d 723, 734 (9th Cir. 2020). NEPA has two
12
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
 Case 3:22-cv-02583 Document 1 Filed 04/28/22 Page 13 of 32

1 fundamental purposes: (1) to guarantee that an agency takes a “hard look” at the consequences of

2 its actions before the action occurs by ensuring that “the agency, in reaching its decision, will

3 have available, and will carefully consider, detailed information concerning significant

4 environmental impacts,” and (2) to ensure that “the relevant information will be made available to

5 the larger audience that may also play a role in both the decisionmaking process and the

6 implementation of that decision.” Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332,

7 349-50 (1989).

8 51. To achieve these purposes, NEPA requires the preparation of a detailed EIS for any

9 “major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” 42 U.S.C.

10 § 4332(2)(C). In preparing the EIS, NEPA requires federal agencies to take a “hard look,” which

11 involves considering the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of their proposed actions. Idaho

12 Sporting Cong. v. Rittenhouse, 305 F.3d 957, 973 (9th Cir. 2002). When a proposed action has a

13 potential adverse impact on minority or low-income populations, agencies should include an

14 environmental justice analysis as part of this “hard look” under NEPA. See Exec. Order No.

15 12898, § 1-101, 59 Fed. Reg. 7,629 (Feb. 16, 1994); Vecinos para el Bienestar de la Comunidad

16 Costera v. FERC, 6 F.4th 1321, 1330 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (reviewing challenge to agency’s

17 environmental justice analysis under NEPA). Moreover, “an agency may not rely on incorrect

18 assumptions or data.” Native Ecosystems Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 418 F.3d 953, 964 (9th

19 Cir. 2005). Fundamentally, these “disclosure requirement[s] obligate the agency to make

20 available to the public high quality information, including accurate scientific analysis, expert

21 agency comments and public scrutiny, before decisions are made and actions are taken.” Ctr. for

22 Bio. Diversity v. U.S. Forest Serv., 349 F.3d 1157, 1167 (9th Cir. 2003).

23 52. NEPA further requires that federal agencies provide a “detailed statement” regarding

24 the “alternatives to the proposed action.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C)(iii). This requirement “lies at

25 the heart of any NEPA analysis.” California ex rel. Lockyer v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 459 F. Supp.

26 2d 874, 905 (N.D. Cal. 2006). Agencies must explore and evaluate all reasonable alternatives

27 that relate to the purposes of the project, and must briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any

28 alternatives from detailed study. See 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14. The existence of “a viable but
13
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
 Case 3:22-cv-02583 Document 1 Filed 04/28/22 Page 14 of 32

1 unexamined alternative renders [an] environmental impact statement inadequate.” Muckleshoot

2 Indian Tribe v. U.S. Forest Serv., 177 F.3d 800, 814 (9th Cir. 1999).

3 53. A fundamental requirement of NEPA is that an agency must not commit resources to

4 a particular course of action prior to completing its environmental review. See 40 C.F.R.

5 § 1502.2(f) (“Agencies shall not commit resources prejudicing selection of alternatives before

6 making a final decision”), see also id. § 1506.1 (headed “Limitations on actions during NEPA

7 process”). The Ninth Circuit has construed this requirement “as requiring agencies to prepare

8 NEPA documents … before any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources.” Metcalf

9 v. Daley, 214 F.3d 1135, 1143 (9th Cir. 2000). “The point of commitment” constituting an

10 irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources can occur when an agency “sign[s] the

11 contract” with a project proponent “and then work[s] to effectuate the Agreement.” Id.

12 54. The Postal Service is an “independent establishment of the executive branch of the

13 Government of the United States,” 39 U.S.C. § 201, and, as an agency of the federal government,

14 the Postal Service is subject to the requirements of NEPA. 42 U.S.C. § 4332; 40 C.F.R. §

15 1500.3(a); see Akiak Native Cmty. v. U.S. Postal Serv., 213 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2000); Chelsea

16 Neighborhood Ass’ns v. U.S. Postal Serv., 516 F.2d 378 (2d Cir. 1975).

17 55. The Postal Service has recognized its NEPA obligations by, among other things,

18 promulgating agency-specific NEPA procedures in 39 C.F.R. Part 775, in which the Postal

19 Service recognizes its responsibilities to “[i]nterpret and administer applicable policies,

20 regulations, and public laws of the United States in accordance with the policies set forth in

21 [NEPA] and the NEPA Regulations . . . .” 39 C.F.R. §§ 775.2(a). These regulations stress that

22 the Postal Service’s policy is to “[e]mphasize environmental issues and alternatives in the

23 consideration of proposed actions,” to “identify and assess reasonable alternatives to proposed

24 actions in order to avoid or minimize adverse impacts on the environment,” and to “[u]se all

25 practicable means to protect, restore, and enhance the quality of the human environment.” Id. §

26 775.2(c), (e), (f). In addition, the regulations state that the consideration of alternatives in an EIS

27 “is vitally important.” Id. § 775.11(c)(5).

28
14
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
 Case 3:22-cv-02583 Document 1 Filed 04/28/22 Page 15 of 32

1 56. Courts review the Postal Service’s compliance with NEPA under an arbitrary and

2 capricious standard of review. See Akiak, 213 F.3d at 1144.

3 II. POSTAL SERVICE HISTORY, OPERATIONS, AND GOVERNING LAWS.

4 57. The United States Constitution empowers Congress to “establish Post Offices and

5 post Roads.” U.S. Const., art. I, § 8, cl. 7. In 1789, Congress established the first Post Office

6 under the Constitution and made the Postmaster General subject to the President’s direction. U.S.

7 Postal Serv., The United States Postal Service: An American History 1, 4 (2020),

8 https://about.usps.com/publications/pub100.pdf.

9 58. The Postal Service has played “a vital yet largely unappreciated role in the

10 development of” the United States. U.S. Postal Serv. v. Council of Greenburgh Civic Assocs.,

11 453 U.S. 114, 121 (1981). During the early years of this country’s development, “the Post Office

12 was to many citizens situated across the country the most visible symbol of national unity.” Id.

13 at 122. Since its beginnings in the pre-Revolutionary period, the Postal Service “has become the

14 nation’s oldest and largest public business.” U.S. Postal Serv. v. Flamingo Indus. (USA) Ltd., 540

15 U.S. 736, 739 (2004) (citations and quotations omitted).

16 59. Since its founding, “the Postal Service’s efforts to deliver mail quickly and reliably

17 have been a force for innovation in the American transportation sector.” USPS Office of Inspect.

18 Gen., Electric Delivery Vehicles and the Postal Service, at 3 (Mar. 17, 2022). The Postal Service

19 has spurred nationwide adoption of the stagecoach, nationwide expansion of railroads, nationwide

20 use of air transportation, and the development of electric vehicles. Id.

21 60. In 1970, Congress passed the Postal Reorganization Act (“PRA”), see Pub. L. No. 91-

22 375, 84 Stat. 719, in large part to “convert the Post Office Department into an independent

23 establishment in the Executive Branch of the Government freed from direct political pressures.”

24 H.R. Rep. No. 91-1104, at 1 (1970) (Conf. Rep.), as reprinted in 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3649, 3650.

25 61. The PRA renamed the agency the U.S. Postal Service, restructured its operations,

26 removed it from the Cabinet to ensure its political independence, provided that the Postmaster

27 General would be appointed by a newly-established Board of Governors rather than the President,

28 and stated it had the power “to sue and be sued in its official name.” 39 U.S.C. § 401(a). The
15
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
 Case 3:22-cv-02583 Document 1 Filed 04/28/22 Page 16 of 32

1 PRA provides that “[t]he United States Postal Service shall be operated as a basic and

2 fundamental service provided to the people by the Government of the United States, authorized

3 by the Constitution, created by Act of Congress, and supported by the people.” Id. § 101(a). The

4 PRA further affirms that the Postal Service’s “basic function” is “to bind the Nation together

5 through the personal, educational, literary, and business correspondence of the people.” Id. To

6 do so, the Postal Service “shall render postal services to all communities.” Id.

7 62. The Postal Service operates around the clock to process and deliver mail via a highly

8 integrated and complex system through which an average of 425 million pieces of mail moved

9 every day. U.S. Postal Serv., Fun Facts, 1 Day in the Postal Service, https://facts.usps.com/one-

10 day/. The Postal Service delivers to “more than 163 million city, rural, PO Box and highway

11 delivery points.” U.S. Postal Serv., FY 2021 Annual Report to Congress 14,

12 https://about.usps.com/what/financials/annual-reports/fy2021.pdf.

13 63. The Postal Service touches the lives of virtually all people in the United States. For

14 example, 18 percent of Americans, and 40 percent of senior citizens, pay their bills via the mail.

15 Nearly 20 percent of Americans who receive tax refunds do so through the mail. 4 The

16 Department of Veterans Affairs fills about 80 percent of veterans’ prescriptions by mail, sending

17 120 million prescriptions a year. Every day, more than 330,000 veterans receive a package of

18 prescriptions in the mail. 5 More than half of the people who receive medication by mail are over

19 the age of 65. In rural areas, where more than a third of post offices are located and where private

20 mail carriers often do not deliver, the Postal Service provides a vital link to more than 14 million

21 people without broadband access. In 2020, the Postal Service delivered approximately 543

22 million pieces of election mail, including 135 million ballots, allowing millions of Americans to

23 securely vote in local, state, and national elections. U.S. Postal Serv., FY 2021 Annual Report to

24 Congress, at 22-23.

25 4
Sam Berger & Stephanie Wylie, Trump’s War on the Postal Service Hurts All
26 Americans, Ctr. For Am. Progress (Aug. 19, 2020), https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/
democracy/news/2020/08/19/489664/trumps-war-postal-service-hurts-americans/.
27 5
Hope Yen, “Lawmakers: Postal changes delay mail-order medicine for vets,” ABC News (Aug.
14, 2020), https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/lawmakers-postal-delay-mail-order-
28 medicine-vets-72374343.
16
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
 Case 3:22-cv-02583 Document 1 Filed 04/28/22 Page 17 of 32

1 64. The PRA provides that it “shall be the responsibility of the Postal Service to maintain

2 an efficient system of collection, sorting, and delivery of the mail nationwide.” 39 U.S.C.

3 § 403(b)(1). The PRA further requires that “[i]n selecting modes of transportation, the Postal

4 Service shall give highest consideration to the prompt and economical delivery of all mail.

5 Modern methods of transporting mail by containerization and programs designed to achieve

6 overnight transportation to the destination of important letter mail to all parts of the Nation shall

7 be a primary goal of postal operations.” 39 U.S.C. § 101(f).

8 65. The Postal Service has adopted new transportation technologies when necessary to

9 carry out its mission—from boats, to airplanes, to motorized delivery vehicles. U.S. Postal Serv.,

10 The United States Postal Service: An American History, at 12-24, 40, 57, 80-81, 110-118.

11 66. In 2021, the Postal Service had 212,327 delivery and collection vehicles in its

12 inventory. U.S. Postal Serv., FY 2021 Annual Report to Congress, at 28.

13 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

14 I. THE POSTAL SERVICE’S NEXT GENERATION VEHICLE DELIVERY ACQUISITIONS
PROGRAM.
15
67. The Postal Service has one of the largest civilian vehicle fleets in the world,
16
consisting of approximately 212,000 vehicles that are on the road delivering mail at least six days
17
per week to more than 163 million delivery points in every community in the United States. Most
18
of these vehicles, known as Long Life Vehicles, were manufactured between 1986 and 1994 and
19
are now beyond their intended service life and becoming increasingly expensive and dangerous to
20
operate and maintain.
21
68. To address this problem, the Postal Service launched its Next Generation Delivery
22
Vehicle Acquisitions program to evaluate, test, and eventually purchase up to 165,000 new
23
purpose-built vehicles over the next ten years.
24
69. On February 23, 2021, the Postal Service announced a contract award to a defense
25
contractor, Oshkosh Defense, LLC (“Oshkosh”), for the future production of these vehicles. The
26
contract covers non-recurring engineering and tooling costs and allows the Postal Service to order
27
between 50,000 and 165,000 Next Generation Delivery Vehicles over a ten-year period. The
28
17
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
 Case 3:22-cv-02583 Document 1 Filed 04/28/22 Page 18 of 32

1 Postal Service has claimed that the contract requires the company to be able to support two

2 powertrain alternatives: (1) a modern and efficient internal combustion engine, and (2) a battery

3 electric vehicle powertrain. At the time the contract was awarded, though, Oshkosh did not

4 manufacture any electric vehicles. The contract was allegedly “contingent on the satisfactory

5 completion of the NEPA process.” However, the Postal Service provided as much as $482

6 million to Oshkosh under the contract prior to initiating the NEPA process.

7 70. In June 2021, Oshkosh announced that it would open a new facility in Spartanburg,

8 South Carolina, to construct vehicles for the Postal Service under this contract.

9 II. NEPA PROCESS FOR THE PROGRAM.

10 71. On August 26, 2021, the Postal Service announced the availability of a draft EIS for

11 its Proposed Action—namely, to “purchase and deploy[] up to 165,000 Next Generation Delivery

12 Vehicles (“NGDVs”) over a ten-year period.” See 86 Fed. Reg. 47,662 (Aug. 26, 2021). The

13 stated purpose and need of the Proposed Action in the draft EIS were “to replace the end-of-life

14 and high-maintenance long life vehicles (“LLVs”) and flexible fuel vehicles (“FFVs”) with

15 vehicles with more energy-efficient powertrains, updated technology, reduced emissions,

16 increased cargo capacity and improved loading characteristics, improved ergonomics and carrier

17 safety, and reduced maintenance costs,” and “to enable the Postal Service to meet its

18 Congressional mandate to maintain efficient nationwide delivery of the mail and to provide

19 prompt, reliable, and efficient services to patrons.”

20 72. In evaluating the Proposed Action and alternatives, the Draft EIS considered (1) the

21 purchase and deployment of custom-made vehicles with 90% gas-powered, internal-combustion

22 engines and 10% electric vehicles (Alternative 1, or the “Preferred Alternative”); (2) the purchase

23 and deployment of 100% custom-made electric vehicles (a different “scenario” under Alternative

24 1); (3) an alternative of purchasing 100% commercial off-the-shelf gas-powered vehicles with

25 right-hand drive (Alternative 1.1); (4) an alternative of purchasing 100% commercial off-the-shelf

26 electric vehicles with left-hand drive (Alternative 1.2); and (5) the required “No Action

27 Alternative” of attempting to maintain the Postal Service’s existing fleet.

28
18
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
 Case 3:22-cv-02583 Document 1 Filed 04/28/22 Page 19 of 32

1 73. The Postal Service accepted comments on the draft EIS until October 18, 2021.

2 Comments critical of the Draft EIS were submitted by the United States Environmental Protection

3 Agency (“EPA”), the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the International Union, United

4 Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, and several non-

5 governmental organizations, among others.

6 74. For example, EPA explained that while the Postal Service identified a clear need to

7 update its vehicle fleet, “we do not believe a proper analysis was conducted that would support

8 the Postal Service’s preferred alternative.” In particular, EPA stated that the draft EIS lacked

9 adequate data and presented biased cost and emissions estimates to support its Preferred

10 Alternative, thereby precluding “meaningful consideration of the proposed action and

11 alternatives.”

12 75. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District also commented that the 10 percent

13 electric requirement in the Preferred Alternative was insufficient, given that this proposal (1)

14 would negatively impact the region’s progress in improving local air quality and reducing GHG

15 emissions, especially in vulnerable communities; (2) did not reflect current and rapidly expanding

16 electric vehicle technology; (3) would unnecessarily delay the transition to clean technologies,

17 and (4) would likely cost the Postal Service and taxpayers more money in the long term because

18 gas-powered vehicles are more expensive than electric vehicles to operate and maintain.

19 76. On January 7, 2022, the Postal Service released the Final EIS with minimal changes

20 from the draft EIS. 87 Fed. Reg. 994 (Jan. 7, 2022).

21 77. In the Final EIS, the Postal Service decide to move forward with its Preferred

22 Alternative of procuring custom-made, right-hand-drive delivery vehicles with 90 percent internal

23 combustion engines and 10 percent battery electric vehicles. The Final EIS noted that the actual

24 delivery vehicle types purchased would be contingent, in part, “upon the supplier’s production

25 and delivery capabilities.”

26 78. The Final EIS stated that the Preferred Alternative was chosen because battery

27 electric vehicles involved a higher total cost of ownership and would have limited range

28 rendering their use infeasible on longer rural routes, despite comments and evidence submitted to
19
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
 Case 3:22-cv-02583 Document 1 Filed 04/28/22 Page 20 of 32

1 the agency contradicting these conclusions. In fact, the Final EIS assumes fuel costs for gas-

2 powered vehicles of $2.19 per gallon, grossly underestimating even current gasoline prices, let

3 alone future ones. The Final EIS rejected an alternative of 100 percent battery electric vehicles as

4 infeasible, and evaluated no other percentage of electric powertrains between the 10 percent it

5 selected and the 100 percent it rejected.

6 79. The Final EIS relied on acquisition and maintenance cost data at least in part based on

7 the contract awarded to Oshkosh, which was not provided to the public, despite requests for the

8 Postal Service to make this information public as required by NEPA.

9 80. The Final EIS failed to fully evaluate environmental justice impacts from the

10 program.

11 81. The Final EIS did not evaluate environmental impacts from the construction and

12 renovation of the Spartanburg, South Carolina production facility that Oshkosh had announced

13 would be built to meet the demands of its contract.

14 82. The Final EIS did not consider the inconsistency of the Preferred Alternative with

15 State and local laws and plans that require reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuel

16 consumption, including from the transportation sector.

17 83. On February 2, 2022, EPA Associate Administrator Vicky Arroyo wrote to the Postal

18 Service to express the agency’s disapproval of the Final EIS. In particular, EPA wrote that its

19 “concerns with the draft EIS were not adequately addressed and the final EIS remains seriously

20 deficient,” and “preparation of a supplemental EIS is particularly important to maintain the

21 integrity of the NEPA process.” For example, using well-established metrics for estimating

22 greenhouse gas emissions, EPA calculated that carbon dioxide emissions from the use of gas-

23 powered vehicles would be 2.5 times greater than what the Postal Service had estimated.

24 84. On the same day, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”), the

25 federal agency responsible for implementing NEPA, wrote to the Postal Service to express similar

26 concerns. In a letter addressed to Defendant DeJoy, CEQ Chair Brenda Malloy reiterated EPA’s

27 “grave concerns” with the adequacy of the Final EIS, criticized the Postal Service’s decision to

28
20
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
 Case 3:22-cv-02583 Document 1 Filed 04/28/22 Page 21 of 32

1 contract with Oshkosh prior to completing the NEPA review, and urged the Postal Service to redo

2 its analysis.

3 85. On February 4, 2022, these concerns were echoed in a letter to the Postal Service

4 signed by several members of Congress, who wrote to express “strong opposition to the failure of

5 the United States Postal Service (USPS) to plan to electrify its fleet of mail delivery vehicles and

6 contribute to the fight against climate change.” The letter continued: “After an unjustifiable,

7 truncated, and deficient process, it is unacceptable that the USPS intends to cling to an

8 overwhelmingly fossil fuel-powered fleet whose emissions are endangering our planet.”

9 86. On February 23, 2022, the Postal Service signed the Record of Decision, which

10 finalized the NEPA process, incorporated the findings and analysis of the Final EIS, and

11 announced the agency’s determination that it would implement the Preferred Alternative. See 87

12 Fed. Reg. 14,588 (Mar. 15, 2022).

13 87. On March 17, 2022, the United States Postal Service Office of Inspector General

14 released a report titled “Electric Delivery Vehicles and the Postal Service,” which found that

15 “electric vehicle technology is generally capable of meeting the Postal Service’s needs” and is

16 generally more cost-effective than using gas-powered vehicles. Contrary to the findings in the

17 Final EIS and Record of Decision, the Inspector General found that the average 24-mile postal

18 route was well within the ability of current electric vehicle technology, and even the 2 percent of

19 routes that are 70 miles or longer could be more suited to electric vehicles because the Postal

20 Service saves money on each mile driven compared to gas-powered vehicles.

21 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

22 (Violation of NEPA:

23 Irreversible Commitment of Resources

24 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C); 40 C.F.R. § 1502.2(f); 39 C.F.R. § 775.11(b)(2)(vi))

25 88. Paragraphs 1 through 87 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.

26 89. Plaintiffs have a right of action to declare unlawful and set aside agency action that is
27 arbitrary and capricious, exceeds the agency’s statutory authority, and violates NEPA.
28
21
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
 Case 3:22-cv-02583 Document 1 Filed 04/28/22 Page 22 of 32

1 90. A fundamental requirement of NEPA is that agencies must not commit resources to a

2 particular course of action prior to completing their environmental review. See 40 C.F.R.

3 § 1502.2(f) (“Agencies shall not commit resources prejudicing selection of alternatives before

4 making a final decision”), see also id. § 1506.1 (Limitations on actions during NEPA process); 39

5 C.F.R. § 775.11(b)(2)(vi) (EIS must “[s]erve to assess the environmental impact of proposed

6 actions, rather than to justify decisions already made”). As the Ninth Circuit has found, agencies

7 are required to prepare NEPA documents “before any irreversible and irretrievable commitment

8 of resources.” Metcalf v. Daley, 214 F.3d 1135, 1143 (9th Cir. 2000) (emphasis added). “The

9 point of commitment” constituting an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources can

10 occur when an agency “sign[s] the contract” with a project proponent “and then work[s] to

11 effectuate the Agreement.” Id.

12 91. Here, the Postal Service awarded a contract for the manufacture of Next Generation

13 Delivery Vehicles to Oshkosh in February 2021, roughly six months before the agency even

14 issued its Draft EIS, and a year before it finalized the EIS and issued the Record of Decision. The

15 Final EIS states that “[a]t the time of awarding the contract, the Postal Service placed an order

16 that funds the production design, assembly tooling, and factory start-up costs to support the

17 production of both vehicle types in parallel” – even though Oshkosh had only minimal experience

18 producing electric vehicles. The Final EIS notes that the type of vehicles ultimately purchased

19 will, in part, “be contingent upon the supplier’s production and delivery capabilities.” According

20 to CEQ, the Postal Service committed more than $480 million to begin engineering and factory

21 construction for its procurement decision before completing this NEPA process.

22 92. In the Record of Decision, the Postal Service incorporated the Final EIS’s findings

23 and analysis and determined that it would implement the Preferred Alternative.

24 93. Accordingly, the Postal Service’s issuance of the Final EIS and Record of Decision

25 was arbitrary and capricious, did not demonstrate reasoned decision-making, exceeded the Postal

26 Service’s statutory authority, and was contrary to the requirements of NEPA, 42 U.S.C. §

27 4332(2)(C), 40 C.F.R. § 1502.2(f), and 39 C.F.R. § 775.11(b)(2)(vi), the Final EIS and Record of

28 Decision should be held unlawful and set aside, and the Postal Service should be enjoined from
22
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
 Case 3:22-cv-02583 Document 1 Filed 04/28/22 Page 23 of 32

1 taking action under its Next Generation Delivery Vehicle Acquisitions program until it has

2 complied with NEPA.

3 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

4 (Violation of NEPA:

5 Failure to Consider Reasonable Alternatives

6 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C); 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14; 39 C.F.R. § 775.11(c)(5))

7 94. Paragraphs 1 through 93 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.

8 95. Plaintiffs have a right of action to declare unlawful and set aside agency action that is

9 arbitrary and capricious, exceeds the agency’s statutory authority, and violates NEPA.

10 96. NEPA requires that Defendants provide a “detailed statement” regarding the

11 “alternatives to the proposed action.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C); 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(a); 39 C.F.R.

12 § 775.11(c)(5); see also 30 C.F.R. §§ 775.8(a)(4), 775.11(b)(2)(iv)-(v). The requirement to

13 consider reasonable alternatives “lies at the heart of any NEPA analysis.” California ex rel.

14 Lockyer v. U.S. Dept. of Agric., 459 F. Supp. 2d 874, 905 (N.D. Cal. 2006). “The existence of a

15 viable but unexamined alternative renders” an EIS inadequate. W. Watersheds Project v. Abbey,

16 719 F.3d 1035, 1050 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

17 97. Here, the Postal Service failed to consider reasonable alternatives to its Preferred

18 Alternative of procuring 90% gas-powered vehicles and 10% electric vehicles.

19 98. While the Postal Service put forward 100% electric vehicle alternatives for both

20 custom-made and commercial off-the-shelf vehicles, it summarily rejected these alternatives as

21 impractical and infeasible without any legitimate justification for doing so. The Postal Service

22 claims to have identified at least 12,500 delivery routes where length, environmental conditions,

23 or facility constraints do not allow for electric vehicles. However, these routes account for only

24 5% of the agency’s total delivery routes, and the Postal Service’s assumptions regarding the

25 infeasibility of using electric vehicles for the vast majority of its routes have no factual basis. The

26 Postal Service unreasonably failed to consider alternatives that would have involved a greater mix

27 of electric vehicles that could still meet its delivery needs.

28
23
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
 Case 3:22-cv-02583 Document 1 Filed 04/28/22 Page 24 of 32

1 99. Nor does the Postal Service’s reliance on alleged cost constraints provide a legitimate

2 basis for its failure to consider reasonable alternatives under NEPA.

3 100. In the Record of Decision, the Postal Service incorporated the Final EIS’s findings

4 and analysis and determined that it would implement the Preferred Alternative.

5 101. Accordingly, the Postal Service’s issuance of the Final EIS and Record of Decision

6 was arbitrary and capricious, did not demonstrate reasoned decision-making, exceeded the Postal

7 Service’s statutory authority, and was contrary to the requirements of NEPA, 42 U.S.C. §

8 4332(2)(C), 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14, and 39 C.F.R. § 775.11(c)(5), the Final EIS and Record of

9 Decision should be held unlawful and set aside, and the Postal Service should be enjoined from

10 taking action under its Next Generation Delivery Vehicle Acquisitions program until it has

11 complied with NEPA.

12 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

13 (Violation of NEPA:

14 Failure to Take a “Hard Look”

15 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C); 40 C.F.R. § 1502.16(a)(1); 39 C.F.R. § 775.11(c)(6))

16 102. Paragraphs 1 through 101 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.

17 103. Plaintiffs have a right of action to declare unlawful and set aside agency action that is

18 arbitrary and capricious, exceeds the agency’s statutory authority, and violates NEPA.

19 104. As discussed above, a fundamental requirement of NEPA is that federal agencies take

20 a “hard look” at the environmental consequences of a proposed activity before acting. See 42

21 U.S.C. § 4332; Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 350 (1989) (“The

22 sweeping policy goals” of NEPA are “realized through a set of action-forcing procedures that

23 require that agencies take a hard look at environmental consequences, and that provide for broad

24 dissemination of relevant environmental information”) (cleaned up). When preparing an EIS, an

25 agency must disclose and consider any “environmental impacts of the proposed action and

26 reasonable alternatives to the proposed action and the significance of those impacts.” 40 C.F.R.

27 § 1502.16(a)(1); 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C); 39 C.F.R. § 775.11(c)(6); see also 40 C.F.R.

28 § 1508.1(g).
24
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
 Case 3:22-cv-02583 Document 1 Filed 04/28/22 Page 25 of 32

1 105. Here, the Final EIS fails to take the required “hard look” at numerous environmental

2 impacts from the Proposed Action and alternatives, including impacts related to air quality,

3 environmental justice, and climate. Instead, the Final EIS simply assumes that because there will

4 be no change to the overall number of vehicles and because the agency will ultimately be

5 replacing older model vehicles with more fuel-efficient engines, there will be no negative

6 impacts. This analysis is flawed for several reasons.

7 106. The Final EIS fails to properly consider the specific impacts of continued fossil fuel

8 use on environmental justice communities that are located near postal facilities and that are

9 already suffering from significantly degraded air quality. See Vecinos para el Bienestar de la

10 Comunidad Costera v. FERC, 6 F.4th 1321, 1330-31 (D.C. Cir. 2021).

11 107. The Final EIS is silent about the potential impacts from the development of a new

12 production facility in Spartanburg, South Carolina, that Oshkosh has announced would be built to

13 meet the demands of its contract. The development of this facility and production of these

14 vehicles are part of the action the Postal Service is undertaking and will clearly cause

15 environmental impacts. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). These impacts from the new facility are

16 “reasonably foreseeable and have a reasonably close causal relationship to the proposed action,”

17 and the Postal Service must consider them. See 40 C.F.R. § 1508.1(g) (defining “effects” or

18 “impacts” of a proposed action or alternatives).

19 108. The Final EIS also significantly underestimates the climate impacts of maintaining a

20 massive fleet of gas-powered vehicles for potentially the next several decades, rather than

21 electrifying its fleet in the near term. Moreover, the conclusion that “[n]o effects of climate

22 change are expected” is inconsistent with even the estimates in the Final EIS and is contrary to

23 Ninth Circuit precedent. See Center for Biological Diversity v. NHTSA, 538 F.3d 1172, 1224 (9th

24 Cir. 2008) (finding that “simply because the Final Rule may be an improvement over the [prior]

25 standard does not necessarily mean that it will not have a ‘significant effect’ on the

26 environment”).

27 109. In the Record of Decision, the Postal Service incorporated the Final EIS’s findings

28 and analysis and determined that it would implement the Preferred Alternative.
25
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
 Case 3:22-cv-02583 Document 1 Filed 04/28/22 Page 26 of 32

1 110. Accordingly, the Postal Service’s issuance of the Final EIS and Record of Decision

2 was arbitrary and capricious, did not demonstrate reasoned decision-making, exceeded the Postal

3 Service’s statutory authority, and was contrary to the requirements of NEPA, 42 U.S.C. §

4 4332(2)(C), 40 C.F.R. § 1502.16(a)(1), and 39 C.F.R. § 775.11(c)(6), the Final EIS and Record of

5 Decision should be held unlawful and set aside, and the Postal Service should be enjoined from

6 taking action under its Next Generation Delivery Vehicle Acquisitions program until it has

7 complied with NEPA.

8 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

9 (Violation of NEPA:

10 Failure to Maintain Scientific Integrity

11 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C); 40 C.F.R. § 1502.23)

12 111. Paragraphs 1 through 110 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.

13 112. Plaintiffs have a right of action to declare unlawful and set aside agency action that is

14 arbitrary and capricious, exceeds the agency’s statutory authority, and violates NEPA.

15 113. NEPA requires that federal agencies “shall ensure the professional integrity,

16 including scientific integrity, of the discussions and analyses in environmental documents,” “shall

17 make use of reliable existing data and resources,” and “shall identify any methodologies used and

18 shall make explicit reference to the scientific and other sources relied upon for conclusions in the

19 statement.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.23.

20 114. The Final EIS fails to ensure the scientific integrity of its analysis by relying upon

21 unsupported assumptions and undisclosed methodologies to justify its Preferred Alternative.

22 Many of the Final EIS’s statements do not reflect electric vehicle technology available today or

23 developments in this rapidly expanding industry, but instead incorrectly assume that conditions

24 today will continue decades into the future.

25 115. For example, the Final EIS claims that, if used on “routes that exceed 70 miles,”

26 electric vehicles “might not have sufficient power to complete the route, especially as the battery

27 ages and has less capacity,” despite the current availability of electric vehicles that far exceed

28 such mileage on a single charge and rapid advances in battery technology. Moreover, such routes
26
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
 Case 3:22-cv-02583 Document 1 Filed 04/28/22 Page 27 of 32

1 constitute just five percent of the Postal Service’s total delivery routes. The Final EIS also fails to

2 account for declining electric vehicle costs and proliferating charging infrastructure, while grossly

3 underestimating costs for gasoline and assuming that such fuel costs will remain largely constant

4 several years into the future. The Final EIS further ignores that many other private delivery fleets

5 are rapidly adopting electric vehicle fleets that are well suited to meet similar needs. And, in

6 many areas of the Final EIS, such as the economic analysis that estimates a “total cost of

7 ownership” for different vehicles, the document does not provide the underlying data or sources

8 of information necessary to evaluate or replicate the results.

9 116. Taken as a whole, the Final EIS presents information regarding environmental

10 impacts and costs that is incomplete and biased in favor of its Preferred Alternative, at the

11 expense of providing the public and decision makers with accurate information to allow for a

12 meaningful consideration of the Proposed Action and alternatives.

13 117. In the Record of Decision, the Postal Service incorporated the Final EIS’s findings

14 and analysis and determined that it would implement the Preferred Alternative.

15 118. Accordingly, the Postal Service’s issuance of the Final EIS and Record of Decision

16 was arbitrary and capricious, did not demonstrate reasoned decision-making, exceeded the Postal

17 Service’s statutory authority, and was contrary to the requirements of NEPA, 42 U.S.C. §

18 4332(2)(C) and 40 C.F.R. § 1502.23, the Final EIS and Record of Decision should be held

19 unlawful and set aside, and the Postal Service should be enjoined from taking action under its

20 Next Generation Delivery Vehicle Acquisitions program until it has complied with NEPA.

21 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

22 (Violation of NEPA:

23 Failure to Consider Inconsistencies with State Laws and Plans

24 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C); 40 C.F.R. § 1506.2(d))

25 119. Paragraphs 1 through 118 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.

26 120. Plaintiffs have a right of action to declare unlawful and set aside agency action that is

27 arbitrary and capricious, exceeds the agency’s statutory authority, and violates NEPA.

28
27
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
 Case 3:22-cv-02583 Document 1 Filed 04/28/22 Page 28 of 32

1 121. “To better integrate environmental impact statements into State, Tribal, or local

2 planning processes,” NEPA provides that an EIS “shall discuss any inconsistency of a proposed

3 action with any approved State, Tribal, or local plan or law[,] and [w]here an inconsistency exists,

4 the statement should describe the extent to which the agency would reconcile its proposed action

5 with the plan or law.” 40 C.F.R. § 1506.2(d).

6 122. Here, the Final EIS fails to discuss the inconsistency of the Preferred Alternative with

7 numerous State and local laws and plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuel

8 consumption to mitigate the devastating consequences of global climate change, as well as to

9 electrify the transportation sector.

10 123. In the Record of Decision, the Postal Service incorporated the Final EIS’s findings

11 and analysis and determined that it would implement the Preferred Alternative.

12 124. Accordingly, the Postal Service’s issuance of the Final EIS and Record of Decision

13 was arbitrary and capricious, did not demonstrate reasoned decision-making, exceeded the Postal

14 Service’s statutory authority, and was contrary to the requirements of NEPA, 42 U.S.C. §

15 4332(2)(C) and 40 C.F.R. § 1506.2(d), the Final EIS and Record of Decision should be held

16 unlawful and set aside, and the Postal Service should be enjoined from taking action under its

17 Next Generation Delivery Vehicle Acquisitions program until it has complied with NEPA.

18 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

19 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court:

20 1. Issue a declaratory judgment that the Postal Service violated NEPA in issuing the

21 Final EIS and Record of Decision;

22 2. Issue an order vacating and setting aside the Final EIS and Record of Decision unless

23 and until the Postal Service complies with applicable law;

24 3. Issue an order enjoining action by the Postal Service under its Next Generation

25 Vehicle Acquisition Program until it has complied with NEPA;

26 4. Award Plaintiffs their costs, expenses, and reasonable attorneys’ fees; and

27 5. Award such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

28
28
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
 Case 3:22-cv-02583 Document 1 Filed 04/28/22 Page 29 of 32

1 Dated: April 28, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

2
ROB BONTA LETITIA JAMES
3 Attorney General of California Attorney General of New York
DAVID A. ZONANA
4 Supervising Deputy Attorney General /s/ Claiborne E. Walthall
CLAIBORNE E. WALTHALL*
5 /s/ George Torgun Assistant Attorney General
GEORGE TORGUN, State Bar No. 222085 New York State Office of the Attorney General
6 Deputy Attorneys General Environmental Protection Bureau
1515 Clay Street, 20th Floor State Capitol
7 P.O. Box 70550 Albany, NY 12224
Oakland, CA 94612-0550 (518) 776-2380
8 Telephone: (510) 879-1002 [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
9 Attorneys for Plaintiff State of New York
Attorneys for Plaintiff State of California
10

11 JOSH SHAPIRO KATHLEEN JENNINGS

Attorney General of Pennsylvania Attorney General of Delaware
12
/s/ Aimee D. Thomson /s/ Vanessa L. Kassab
13 AIMEE D. THOMSON* CHRISTIAN DOUGLAS WRIGHT
Deputy Attorney General Director of Impact Litigation
14 ANN R. JOHNSTON VANESSA L. KASSAB*
Senior Deputy Attorney General JAMESON A. L. TWEEDIE
15 Office of Attorney General RALPH K. DURSTEIN, III
1600 Arch Street, Suite 300 Deputy Attorneys General
16 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Delaware Department of Justice
Telephone: (267) 940-6696 820 N. French Street
17 Email: [email protected] Wilmington, DE 19801
(302) 683-8899
18 Attorneys for Plaintiff
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Attorneys for Plaintiff State of Delaware
19

20 WILLIAM TONG KWAME RAOUL

Attorney General of Connecticut Attorney General of Illinois
21
/s/ William E. Dornbos /s/ Jason E. James
22 WILLIAM E. DORNBOS* JASON E. JAMES*
Assistant Attorney General Assistant Attorney General
23 Office of the Attorney General of Connecticut MATTHEW J. DUNN
165 Capitol Avenue Chief, Environmental
24 Hartford, CT 06106 Enforcement/Asbestos Litigation Division
Telephone: (860) 808-5250 Office of the Attorney General
25 Email: [email protected] 69 W. Washington St., 18th Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
26 Attorneys for Plaintiff State of Connecticut Tel: (312) 814-0660
Email: [email protected]
27
Attorneys for Plaintiff State of Illinois
28
29
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
 Case 3:22-cv-02583 Document 1 Filed 04/28/22 Page 30 of 32

1
AARON M. FREY MATTHEW J. PLATKIN
2 Attorney General of Maine Acting Attorney General of New Jersey

3 /s/ Jason Anton_ /s/ Lisa Morelli

JASON ANTON* LISA MORELLI, State Bar No. 137092
4 PAUL SUITTER* Deputy Attorney General
Assistant Attorneys General Division of Law
5 Six State House Station 25 Market Street
Augusta, Maine 04333-0006 P.O. Box 093
6 Telephone: (207) 626-8800 Trenton, NJ 08625-093
Fax: (207) 287-3145 Telephone: 609-376-2745
7 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
8 Attorneys for Plaintiff State of New Jersey
Attorneys for Plaintiff State of Maine
9

10 BRIAN E. FROSH HECTOR BALDERAS

Attorney General of Maryland Attorney General of New Mexico
11
/s/ Steven J. Goldstein /s/ William Grantham
12 STEVEN J. GOLDSTEIN* WILLIAM GRANTHAM*
Special Assistant Attorney General Assistant Attorney General
13 Office of the Attorney General 201 Third St. NW, Suite 300
200 Saint Paul Place, 20th Floor Albuquerque, NM 87102
14 Baltimore, Maryland 21202 Telephone: (505) 717-3520
Telephone: (410) 576-6414 E-Mail: [email protected]
15 Email: [email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiff State of New Mexico
16 Attorneys for Plaintiff State of Maryland

17
FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE JOSHUA H. STEIN
18 STATE OF MICHIGAN Attorney General of North Carolina

19 /s/ Elizabeth Morrisseau /s/ Francisco Benzoni

ELIZABETH MORRISSEAU* ASHER SPILLER
20 Assistant Attorney General Assistant Attorney General
Environment, Natural Resources, FRANCISCO BENZONI*
21 and Agriculture Division Special Deputy Attorney General
Michigan Attorney General's Office 114. W. Edenton Street
22 6th Floor, G. Mennen Williams Building Raleigh, NC 27063
525 West Ottawa Street Telephone: (919)716-7600
23 PO Box 30755 Email: [email protected]
Lansing, MI 48933 [email protected]
24 Telephone: (517) 335-7664
Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff State of North
25 Carolina
Attorneys for Plaintiff the People of the State of
26 Michigan

27

28
30
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
 Case 3:22-cv-02583 Document 1 Filed 04/28/22 Page 31 of 32

1
ELLEN F. ROSENBLUM ROBERT W. FERGUSON
2 Attorney General of Oregon Attorney General of Washington

3 /s/ Paul Garrahan /s/ Megan Sallomi

PAUL GARRAHAN* MEGAN SALLOMI, State Bar. No. 300580
4 Attorney-in-Charge Assistant Attorney General
STEVE NOVICK* Environmental Protection Division
5 Special Assistant Attorney General Washington State Attorney General’s
Natural Resources Section Office
6 Oregon Department of Justice 800 5th Ave Suite 2000,
1162 Court Street NE Seattle, WA 98104-3188
7 Salem, OR 97301-4096 Telephone: (206) 389-2437
Telephone: (503) 947-4593 Email: [email protected]
8 Email: [email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiff State of Washington
9 Attorneys for Plaintiff State of Oregon

10 KARL A. RACINE
PETER F. NERONHA Attorney General for the District of Columbia
11 Attorney General of Rhode Island

12 /s/ Nicholas M. Vaz /s/ Adam Teitelbaum

NICHOLAS M. VAZ* ADAM TEITELBAUM, State Bar. No. 310565
13 Special Assistant Attorney General Deputy Director
Office of the Attorney General Office of the Attorney General
14 Environmental and Energy Unit District of Columbia
150 South Main Street 400 6th St. NW
15 Providence, Rhode Island 02903 Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (401) 274-4400 ext. 2297
16 [email protected] Telephone: 202-256-3713
Email: [email protected]
17 Attorneys for Plaintiff State of Rhode Island
Attorneys for Plaintiff District of Columbia
18
THOMAS J. DONOVAN, JR.
19 Attorney General of Vermont HON. SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX
Corporation Counsel
20 /s/ Nicholas F. Persampieri
NICHOLAS F. PERSAMPIERI* of the City of New York
21 Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General /s/ Alice R. Baker
22 109 State Street ALICE R. BAKER*
Montpelier, VT 05609 AARON M. BLOOM
23 (802) 828-3171 JOSEPH PEPE
[email protected] Senior Counsels
24
Attorneys for Plaintiff State of Vermont New York City Law Department
25 100 Church Street
New York, NY 10007
26 Telephone: (212) 356-2314
E-mail: [email protected]
27
Attorneys for Plaintiff City of New York
28
31
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
 Case 3:22-cv-02583 Document 1 Filed 04/28/22 Page 32 of 32

1
ADAN A. SCHWARTZ
2 Acting District Counsel

3 /s/ Marcia L. Raymond

MARCIA L. RAYMOND, State Bar No. 215655
4 Assistant Counsel
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
5 350 Beale Street, Suite 600
San Francisco, CA 94105
6 (415) 749-5158
[email protected]
7
Attorneys for Plaintiff Bay Area Air Quality
8 Management District

9
*Application for admission pro hac vice
10 forthcoming

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
32
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief