Nineteen states have sought appellate court review in a challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency waiver granted to California’s Advanced Clean Trucks Rule.
The petition was filed Monday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
The relatively short filing challenges the waiver that was granted by the EPA and posted to the Federal Register April 6. That waiver was the latest in a long history of the EPA granting California waivers to pursue its own emissions and pollution standards, which is permitted under federal law dating back to the ’60s.
The filing states that federal law establishes the D.C. Court of Appeals as an “exclusive venue” for challenges to agency actions that could be deemed “nationally applicable” or if an action has “nationwide scope or effect.” There is little else in the filing beyond an attachment of the Federal Register publication of the waiver decision.
Ultimately at issue in the filing by the states is a major question: With some other states having vowed to follow California’s lead on clean vehicles and other emission rules, does California effectively set the standard for the entire country? Original equipment manufacturers are generally loath to run two separate production lines: one for California and its followers and the other for the rest of the nation.
Fourteen other states, California and the District of Columbia in 2020 signed a memorandum of understanding that pledged a pathway to zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) by 2050, though California’s rules call for the transition to be completed prior to that. For example, the “Milestones” that govern the transition in the Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) rule – the partner legislation to the ACT – call for 100% ZEVs in the affected fleets by 2042.
The states in the legal action against the EPA are Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming. While some of those states have Democratic governors — Louisiana, Kansas and Kentucky — all have Republican attorneys general.
Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird referred indirectly in a statement on the filing to the possibility of the California rule becoming a de facto national standard. “The EPA and California have no right or legal justification to force truckers to follow their radical climate agenda,” Bird said. The Biden administration is forcing truckers “to drive electric trucks for his radical climate change agenda. Iowa isn’t going to take a backseat as the EPA and California try to regulate truckers out of business. We’re pushing back.”
The Advanced Clean Trucks rule goes hand in hand with California’s recently approved Advanced Clean Fleets rule. The ACT governs the types of trucks that OEMs must supply to the state; the ACF rule lays out a pathway for fleets to phase out internal combustion engine trucks in favor of zero-emission vehicles, either through direct mandates or by setting a timetable for trucks’ “useful life,” after which they must be removed from the road.
California has not requested a waiver for the Clean Fleets rule, and there is no consensus among observers of the process whether the state needs one for the ACF.
The action taken by the states also targets the EPA waiver granted to the warranty extension rule adopted by the California Air Resources Board in 2018. That rule mandates longer warranty periods on truck engines. CARB, in a statement on its website from January 2022, said of the rule that “the purpose of longer warranty periods for emission control-related equipment on heavy duty trucks is to better ensure they perform as intended for the hundreds of thousands of miles trucks are typically driven.”
More articles by John Kingston
Fifteen states jump into California’s ongoing AB5 legal battle
New trucking trade group has 1 focus: DOL’s independent contractor rule
California’s Prop 22 survives; appellate court reverses lower court filing
Charlie Tollini
Maybe the rest of the united states 🇺🇸 should just cut off California for good
Dave
First off there isn’t anything in the constitution that says i can’t own and operate my 1993 freightliner. Second climate change is fake news that only holds down the American people. In the 1970’s they said we were going to have another ice age , in the 1980’s nothing but tree huggers (which I now miss) and in the 1990’s through early 2000’s it was global warming? None of which happened. Now since nothing happened it’s turned into Climate Change which is more crap dreamed up so the government and those who push this like a drug dealer can prosper from. As a truck driver if I leave the east coast and drive to the west coast I’d drive through several different climates and depending on the time of year it changes. Yet I do remember 3rd grade science and if we keep ripping down forests and grass lands to build or dig for battery materials we take away the natural cleaning process. As plants take carbon and then produce oxygen. The earth also goes through cycles of warming and cooling depending on what it needs at different times. Taking our trucks off the road will do nothing. Remember the rain forests that we as kids we taught to protect? Does anyone remember why we were taught that? Maybe these pushers don’t remember or care because they make too much money from pushing false truths but those of us who remember and have common sense haven’t. If they keep pushing we will see them in court houses all over the country. Can’t have a government if no one works to support it.
Abraham Velasquez
California they are putting us truck drivers out business. Owners operators. We need help for our business. I only have one truck 1998 peterbilt it’s don’t smoke for nothing. And they gave me tiket for not having the stickers on my engine. Please help us 🙏 or we’re all going to loose our business. Someone plz call California to stop carb .thx
Johnathon Jones
1st, if the EPA, California, and the DOT want these impractical changes, they’ll have to be sure that parts availability, and reasonable pricing is in place prior to pushing these idiotic mandates. 2nd, ZEV means electric for the most part. California doesn’t have the electrical infrastructure to even run their states air conditioners without restrictions let alone provide charging stations for electric vehicles. So, I’d look long and hard at what California wants vs what it can actually do before making any national epa mandates based on them. BtW, they also tried to back pedal on these current DPF emissions systems they just had to have. They pulled back on that when they found out what it’d cost them for their stupidity.