California overstepped with emission standards, OOIDA says –
California is overstepping its authority on emissions requirements, the Independent Owner-Operator Association advised the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
On October 31, OIODA filed an amicus transient in help of Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency. The lawsuit facilities across the EPA restoring California’s authority underneath the Clean Air Act to implement its personal greenhouse gasoline emission requirements and mandate the sale of zero-emission autos.
Opponents argue that reinstating the EPA forces California’s rule on the remainder of the nation.
“The federal government, not a state, is the proper authority to impose a mandate of such great economic and political importance,” OIODA wrote in its amicus transient. “Only Congress has the authority to pass the laws and appropriate the resources to support the statewide infrastructure that will ensure the least burdensome and most efficient passage of any electric vehicle mandate.”
Although the rule in query focuses on vehicles, OIDA advised the courtroom it was involved that the EPA’s determination might set a precedent for future California guidelines.
“OOIDA’s interest in this proceeding does not stem from a direct interest in the California Advanced Clean Car Program … but from the impact that a decision on the legal issues presented here would have on future EPA decisions to allow or deny California’s waiver requests for initiatives that will directly affect OIODA members, including California’s advanced clean fleet rule,” OODIA advised the courtroom.
The California Air Resources Board is creating a medium- and heavy-obligation zero-emission fleet rule with the purpose of attaining a zero-emission California truck and bus fleet by 2045.
“California’s pending Advanced Clean Fleets rule would, in effect, impose a new national heavy-duty truck emissions policy that would not only affect manufacturers, but also substantially affect buyers and users of heavy-duty trucks. heavily across the country, the industries that fuel and repair those vehicles. , and the interstate commerce these users serve,” OIODA writes.
The Association’s arguments query the scope of California’s proposal on car emissions and the way it will have an effect on future guidelines.
“California is unique among states in that it is a major agricultural producer, a major producer, and a major gateway for U.S. imports and exports,” OIODA wrote. “It is also a major consumer of the country’s manufacturing and agricultural production. California’s economic importance is based on the ability to efficiently move goods into, through, and out of the state. When it comes to transporting most of this freight, there is no substitute for trucks.”
OIODA argues that the dimensions and affect of California’s financial system “does not give it carte blanche to ignore the intent of the rules.”
“There is little doubt that when California imposes a vehicle standard for all trucks operating on its highways, it imposes burdens and costs extraterritorially on a substantial number of out-of-state truck owners who regularly or occasionally transport goods for and from California.” LL