The ability of California to set its own, more stringent environmental and emissions standards — the basis for the state’s Advanced Clean Trucks rule and possibly its Advanced Clean Fleets rule — was upheld Tuesday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The case, Ohio vs. EPA, had a plethora of plaintiffs, including 16 states besides Ohio and a group of petroleum-focused trade groups such as the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and the National Association of Convenience Stores.
Friend-of-the-court briefs from the trucking industry included filings from the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association and the Western States Trucking Association (WSTA). The 17 states that were plaintiffs in the case are Republican-dominated.
Clean Cars rule at center of legal action
At issue is a waiver granted to California to implement its Advanced Clean Cars rule. The request was first made to the Environmental Protection Agency in 2005, and Tuesday’s court decision reviews the back-and-forth of waiver refusals followed by approvals, depending on which party was in the White House. The pingpong ball ultimately landed on the waiver’s being granted by the Biden administration; that led to the suit’s being filed in 2022.
The states that are suing “claim that by granting a waiver to California alone, the EPA violated a constitutional requirement that the federal government treat states equally in terms of their sovereign authority,” the court wrote, summing up the basic argument.
But the “fuel petitioners,” as the court refers to the trade groups, lack standing “to raise their statutory claim.” And the states lack standing to raise a “preemption claim,” the court said, noting that although both groups of plaintiffs sought to restrict or limit the granting of waivers to California so it can impose stiffer environmental regulations than those imposed by the federal government, they were coming at it from different arguments.
The court ruled that the states had standing to present a constitutional challenge to the EPA waiver but rejected their argument that the Constitution would not permit a waiver to be granted to a single state.
“The federal regulations continue to act as the floor for emissions regulations, but California can seek to enact its own more stringent regulatory program above those federal requirements,” the court said. It noted that there are limitations to what the state can do but said they were not exceeded by California’s Advanced Clean Cars rule.
For their part, the trade groups argued the waiver injures them economically because of the zero-emission and low-emission mandates in the state’s Clean Car Act. But the court said the fuel petitioners and the states came up short in showing how a decision by the appeals court blocking the waiver would “redress” the harm they say will result from the California law.
In a statement issued after the release of the decision, the Environmental Defense Fund said California has received more than 75 waivers from the EPA over 57 years.
Impact on Clean Trucks and Clean Fleets rules
The decision could impact the trucking industry in the state through any potential effect on California’s two key regulations on the sector.
California’s Advanced Clean Trucks rule, targeted at companies that build and sell trucks into California, has received a waiver from the EPA. A challenge to it by the WSTA was put on hold in late 2023 by the same court that ruled on Ohio vs. EPA while the outcome of the current case made its way through the courts. The court also said late last year in putting the WSTA case on hold that it was waiting for resolution of a similar case, Texas vs. EPA, which was argued before a different panel of the same court and still awaits a ruling.
The state approved the Advanced Clean Fleets rule — which is aimed at fleet truck purchases to complement the mandates for OEMs in the Clean Trucks rule — without an EPA waiver, claiming it did not need one. But after the California Trucking Association filed suit against the Clean Fleets rule, the state did request a waiver from the EPA that so far has not been granted.
The California Air Resources Board also put on hold various provisions of the law that were to kick in Jan. 1, including a ban on registering any internal combustion engine drayage trucks with the state’s drayage registry. Despite that, there has been a modest increase in zero-emission vehicles servicing the port of Long Beach.
More articles by John Kingston
Rerouting trucks and ships away from Baltimore: What early data shows
Teamsters, Anheuser Busch reach new 5-year contract
A first for Werner: Small group of workers votes to unionize