‘Impossible position’ cited by truck manufacturers in lawsuit against California

Ground work to pressure in 2023

The road began when the corporate business group, the Motor Manufacturers Association (EMA), signed the Clean Truck (CTP) participation in 2023, which gave the manufacturers more to meet the requirements of California and EPA laws. The transaction also includes restrictions on what engine manufacturers can do to challenge the action.

On the one hand, California’s pressure insists that federal action to overturn is illegal and engine manufacturers must follow CTP rules. (California has complained to federal actions, the important argument is that ignoring EPA is not subject to Congress’s review law that Congress used to overthrow them. Engine producers’ petition says there is a conference on the California petition on September 16 and has nothing to do with the government’s petition.

On the other hand, it is the federal government that the petition said a letter sent a letter to Daimler’s chief executive on August 7, and told him that CTP signatories should “should stop and destroy your coordination with the participation of clean trucks and regulations on the publication of government vehicles.” The letter was sent by Adam RF Gustafson, the Assistant Prosecutor General of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and an attachment to the engineer’s petition.

The petition said that engine manufacturers, along with EMA, “are obtained from carbohydrates on the legal obligations of OEMs and basic carbohydrate emissions standards, pointing out that the requirements of clean truck participation are invalid for various reasons, including they have been regulated.” According to the petition, the carbon has not responded to it.

California is seen as threatening action

But the petition refers to the consulting correspondence of manufacturers issued by carbohydrates on May 23, which states that the engineers of the engine “must comply with basic carbon standards, including the requirement for certification to ensure the legal sale of vehicles and engines in California.”

The case sought an executive order from the news of the News Government, which said the lawsuit would threaten the producers with “undesirable regulatory treatment as well as deprivation of government purchases and incentive programs”, if companies did not adhere to the law.

Carbon has made changes since prevention. A press release on July 24, which announced the changes, quoted Lian Randolph’s carbohydrate chief as saying that they were “flexibility”. But he also referred to “commitments made in the participation of clean truck”.

Last month, EMA commented on carbohydrates during a process that led to changes that he was unhappy with the situation he was facing. This was the first general declaration of its views because the federal action set the context for current disputes.

Given the pressures coming from both sides, according to the petition, “OEMs are subject to two sovereignty whose regulatory requirements are unnecessary and are clearly conflicted with each other. By the supervisory authority.”

But this is only one side of the division that is the purpose of the petition: California.

“California has taken the stance that the Congress’s resolutions are” reckless, political and illegal attacks on California “(citing a news press statement) and have made it clear that it will continue to try to apply the requirements in advanced clean trucks, Omnibus Low Cars.

For the transportation industry, the soft California Low Nox law and its coordination with the federal law was an important part of the deal. Federal ignorance that allows this action is also permitted to permit the Omnibus NOX law (which restricts the laws of nitrogen oxide greenhouse gas emissions) and the advanced Clean Cars II law, which affects passenger vehicles.

CTP did not affect ZEV rules

One case that did not change under CTP: ACT program for truck manufacturers to sell a growing percentage of zero -release vehicles (ZEV) to the state.

But the lawsuit points out that another engine manufacturer’s problem is that the task of buying ZEVS, which is completely unstable in the law of clean and advanced fleets, has disappeared, although carbohydrates have killed the law when he did not think he would use the protected organization.

“In other words, the carbohydrate required for the purchase of sales guidelines imposed by advanced clean trucks, thus making the manufacturer even more challenging with advanced clean trucks,” the petition said.

The petition says the engine manufacturers “need transparency immediately regarding the law and the publishing standards applied to vehicles and its engines for the 2026 model.” “To properly plan production and allocation of product, the plaintiffs need to know which vehicles are allowed to sell, and where, before the start of one year model on January 1, where, where,”

The legal allegations in the petition are that California, by ignoring the disappearance, violates the regulations of the Clean Air Law that ban a state ban – the establishment of more strict standards than the law.

It also challenges the condition in CTP – which EMA signed – is forbidden challenges that carbohydrates may have been involved in partnership. “Government officials cannot require their citizens to comply with illegal standards without violating the first amendment.”

The petition also says CTP violates various California regulations.

Producers are seeking court rulings that prohibit the government from “implementing” or trying to “implement” not only the law but also other rules that the government has approved and sought. This includes the advanced law of the clean fleet, which was taken by EPA before the EPA decision to decide.

A carbohydrate spokesman rejected the comment by citing a lawsuit.

Groups heard their voices

But other comments came quickly.

The clean transport coalition is a group of carriers and other transport -related jobs that, while supporting others, are backward against some emissions technologies.

Jim Mollen, its chief executive (and former FMCSA manager), said the group admires the “OEMs of the truck for the petition against carbon.”

“This is an absolute disgrace that this is necessary.” Carbon hostages with its refusal to approve of the transportation industry: that they canceled the actions of Congress and the President of the CTP. “

On the other side of this section, Craig Segal, former Executive Vice President and Assistant to the Carbohydrate Senior Advisor, asked the manufacturers “Do you have an idea to sell your products? “

“Imagine you are a truck company and have been working for years to deal with the world’s fourth largest economy that will help you sell electric trucks and financial infrastructure despite the federal uncertainty … and then burn your regulators and explode the value of the shareholders,” he said in a statement. “There is a lot of red flags.”

More articles by John Kingston

The first legal measures, this time by WSTA, was carried out to solve the legal node of the clean truck participation

In short, Trimble CEO introduces a new product to match capacity with shipping

Sale of trucks in the second trimester may be the worst metric of all