House bill would mandate standards by 2011

---

The House Energy and Commerce Committee approved clean energy legislation (H.R. 2454) that would mandate regulation of greenhouse gas emissions such as carbon dioxide (CO2) from heavy-duty trucks. Under an amendment adopted during the committee’s consideration of the bill on May 21, H.R. 2454 would require the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to adopt greenhouse gas emissions standards by the end of 2010.

The measure also would overturn legislation adopted by Congress in late 2007 that requires the U.S. Department of Transportation to establish fuel economy standards for work trucks and commercial medium- and heavy-duty trucks following a National Academy of Sciences study; the NAS committee conducting it plans to deliver its report by March of next year.

Although greenhouse gases and fuel economy are related, a regulation focused on lowering CO2 necessarily won’t lead to the same fuel economy improvements as one focused directly on mpg.

For example, EPA and DOT announced last month that they jointly intend to propose regulations establishing vehicle greenhouse gas emissions and fuel economy standards for passenger cars, light-duty trucks and medium-duty passenger vehicles built in model years 2012 through 2016. In the notice, EPA and DOT pointed out that some of the CO2 reduction in the vehicles will come from air conditioning changes that will produce no fuel economy benefits.

---

Judge blocks key parts of port concessions
Responding to a federal appeals court ruling strongly supporting the trucking industry, U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder issued a ruling in late April enjoining several key provisions of the concession plans imposed by the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles. Even so, the American Trucking Associations is appealing the district court’s acceptance of a broad motor vehicle safety exception and certain other aspects.

On March 20, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sent ATA’s challenge back to the district court for reconsideration, citing numerous problems with the ports’ concession agreements (see Journal, CCJ, April 2009). In response, Judge Snyder blocked various elements of the concessions, including:
·The employee mandate of the Los Angeles plan that banned owner-operators from the port;
·The driver hiring preferences of both plans;
·The motor carrier financial capability requirements of both plans;
·The driver health insurance mandate of the Long Beach plan;
·The designated routes and parking restrictions of both plans;
·The contractual tie-in of the clean truck tariffs mandated by both plans; and
·The concession fees of both plans.