Supreme Court votes down clean fuel rules

Smog-fighters in Southern California recently lost a key weapon after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down local rules forcing private fleets to buy clean-fuel vehicles. But officials with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) have petitioned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for permission to enforce the rules. The court said AQMD’s regulations were a violation of a provision within the Clean Air Act, but the act itself has a waiver process that allows local agencies to seek exemptions from various Clean Air Act provisions. If AQMD wins an EPA waiver, local agencies in other states might consider petitioning for similar authority in the future, notes Catherine Witherspoon, executive director of the Sacramento-based California Air Resources Board.

The AQMD rules, adopted in 2000, require public and private fleet operators to buy models that run on clean fuels, such as compressed natural gas (CNG), or liquefied natural gas (LNG), whenever replacing or adding vehicles. The rules apply to fleets of 15 or more trash trucks, street sweepers, heavy-duty utility trucks, transit and school buses, and airport shuttles and taxis.

The Chicago-based Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) and the Sacramento-based Western States Petroleum Association sued to overturn the regulations soon after they were adopted. “The Clean Air Act establishes national emissions standards and prevents local governments from establishing their own standards,” says EMA spokesman Joe Suchecki.

In its 8-to-1 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed. “The manufacturer’s right to sell federally approved vehicles is meaningless in the absence of a purchaser’s right to buy them,” noted Justice Antonin Scalia in the majority opinion.

The effect of the Supreme Court ruling on AQMD’s pollution-control efforts depends on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. Although the Supreme Court reaffirmed that only the federal government can establish emissions standards for privately owned vehicles, it noted that AQMD might regulate public vehicles. The justices, however, ordered the lower court to sort out exactly which fleets should be classified as “public.”

“The lion’s share of emissions-reductions under the fleet rules comes from the trash-truck collection rule, and [AQMD] has advanced the legal theory that trash trucks under public-government contract are public vehicles,” Witherspoon says. If the lower court affirms that interpretation, AQMD would have the green light to regulate all trash fleets under government contract, thereby preserving most of the benefits from the fleet rules, Witherspoon notes.

AQMD developed the rules — projected to eliminate 4,780 tons of harmful emissions per year by 2010 — after a study blamed diesel exhaust for about 70 percent of the cancer risk posed by air pollution. Because of the rules’ implementation in 2000, about 5,500 alternative-fuel vehicles are on the road.

The U.S. Justice Department filed a brief supporting EMA and the petroleum organization. Environmental groups and several state and local government associations supported AQMD. Roy Wilson, vice chairman of AQMD’s governing board, says the Supreme Court decision sends a disconcerting message. “What it is saying is, the dirtiest air basin in the country cannot address the major sources of its pollution — mobile sources,” he says.

But the ruling was welcome news to Timothy Dillon, safety/environmental affairs officer for Sylmar, Calif.-based Foothill Waste Reclamation, which serves the San Fernando Valley with 30 refuse haulers. Dillon says AQMD’s rules fail to account for the expense and technical limitations of alternative-fuel trucks. “If you pay $180,000 for a vehicle, you’re looking at something in the neighborhood of $235,000 to $245,000 for a comparable vehicle with a CNG or LNG package,” Dillon says. “If you puncture a diesel tank, it might cost you between $400 and $800. But an LNG tank — you’re looking at $14,000.”

Joel Groover is an Atlanta-based freelance writer.