California Construction Trucking Association (CCTA)

Time again to hold your nose to avoid the stench of government activism, both here and in Washington D.C. Having dealt with environmental organizations such as CARB and its leadership, including Mary Nichols, its staff, and all the Hien-Tran types there, few are shocked by EPA’s Gina McCarthy’s behavior and disingenuous comments about EPA’s outreach to OOIDA.

On Wednesday, October 12 at 10:00 am est., the Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight and Government Spending held a hearing entitled, “Running on Empty: How the Obama Administration's Green Energy Gamble Will Impact Small Business & Consumers.” The Committee Acting Chair, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) gave an interesting introduction, including how CARB Chair Mary Nichols refused to appear before the panel and explain her comments about the involvement of herself, CARB, and certain stakeholders with setting the 2009 federal car and truck (CAFÉ) standards. Jordan pointed out that Nichols publicly said that the “stakeholders had taken a vow of silence” and “went to great pains to put nothing in writing” about the agreement. He further noted that her refusal to appear before the panel “crystallized why the panel is meeting today” and “why California should not be involved with the process.” He added, “CARB should not be in the business of establishing federal law.”

My first thought was that a letter, a few emails, and call were twice as much “contact” as CARB ever granted us as they stuffed the On-Road Rule down industry's throat. Maybe these government administrators consider this “extensively” reaching out to industry. You see, these are bureaucrats who are used to doing exactly what they think is right for the earth and themselves, regardless of the affects they have on people and jobs. My second thought was that perhaps EPA’s Mrs. McCarthy’s confused OOIDA and ATA, again proving how clueless, caring or involved she was in this regulatory fiasco. It also confirms that ATA was one of the “stakeholders” there at the CARB/EPA meetings that took a “vow of silence” and “did not put anything in writing” about the fuel standards agreements. Either way, it’s all pretty pathetic, as small business interests in the transportation industry were never represented!

In fact, in late breaking news, EPA faces more legal challenges to its heavy duty truck greenhouse gas (GHG) rule, with a coalition of natural gas vehicle groups filing suit over their claims that the rule penalizes lower-emitting gas-fueled vehicles and a utility group challenging the rule over concerns EPA could use it as the basis to justify GHG rules for stationary sources. The petitions for review, both filed Nov. 14. And another Group representing power companies, says it filed its petition for review on Nov. 14 too “because of potential implications . . . with respect to regulation . . . of stationary sources, including electric generating facilities.” UARG is also suing over EPA’s GHG permit rules for stationary sources and its endangerment finding.