Senate cancels California's clean-truck waivers
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate on Thursday voted to repeal a waiver granted to California by the Biden administration that the trucking industry considered costly electric vehicle mandates by requiring much of the industry to achieve zero-carbon emissions by 2035.
The Senate also voted to repeal a waiver that tightens nitrogen oxide (NOx) emission standards for heavy-duty trucks.
The nullifications of California's Advanced Clean Truck (ACT) and Low NOx Omnibus rules, accomplished through two Congressional Review Act resolutions, have already been adopted by the House of Representatives. They head to the White House where they are expected to be signed by President Donald Trump.
'The trucking industry is no longer shackled by these unattainable regulatory standards set by unelected officials in California,' Jim Mullen, executive director of the Clean Freight Coalition, which is supported by major trucking fleets, said in an email to FreightWaves.
'To be clear: the trucking industry will continue to pursue an 'all of the above' strategy to reduce commercial vehicle emissions, while at the same time protecting the supply chain and the economy.'
The American Trucking Associations called the Senate's repeal of the waivers a 'monumental victory' for the trucking industry.
'We don't need government mandates to tell us how to reduce our environmental impact — we've been doing it for forty years with a record to show, all while moving an ever-increasing percentage of the goods that Americans expect and depend on every day,' said ATA President and CEO Chris Spear in a statement on Thursday.
In a letter sent to Congress in April, Spear argued that California's ACT regulation, if allowed to move forward, would have required truck manufacturers to increase zero-emission vehicle sales to 40% of the Class 7-8 fleet by the 2035 model year and would have 'put enormous inflationary pressure on the economy.'
It has already been adopted by other states, he noted, 'causing equipment costs to skyrocket for trucking companies, combined with a severe shortage of new and available clean-diesel equipment.'
Spear also noted that the resolutions passed by Congress 'will not only restore EPA's role as the primary authority empowered to establish achievable, nationwide emissions standards, but will also block California from issuing similar regulations in the future.'
Calstart, a nonprofit organization that works with the transportation industry to cut air pollution, called the votes a 'massive handout' to the trucking lobby.
'This move concedes the industries of the future to global competitors, will increase air pollution, accelerate global warming and result in significant job loss,' said Calstart President John Boesel in a press statement.
'It is a brazen, yet futile, attempt to bring the clean transportation industry to a sudden halt. Calstart will continue to partner with the states working to fill this gaping void left by today's federal action.'
Clash on legal status of California transportation waivers highlighted at TCA
EPA announces rollback of Biden-Harris emissions rules
Speculation abounds on California trucking regulation with no ACF
Click for more FreightWaves articles by John Gallagher.
The post Senate cancels California's clean-truck waivers appeared first on FreightWaves.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC Sports
16 minutes ago
- NBC Sports
Missouri Senate passes plan to keep Chiefs at Arrowhead Stadium
There's nothing like a ticking clock to get things done. The Missouri Senate, faced with the inevitability of the Chiefs and Royals leaving for Kansas, passed on Thursday morning a plan to keep both teams from leaving. The consensus was reached at a time when many doubted the ability of the Senate to strike a deal. The legislation, which devotes more than $1.5 billion to the football and baseball stadiums, was crafted at a special session called by governor Mike Kehoe. To get there, Senate Republicans increased the aid package for recent St. Louis tornadoes from $25 million to $100 million. This lured enough Democrats to support such a large expenditure for a pair of private businesses that arguably don't need to be subsidized by taxpayers. Ultimately, the stadium effort prevailed by a vote of 19-13. The GOP-controlled House is expected to adopt the plan on Monday. For the Chiefs, Missouri will kick half of the $1.15 billion needed for renovations to Arrowhead Stadium. This doesn't mean the deal is done. The Chiefs could still choose to go to Kansas, where a new stadium would be built. While the team's lease runs through 2030, Kansas has said its offer expires on June 30. If so, the Chiefs will be making a decision sooner than later.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Good Riddance to New York City's Tenant-Paid Broker's Fee
With the FARE Act set to shift the costly burden from renters to landlords, I've been reflecting on what the system actually offered me and other New Yorkers. In 2022, when I made the decision to move to New York City from New Haven, Connecticut, I was told that finding a place to rent for the first time would be a shock to the system. But after months of research—and an unholy amount of time scrolling Zillow, StreetEasy, and Craigslist—I finally found a listing for the perfect apartment. It was on the Upper West Side, within walking distance of my new job. It was a "one-bedroom flex," meaning my wife and I could set up a work-from-home space to accommodate our hybrid schedules. And it was beautiful: tucked atop a prewar, south-facing townhouse—with high ceilings, exposed brick, an ostensibly working fireplace, and a pretty incredible semiprivate rooftop terrace featuring views of 18 water tanks (I counted) that felt straight out of an Edward Hopper painting. The only problem was that the unit—listed at $3,850 per month—was nearly double what I had ever paid for an apartment before. Also, I hadn't fully internalized that New York is one of only two major U.S. cities where tenants are expected to pay a fee to brokers who are hired by landlords to show and fill their rental properties, which usually cost one month's rent or 15 percent of the annual rent, according to The City. (Though, because there is no legal cap on how much brokers can charge, there have been reports of brokers charging tenants even more exorbitant fees for highly competitive rent-controlled or rent-stabilized apartments.) The broker's fee for my apartment was 11 percent of the annual rent ($4,300), on top of the first month's rent and the matching security deposit. Now, the Fairness in Apartment Rental Expenses (FARE) Act—a landmark bill that shifts the burden of the broker's fee away from renters and onto the landlords who hire them, which Dwell contributor Anjulie Rao previously reported "could upend a hurdle in the city's notoriously difficult apartment hunting process"—is set to go into effect on June 11 (while the city's real estate lobby fights to block the law in the background). The FARE Act, introduced by Councilmember Chi Ossé of the 36th District and passed by City Council in November 2024, comes after years of thwarted attempts to reform the city's broker's fee system. So naturally, I've been reflecting on what I received in exchange for my compulsory broker's fee—and curious about the experiences of other New York renters. — I certainly didn't want to dip into emergency savings, but I suppose I wanted my perfect New York apartment more. So I called the number on the listing, thus commencing the service I received in exchange for $4,300. This—in order of least to most frustrating—is more or less what I got: No actual face time with the broker, who outsourced the showing to a colleague, which was fine (considering our later interactions), but it was still a bit jarring to be asked to Venmo a faceless-someone thousands of dollars. A real scolding when, on a weekday afternoon, I hadn't received the application I was promised and accordingly called the broker, who was shopping at Home Depot with his wife and asked why I was disturbing him. Typos everywhere, which is absolutely forgivable when it's an extra letter in a date ("May 1stt") but much less so when it suggests that the rent is $800 per month lower than advertised. Incorrect information on the official lease—including the wrong expiration date, a clause that the building did not allow pets (which it did), and a disclaimer that our fireplace was strictly decorative (which it wasn't). It's tempting to chalk my experience up to one-time bad service. But the more I reflect, the more I think that my experience is a product of a few layered problems that, taken together, amount to a systemic failure for New York renters. According to a recent New York Times story, StreetEasy reported that as of March 2o25, roughly 57.5 percent of rentals on its platform did not require tenants to pay a broker's fee. This means that avoiding paying a broker's fee could cut a New York City renter's housing options almost half in an already fiercely competitive rental market. — When I told my coworker I was seeking the perspectives of folks who've had notable experiences with brokers, he asked me if I had tried throwing a rock. In New York, they're everywhere. Indeed, it didn't take much looking to learn that another renter on the Upper West Side, Fabrice Houdart, a human rights advocate, had a similarly frustrating encounter with not just any broker, but the very same one who listed my unit. After not hearing back from the broker about a rental application for nearly a week, Houdart CC'ed the broker's manager, which seemed to anger the broker so much that he withdrew the offer against Houdart's wishes. The urgency was high for Houdart, a single father seeking housing near the school his twins were set to attend. Ultimately, after filing a complaint with the New York Department of State, Houdart cut his losses and secured a different apartment the following week (with a 12 percent broker's fee). But the experience left him with a sour taste. "I had this very awful experience because I had zero power. I feel the broker and the landlord have all the power," Houdart says. " [The] goal was to make as much money as possible. And I was only a number." For other New Yorkers, forced broker's fees have acted as a barrier to renting altogether. Alex Sramek, a technical writer, first moved to New York in 2013, and was initially excited when he found an "unreasonably cheap" three-month sublet within a three-bedroom unit in Washington Heights. Sramek moved in and immediately hit it off with his new roommates. But three months later—when the sublease period was ending and the group identified another nearby apartment to move into together—they were told they would have to come up with about a 15 percent broker's fee, which they couldn't afford. "We ended up just splitting ways," Sramek says. "We each just sublet in different apartments and we lost touch and it was kind of the end of that." After years of bouncing around from sublease to sublease, Sramek eventually landed his own lease on a one-bedroom apartment. The catch? It was only possible for him after the New York Department of State issued guidance to pause forced broker's fees during the pandemic in 2020—guidance that the New York State Supreme Court overturned in 2021 after the Real Estate Board of New York sued. Ever since that brief reprieve, some New Yorkers have been waiting for a bill like the FARE Act to eliminate forced broker's fees once again. Tim Samuel, a software engineer in Astoria, who has paid two broker's fees in New York and describes them as "nonsensical," was excited enough about the legislation that he and some friends attended the City Council hearing at which the bill passed in November. "We were in the background, just supporting and being there…forty-two members out of the fifty-one voted yes." That tally was enough to establish a veto-proof supermajority, meaning supporters of the bill could feel optimistic about its becoming law. That optimism extends to the FARE Act's sponsor, Chi Ossé, who developed the bill after several poor encounters with brokers during his own apartment search in Crown Heights. Ossé kept asking himself the same question: "Do you really want one month's rent for this apartment and you're not even showing up and giving a guy a tour?" When I recently spoke with Ossé, he made a point to say that he isn't "anti-broker." In fact, he ended up hiring a broker himself and had a perfectly positive experience. But he is "anti-things not being fair" and takes issue with the fact that the fees are forced on tenants who never hired brokers in the first place. When I asked Ossé what greater fairness might look like as the law goes into effect, he emphasized what renters will gain: "This just makes mobilization around housing as a tenant in New York City a lot more affordable…and [it] gives tenants more bargaining power, which they don't usually have in the current system." To me, it looks a lot like the sketch of a better future. After years of giving up money and trust in the system, New York City renters are finally set to get something back. Top photo byRelated Reading: Will NYC Renters Finally See the End of the Dreaded Broker's Fee? What the Roaches in My Rent-Stabilized Apartment Taught Me About the Housing Crisis
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Speaker Johnson, the Blue Dogs are here to throw you a bone
Over the last few weeks, Americans have been hearing endless mentions of the 'One Big Beautiful Bill.' Although the Republicans' reconciliation proposal is certainly big — so big it would add over $4 trillion to our national debt — it is by no means beautiful. There is no way to hide the ugly reality of this bill. It allows for $2.8 trillion in new borrowing over the 10-year budget window, adds $3.3 trillion to the already more than $36 trillion national debt, and cuts over $700 billion from federal health care spending, primarily Medicaid. By 2034, our debt-to-GDP ratio would be at 125 percent. Interest payments could exceed $2 trillion a year, making it impossible to pay off the debt. Considering we already spend more on servicing our debt than on stewarding American defense capabilities and health care, we are accelerating down an unsustainable and dangerous path. Unrestrained fiscal policy has plagued the U.S. for decades, and it has not been limited to one side of the aisle. While members of Congress sit insulated on Capitol Hill and alternate between irresponsible tax cuts and excessive spending, life gets worse for everyday Americans. Moody's recently lowered the U.S. long-term credit ratings to AA1 from AAA. At the same time, the world is moving further and further away from the American dollar. This means Americans are left with a smaller economy, less economic mobility, and a lower standard of living. As we know all too well, excessive borrowing leads to inflation and drives up interest rates, making it harder for Americans to finance a home, start a business, and put food on the table. This is unsustainable and has to change very quickly. Don't just take it from us: In a recent Wall Street Journal editorial, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) wrote called it 'essential that Congress deviate from its current path. Under every scenario now being considered, federal debt continues to skyrocket from its current level of almost $37 trillion.' So far in the 119th Congress, the majority hasn't shown much of an appetite to deviate from this trajectory. In order to hand out tax breaks to the ultra-wealthy, the Republican reconciliation package would make devastating cuts to food assistance programs, health coverage, and other federal resources that hard-working Americans rely on to make ends meet. Is it so important to our colleagues across the aisle to give a handout to their mega-wealthy buddies that they would strap everyday Americans with even more crushing debt? The national debt and our federal government's spending deficit may seem like far-off, intangible concepts when D.C. bureaucrats and television talking heads drone on about them for weeks on end. But the American people know perfectly well how debt adds up. Our constituents have to balance their budgets every month — why can't the federal government do the same? The truth is, we can. For decades, Congress has chosen not to do so, perhaps because it isn't politically expedient or it just takes too much hard work. Regardless, Congress and our federal government broadly are derelict in our duty to responsibly manage the government's finances. Since our coalition was founded in the 1990s, the cornerstone of the Blue Dogs' work has been our relentless focus on fiscal responsibility. For years, Blue Dogs supported legislation to curb reckless spending, hold both Democrats and Republicans accountable to our constituents, and require that Congress balance the budget. We had a willing partner in President Bill Clinton, who remains the most recent example of real fiscal discipline in the federal government. Now, as then, Blue Dogs know that the American people have one demand for their legislators as prices continue to rise and reckless fiscal policy threatens their livelihoods: 'It's the economy, stupid!' As this cry goes unanswered by a majority in Congress that proposes to drive our national debt to truly harrowing heights, Americans who work hard to pay their bills and take care of their families are losing confidence in their government. Each day this irresponsible spending continues, young Americans' dreams that they can achieve the economic prosperity their parents did slip further and further away. The Blue Dogs' vision to solve this problem is proving that our government can work. We believe that change is not only possible but essential. It doesn't have to be this way. There's another way forward: a bipartisan, commonsense way that pays down our debt while extending tax cuts to working Americans who need them most. Evidently, our offers to Republican leadership to work together on this fell on deaf ears this time. But with costs rising, confidence in government is sinking. Americans are eager for change, and we remain committed to using a steady hand to deliver pragmatic policies that most Americans agree on. In that spirit, our offer still stands. We are eager to work with our Republican colleagues to solve the issues facing our country and deliver results to the American people. We ask our colleagues: Will you work with us to deliver results? The authors are all members of the House Blue Dog Coalition. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
