Posted on 11/08/2010 1:41:45 PM PST by SmithL
David Chidester last year leased $5.5 million worth of new diesel trucks to meet new air standards by Jan. 1 this year. He was trying to play by the rules. But that decision may kill his business.
His Fresno-based freight-hauling company is caught between the recession and 2008 diesel rules requiring billions of dollars worth of new California trucks over the next several years.
Chidester invested in new trucks to be ready for the Jan. 1 standards for particle pollution and also to get ahead of a 2014 deadline for cleaning up nitrogen oxides.
A state trucking association says many other trucking companies – perhaps dozens – did the same. But many of the state's thousands of haulers chose a cheaper, short-term fix that only meets this year's deadline. Those companies would gain a critical advantage if, as expected, the state postpones the 2014 deadline because of the recession.
"It is just not fair," Chidester said. "We need some kind of help to compete head to head."
But many truckers need the delay, state air officials say. The industry is driving 20 percent fewer miles, making less money and putting out less pollution.
"Getting relief from the recession is one of the big reasons for seeking a delay," said Mike Sutherland, air specialist with the California Air Resources Board.
In December, the governing board of the Air Resources Board will consider staff recommendations to delay the new truck requirement to January 2017.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Based in CA? Hahahaha!
And they say regulatory uncertainty doesn’t harm jobs!
I’m sure Governor Dufusbean will get right on it.
This is indeed the thumb of governance upon the scales. Trusting government to stay the course is to trust a very thin reed indeed!
A whole bunch of them did so, while many others decided that they couldn't justify purchasing the new equipment and figured they wouldn't renew their inspection licenses when the deadline came up.
It turns out the new equipment was so unreliable that the state scrapped the new requirements less than a year after they became official -- but only after a lot of service station owners had shelled out tens of thousands of dollars for the new equipment.
I don’t see the problem here.
After all, this business owner knew before he made the investment in new equipment that his business was located in perhaps the single most anti-business state in the Union. So he made his investment, and the government smacked him down. Completely predictable in advance.
Seems to me that in this world you pays yer money and you takes yer choice; no sense in whining about it when your gamble fails and you lose. The smart business man would have relocated his business before making that gamble. Maybe he has learned from his error?
After all, this business owner knew before he made the investment in new equipment that his business was located in perhaps the single most anti-business state in the Union. So he made his investment, and the government smacked him down. Completely predictable in advance
don’t these haulers know how to turn their engines OFF? when freight ceases to be delivered in these inane communities, perhaps their legislators will be held responsible!! He stands to make a bunch of money if he’ll hold his position. DO NOT GIVE UP!!!!!!YOU ARE IN CONTROL, AND WHEN THEY REALIZE IT, they will at last, figure out that their asinine “environmental” restrictions are totally ridiculous
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.