A bill that trucking industry stakeholders have said would ban the registration of new diesel vehicles in the District of Columbia beginning in 2018 was “misinterpreted” by the industry, the city’s environmental legislative director said.
Karim Marshall, legislative director for the D.C. Department of the Environment, said Dec. 9 that the legislation is primarily intended to encourage motor carriers to convert their fleets to alternative fuels and other clean technologies.
However, it would only require that diesel trucks be “technologically capable” of burning an alternative fuel such as biodiesel, not actually using the fuel, Marshall said.
The word “capable,” however, is not included in the bill, which ATA said would require D.C. officials to not register any motor vehicle to operate within the District not registered prior to Jan. 1, 2018 that “operates exclusively on the combustion of petroleum diesel fuel.”
“I can understand if they weren’t familiar with legislative language it would come across that way,” Marshall said.
But Glen Kedzie, energy and environmental affairs counsel for American Trucking Associations, said he and several other experienced attorneys have closely analyzed the bill and believe they did not misinterpret the language used in the bill, the Sustainable D.C. Omnibus Act of 2013.
In a Dec. 5 letter, ATA and four other industry stakeholders said that as written, the bill clearly would ban all new diesel trucks from entering and operating in the District, and would have “significantly harmful effects on the District’s economy and on the quality of life of District residents.”
“We had plenty of people review the language, and each of us independently came up with the same interpretation,” Kedzie said. ““They need to tighten up the language. Their intent was not conveyed in the language that was presented to the public to review.”
Kedzie said that every diesel vehicle can be powered by a blend of biodiesel, Kedzie said.
“If they only need to be capable, what’s the reason for the legislation?” Kedzie asked.
But Marshall said the language as written does not call for an outright ban and is not in need of any changes.
“That wasn’t the intent and we don’t think will be the effect of the legislation,” he said.
