Almost a month ago, Republicans in the House of Representatives to cut emissions from heavy-duty trucks. The White House announced shortly thereafter that President Biden would veto that measure, which is exactly what he did Wednesday.

Courtesy :

The veto preserves Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules will “make our air cleaner and prevent thousands of premature deaths by limiting hazardous heavy-duty vehicle pollution,” Biden said on Twitter.

The EPA standards tighten yearly emissions limits, the first update to clean air standards for heavy duty trucks in more than two decades. They are 80% more stringent than current standards.

The heavy vehicles include delivery trucks, motor homes, refuse haulers, transit, shuttle and school buses and tractor-trailers.

Republicans opposed the EPA rules, finalized in December, saying they are too challenging to implement, will increase supply chain costs and will make trucks too expensive for small business owners.

An EPA projection suggests its emissions limits would spare 2,900 premature deaths annually and 1.1 million school absences and produce more than $30 billion in economic benefits. It also wouldn’t take effect for another four years, giving truck manufacturers plenty of time to prepare, while critically not banning any rig on the road today. It represents the first reduction of heavy truck pollution in two decades, but that’s still sooner than opponents would have it.

Here’s what Biden wrote in his veto letter, per , giving special attention to the low-income communities along highway corridors that are most at risk by the status quo:

“The resolution would deny communities these health benefits by resulting in weaker emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles and engines, which are significant sources of pollutants that threaten public health,” Biden wrote in his veto letter. “If enacted, the resolution would squander $36 billion in benefits to society — and an opportunity to lead on the defining crisis of our time. Therefore, I am vetoing this resolution.

You could argue that the opposition’s kind of already won though, with to ensure the proposed emissions controls don’t take effect in “cold weather,” the legal definition of which for this purpose is 77 degrees Fahrenheit. That’s American lawmaking at its finest: warring parties grandstanding over regulations to protect the public good that havealready been kneecapped before they cross anyone’s desk.