Waiver allowed California to ban the manufacture and sale of 25 hp and under gasoline-powered equipment in the state

The Outdoor Power Equipment Institute (OPEI) has challenged the EPA in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit over an EPA-issued SORE (small off-road engine) waiver that allows the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to prohibit the sale and manufacture of gasoline-powered equipment with 25 hp or less in the state.  

OPEI represents the interests of manufacturers and suppliers of power equipment, small engines, battery power systems, and UTVs, golf cars, and personal transport vehicles.  GCSAA is an OPEI member and has worked with the institute in opposition to the original legislation (California AB 1346) and to the rule-making process implemented through CARB. 

OPEI argues that the EPA's waiver approval relied on improper data (e.g., retail prices rather than manufacturer cost data) when estimating regulatory compliance costs, significantly underestimating the real costs, which industry estimates could exceed $1 billion. 

Additionally, OPEI is highlighting the commercial viability of zero-emission equipment – the same argument that GCSAA and the California Alliance for Golf (CAG) highlighted in opposition during legislation on AB 1346, as well as the CARB rulemaking process. Numerous pieces of equipment banned under this legislation/rulemaking pose infrastructure and cost/performance issues, including limited battery life, charging challenges, durability/shelf-life problems, lack of maintenance support and incapacity to complete large golf course maintenance and landscape tasks.

While GCSAA does not support or oppose the use of any particular product line, we support product choice and the ability for our members to source the various equipment types needed to maintain their golf courses to standards set by owners, customers and members. For more information, find GCSAA’s position statement. 

The opening briefs are scheduled for February 3 and more information will be available as the challenge proceeds in the Ninth Circuit.