development of sufficient technology to meet market demand, as required under CAA Section 202(a). 22 The report, cited in OPEI’s petition for reconsideration, found that commercial-grade equipment marks a “notable exception” to the emissions- reduction trend expected from residential lawn and garden equipment and will continue to rely on liquid fuel sources. 23 Identified barriers to electrification identified in the report “are related to cost, weight, charging downtime, and charging infrastructure. The cost of batteries makes achieving cost parity difficult for equipment with the need for long run times between charging.” 24 In short, contrary to EPA’s conclusion in the Notice of Decision, in the Joint Report, the Agency recognized that zero-emissions equipment is not technologically feasible for some commercial and long run-time uses. This inconsistency is of central relevance because it renders the Notice of Decision arbitrary and capricious and mandates reconsideration. c. A Subsequent Stay Pending Judicial Review Is Also Justified. If EPA does not complete reconsideration within the 90-day administrative stay, a stay of the effective date pending judicial review is warranted to prevent irreparable harm. Without a stay, manufacturers will be forced to comply with a rule that is under active reconsideration and that rests on flawed assumptions about cost and technological feasibility. A judicial stay would ensure that the reconsideration process can proceed meaningfully and that regulated parties are not prejudiced by premature enforcement of a rule that may ultimately be revised or withdrawn.
22 See supra note 20. 23 December 2024 Report at 35. 24 Id. at 38.
12
Made with FlippingBook Digital Proposal Creator