‘Defying real-world reality’

On the same day a coalition of states filed a petition for review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s nationwide truck emission rule, another coalition of states filed a lawsuit against California’s Advanced Clean Fleets regulation.

In May, a group of Republican state attorneys general filed a lawsuit in a California federal court seeking to undo the state’s Advanced Clean Fleets regulations. The Arizona state legislature and Nebraska Trucking Association are also named plaintiffs in the case.

Like the lawsuit challenging the EPA’s truck emission rule, the lawsuit challenging California’s Advanced Clean Fleets regulation is spearheaded by Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers. The coalition of states claims the regulation violates the Constitution and federal law.

According to the lawsuit, Advanced Clean Fleets violates federal law “while defying real-world reality and burdening American families and businesses, already suffering from high inflation, with even more costs.”

“In a stunning gambit that both violates the Constitution and threatens our nation’s economic security, an agency of the state of California has attempted to override federal law and arrogate to itself the power to ban internal-combustion engines in medium- and heavy-duty vehicles,” the lawsuit states.

The Advanced Clean Fleets regulation requires certain fleets to move to zero-tailpipe-emission trucks with a phase-in timeline. Only drayage fleets, state/local agencies and high-priority fleets are affected by the regulation. High-priority fleets are those with 50 or more vehicles, fleets with more than $50 million in annual revenue, federal government fleets or entities that hire or dispatch fleets.

Advanced Clean Fleets applies to all trucks operating in California, including trucks owned by companies outside of California.

The lawsuit claims the regulation effectively creates a nationwide ban on diesel-powered trucks. Consequently, it will “inevitably disrupt the supply chain for all manner of goods, slow interstate transportation, raise prices on goods across the country and impose costs on taxpayers and governments around the country.”

The lawsuit argues that Advanced Clean Fleets violates the Clean Air Act. Specifically, the act allows states to regulate sources of emission that do not move. However, states cannot regulate emission sources that move, like motor vehicles, since they may cross state lines, setting the stage for nationwide restrictions set by Congress.A patchwork of emission standards will divide states, the lawsuit claims, undermining the goal of promoting interstate trade.

The states also argue that Advanced Clean Fleets violates the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (F4A), which restricts states from passing laws pertaining to the price, route or service of motor carriers. The lawsuit also claims California’s regulation ignores the Constitution’s Commerce Clause.

“Advanced Clean Fleets forces certain owners and operators of trucks to retire their working internal-combustion trucks and replace them with battery-electric trucks that are less efficient, less affordable and less available,” the lawsuit states. “Any covered truck fleet owner who refuses to comply is penalized with denial of access to California, the nation’s largest state economy and a hub for international trade.”

Fourth in line

The lawsuit filed by the states follows three other lawsuits challenging California’s Advanced Clean Fleets regulation.

Last October, the California Trucking Association filed a lawsuit against the California Air Resources Board over its Advanced Clean Fleets rule. Like the lawsuit filed by the coalition of states, the trucking association’s challenge argues the regulation violates the Clean Air Act and F4A.

In April, the American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce and Associated Equipment Distributors filed a lawsuit against CARB’s Advanced Clean Fleets regulation.

“The ability to move people and products reliably and affordably is foundational to free enterprise and a functioning marketplace that serves American consumers,” AmFree Chamber CEO Gentry Collins said in a statement. “The attempt currently underway by the State of California to ban liquid fuels and internal combustion engines is a major threat to the American way of life and terrible climate policy to boot.”

While all three federal lawsuits make similar arguments, a fourth lawsuit filed in state court by the Western States Trucking Association takes a different route. In that lawsuit, the trucking association argues CARB failed to evaluate the environmental impacts of Advanced Clean Fleets under the state’s Environmental Quality Act.

The association also claims CARB failed to assess economic impacts and feasible alternatives under California’s Administrative Procedure Act. Lastly, the state lawsuit claims the regulation violates California’s Health and Safety Code by failing to engage in external peer review of the scientific portions of regulation.

Enforcement on pause

CARB has not enforced Advanced Clean Fleets rules since they went into effect on Jan. 1.

California’s ability to set emission standards stricter than federal rules is possible through a carveout in the Clean Air Act. However, the state must obtain a waiver from the EPA before moving forward with stricter rules.

Although Advanced Clean Fleets was finalized last October, CARB never received the required EPA waiver. In fact, a request for the waiver was not submitted until November. Consequently, CARB announced in December that it will not be enforcing the regulation until it either receives the waiver or a waiver is deemed unnecessary.

Per the regulation, trucks purchased after Jan. 1 must be zero-tailpipe-emission vehicles. Although CARB is not currently enforcing the rule, it has warned fleets that any ineligible truck purchased after Jan. 1 will need to be removed from the fleet once the agency gets the green light from the EPA and begins enforcement. LL