Heavy burden

Dozens of lawmakers in the House and Senate are united against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s final rule for heavy-duty vehicles.

Led by Rep. Randy Feenstra, R-Iowa, and Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, a group of 157 lawmakers sent a letter on July 2 to EPA Administrator Michael Regan and President Joe Biden.

The members of Congress said the rule will place a heavy burden on truckers, farmers and other businesses across the country.

“This final rule, which encompasses heavy-duty vehicles ranging from delivery trucks and school buses to tractors and semis, would disrupt the heavy-duty truck industry by forcing the broad adoption of heavy-duty zero-emission vehicles on an extremely aggressive timeline, despite these vehicles currently being less than 1% of sales,” the lawmakers wrote. “According to a recent study, it would cost nearly $1 trillion in infrastructure investment alone to fully electrify the U.S. commercial fleet, which does not include the expense of purchasing new semis. Additionally, the cost for an electric semi-truck averages over $400,000, while a comparable diesel Class 8 truck costs around $180,000 – meaning electric trucks cost an average of 122% more than a normal semi.”

Earlier this year, the EPA announced its final rule formally known as “Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles – Phase 3.” The new truck emission standards apply to heavy-duty vehicles for model years 2027 through 2032.

Commonly referred to as “zero-emission” trucks, electric and hydrogen-fueled trucks are actually “zero-direct-emission” vehicles, as defined by the Department of Energy. Although emission measured on a tailpipe basis (direct) may be zero, emission related to battery production, distribution, recycling and disposal do not have a net-zero result.

The EPA rule requires that 25% of sleeper cab tractors must be zero-direct-emission vehicles by 2032.

Opponents say the aggressive rule will hurt the agriculture industry and will cost Americans more in utilities and groceries.

“Our farmers and agricultural industry will be especially hurt by this new mandate,” the lawmakers wrote in the letter. “According to the latest agriculture census by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, there are 3,161,820 trucks (including pickups) on over 1.4 million farms and 3,784,743 tractors on over 1.5 million farms that would see higher equipment costs and tighter margins due to this misguided rule … Not only would this rule harm consumers, but it would also exacerbate consolidation by effectively forcing our small trucking companies out of business (because they) cannot afford this hasty transition to electric or hydrogen-powered trucks.”

Crapo spoke out about the EPA’s final rule in a news release.

“Heavy-handed, top-down environmental policies do more harm than good,” he said. “Regulations like these raise costs for Americans, harm farmers and small businesses and push our country toward greater dependence on China. We deserve a choice in the cars and trucks we drive, especially when the consequences of these mandates are so detrimental to the economic success of families, businesses and rural communities.”

Trucking groups oppose

The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association and American Trucking Associations both oppose the EPA rule.

OOIDA President Todd Spencer said the rule would “devastate” America’s supply chain and “suffocate” small trucking businesses.

ATA said that the EPA rule ignores the lack of infrastructure and charging stations needed for heavy-duty trucks.

In June, OOIDA, the American Petroleum Institute, the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Corn Growers Association challenged the EPA rule in federal court. LL

Land Line Associate Editor Tyson Fisher contributed to this report.