Truckers say EPA Advanced Clean Fleets regulation impractical

The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association used a marathon public hearing to inform the EPA that “misguided” mandates are doing more harm than good.

On Aug. 14, OOIDA and many other trucking representatives called the “rushed” mandates impractical. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency held the hearing to get feedback on whether it should grant California’s Advanced Clean Fleets waiver. In addition to input from trucking, the daylong meeting included dozens of comments from environmentalists and the bus industry.

“All truckers believe in improving air quality,” said Jay Grimes, OOIDA’s director of federal affairs. “However, Advanced Clean Fleets is an example of a rushed environmental rule that does not account for manufacturing lead time, practical vehicle market conditions, and, in this case, operational feasibility.”

The Advanced Clean Fleets regulation requires that 100% of manufacturers’ sales be zero-tailpipe-emission trucks by 2036. Drayage operations, government fleets and “high priority” fleets with 50 or more vehicles are affected by the regulation.

The rule from the California Air Resources Board took effect on Jan. 1 but has not been enforced, because the state must obtain a waiver from the EPA before moving forward with stricter rules.

Although the rule applies mostly to large fleets, OOIDA told the EPA that its members are concerned about the mandate on truck manufacturers, as well as the possibility of future regulations directed at small trucking operations.

Many truckers cited the lack of electric infrastructure and mileage range as barriers to the mandate. There are concerns that the mandate also could backfire environmentally, as some truckers would be forced to hold on to older trucks longer due to being unable to afford the newer and more expensive models.

“Pushing forward with this waiver or forcing further misguided environmental rules on the trucking industry will not achieve the desired heavy-duty vehicle emission outcomes,” Grimes said.

American Truck Dealers

Representing the American Truck Dealers, Kim Mesfin told the EPA that the rule ignores the practical needs of the trucking industry.

“Reducing emissions requires consideration of more than just imposing new engine and technology standards,” Mesfin said. “To be successful, emission standards must not undermine the critical concerns of heavy- and medium-duty truck buyers. Affordability, reliability, fuel economy and serviceability are crucial considerations for the commercial truck industry and our country, which depends on trucks to deliver everything. When emission standards are too stringent and rushed, they result in business closures, job losses and delayed environmental benefits. That is precisely the situation California truck dealers are facing today.”

The organization encouraged the EPA to deny the waiver and to require CARB to comply with the Clean Air Act’s lead-time requirements. Doing so, Mesfin said, would “give the industry, market and infrastructure time to catch up.”

Other comments

In addition to trucking representatives, the hearing was flooded with representatives of the bus industry, as well as environmentalists.

And like the trucking industry, bus and motorcoach stakeholders also oppose the mandate. These representatives said the infrastructure is not ready and that a bus is already an environmentally friendly mode of travel, as it takes cars off the road.

Environmentalists, including many members of the Sierra Club, urged the EPA to grant the waiver. Advocates of the rule cited health concerns and noted that air pollution disproportionately affects minorities and low-income families.

Steven Sondheim, representing the Sierra Club, promoted the rule while also acknowledging the burden placed on truckers.

“We need to make it easier for truckers to adapt to this by providing incentive and investment,” Sondheim said. LL

Land Line Associate Editor Tyson Fisher contributed to this report.