With the clock rapidly ticking toward January 2027, truck and engine manufacturers are nervous about the uncertainty that’s been cast over emissions regulations they’ve already spent more than five years and billions of dollars preparing for.
The EPA27 NOx rule demanded a NOx reduction of 82.5% from today’s levels of 0.2 grams per horsepower hour to 0.035 grams. But earlier this year the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said it was reevaluating the rule, causing widespread speculation it will be altogether eliminated, altered, or the timelines for implementation extended.
That’s not necessarily what the truck and engine makers want to hear.
“The most important thing the OEMs have been doing over the last five to seven years is getting ready for the 2027 NOx standards,” said Sean Waters, vice-president of compliance and regulatory affairs with Daimler Truck North America (DTNA), speaking at the FTR Transportation Conference. “The product we have been developing, we are very confident in and we are prepared to meet the 2027 standards with good technology that we think is going to add a lot of value for our customers.”
DTNA, Waters added, has already put its EPA27 technology through two summer and winter tests. It’s ready for the regulation and he doesn’t want to see it eliminated. Nor does he think it will be.
Will warranty provisions be changed?
“We think, most likely, with this little time left, is maybe changes to the warranty provisions,” he said of potential changes. The rules as currently written required OEMs to extend warranty coverage on aftertreatment equipment. That’s a change he could live with. “This is an opportunity we think the EPA should take advantage of, and go back to the prior warranty provisions, as an opportunity to take some costs out of that 2027 product,” Waters said.
Krista Toenjes, general manager, North America on-highway business with Cummins, said during another panel at the same event: “Right now we’re in a waiting game when it comes to 2027. We have our strategy to hit the 2027 emissions standards, which is 0.035 NOx, and right now it’s up in the air. I’m not really sure what is going to happen. We just want a decision one way or another. We need clarity on that.”
Cummins previously announced it is pushing back the rollout of its EPA27-compliant engine to later next year.
Customers, too, want clarity. Paul Rosa, senior vice-president, procurement and fleet planning with Penske Truck Leasing, said fleets must prepare for future emissions standards, which is difficult to do when they aren’t clear.
Then there’s the GHG Phase 3 rules, which control CO2 and would require OEMs to sell a certain percentage of their build as zero-emission vehicles. Those too are also up in the air. Also set for a 2027 implementation, Waters said in this case, revisions make a lot of sense.
“To us, it was probably a good thing,” he said of revisions to the GHG rule. “The regulations were getting further ahead of the technology and more than the market was able to bear. We appreciate the EPA’s efforts to make the regulations more closely match what the market is able to handle.”
Canada-U.S. alignment required
Pulling back the GHG Phase 3 rules will allow fleets to continue investing in zero-emission technologies where they make sense, without forcing them into unsuitable applications, Rosa noted.
Rick Mihelic, director of emerging technologies with the North American Council for Freight Efficiency (NACFE), voiced concern about divergent emissions standards in the U.S. and Canada.
“There were over 4 million vehicles crossing the border from Canada to the U.S. last year and over 4 million going the other direction. We have to think about, what are those trucks having to comply to?” he asked. “It’s a significant potential challenge for the OEMs to have to produce vehicles that work in two nations.”
He suggested North American truck makers may lose market share to those in Europe if Canada’s emissions standards are suddenly more closely aligned with those overseas.
“It’s a very complicated situation and at some point in time we need to get back to some consensus opinion between the U.S. and Canada or we’ll end up with a border like between the U.S. and Mexico, where Mexican trucks can cross the border for just a few miles,” he warned.
DTNA’s Waters agreed the emissions requirements between the U.S. and Canada must be aligned.
“We have to have the same regulations,” he said. “Canda is a small market compared to the U.S.”
He said Canada doesn’t have the infrastructure in place to certify engines to required NOx and PM limits. “That was always done in the U.S. The Canadian authorities accepted the U.S. certification,” he said.
And when it comes to GHG regulations, Waters said regulators must also consider the different product mix that exists in Canada versus the U.S. He noted DTNA has limits on the types of vehicles customers can and can’t purchase in Canada, whereas no such restrictions on what the truck maker can offer exist in the U.S.
He also said Canada’s heavier payloads allow trucks to carry more weight, which in itself is an effective way to reduce GHG emissions.
“Our hope is Canadian regulators stay at Phase 2 and maybe even reconsider some of those,” he said. (Canada hadn’t yet adopted the U.S. GHG Phase 3 rules).
Meanwhile, Rosa said development of zero-emission trucks will continue, even without the wielding of a regulatory stick.
“We’re not turning away from it at all,” he said of Penske’s investment in electric vehicles. He added the industry now has four years of learnings on EVs that won’t go to waste. The industry was “flying blind” on EVs four years ago but now has a grasp on key factors such as range and total cost of ownership.
“The funnel was filled a few years ago,” he said of interest in EVs. “Today, the funnel is still filled, it’s just a little smaller funnel.”
Credit: Source link
