Truck manufacturers signed a Clean Truck Partnership with California. They promised to follow the state’s strict vehicle emission rules. But trucking stakeholders are saying, “Not so fast.”
The Western States Trucking Association has filed a petition with the California Office of Administrative Law. It is challenging the Clean Truck Partnership between truck makers and the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Trucking stakeholders claim the agreement is an “underground regulation.”
At the center of the petition are three California vehicle emission rules: Advanced Clean Fleets, Advanced Clean Trucks and the Omnibus Low NOx regulation. CARB abandoned Advanced Clean Fleets after failing to receive the necessary federal approval. Congress and President Donald Trump struck down the other rules. Still, the Clean Truck Partnership is supposed to keep them intact in California.
What is the Clean Truck Partnership?
Worried about its vehicle emission rules being invalidated by the federal government, CARB had truck and engine manufacturers agree to follow the rules voluntarily.
Signed in 2023, the Clean Truck Partnership binds top truck manufacturers to California’s vehicle emission standards. This holds true despite any challenges to the state’s authority. In return, CARB will work with manufacturers, allowing time to meet requirements before enforcing new regulations. The agency will also support building necessary zero-emission vehicle infrastructure.
The terms of the Clean Truck Partnership include:
- CARB will align with the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2027 nitrogen oxide emission regulations. CARB will also modify parts of the 2024 NOx emission regulations to help meet California’s targets.
- CARB promises at least four years of lead time and three years of regulatory stability before new requirements.
- Truck manufacturers will meet CARB’s zero-emission and pollutant regulations in California, regardless of challenges from others.
Although 10 other states adopted California’s rules, the Clean Truck Partnership applies only to the Golden State.
Signatories of the agreement include Cummins, Daimler Truck North America, Ford, General Motors, Hino Motors, Isuzu, Navistar, Paccar, Stellantis, Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association and Volvo.
“Paccar is committed to supporting the environmental goals of California and the nation as a whole and welcomes the harmonization of future emissions regulation,” Paccar Chief Technology Officer John Rich said at the time of the agreement. “This agreement provides regulatory certainty and supports a balanced transition to zero emissions by ensuring continued supply of product into California and opt-in states.”
Now that California’s vehicle emission rules have been overturned, the agreement is supposed to kick in. In a regulatory guidance advisory, CARB informed manufacturers that the agency will continue to certify trucks and engines under the Advanced Clean Trucks and Omnibus regulations to “facilitate meeting the commitments of the Clean Truck Partnership.”
Manufacturers that signed the agreement are staying silent on the issue.
When asked about following Advanced Clean Trucks rules, a Cummins spokesperson said the company is “analyzing the potential impacts.” The engine manufacturer will “remain committed to following the law everywhere.” Daimler Truck North America mentioned only federal requirements.
“We remain committed to adhering to the requirements set by EPA and will continue to develop our product strategy in alignment with all applicable regulations,” a DTNA spokesperson told Land Line in an email. “Our portfolio provides customers with powertrain technology options that enable regulatory compliance.”
Paccar declined to comment. A Volvo spokesperson said the manufacturer prefers not to comment while the Clean Truck Partnership is the subject of litigation. Navistar and the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association did not respond to requests.
‘Underground regulation’
While manufacturers figure out their next move, trucking stakeholders are going to bat for them.
The Western States Trucking Association’s petition claims the Clean Truck Partnership “stands in for CARB regulations.” However, CARB did not follow state laws on how to create new regulations. Thus, the agreement is an “invalid underground regulation.”
“CARB may argue that it was permitted to use the (Clean Truck Partnership) to entice OEMs to voluntarily commit to reducing emissions during a time when CARB does not have federal authority to enforce its regulations,” the petition states. “But this argument does not redeem CARB’s failure to follow California administrative law in promulgating the (agreement).”
The petition argues that since the Clean Truck Partnership is regulatory, CARB must explain why stringent vehicle emission rules are needed, given that they are preempted by federal law.
The public should have a chance to comment on the agreement. None of that has happened.
The California Supreme Court has found that an agency’s action is considered a regulation if it is of “statewide importance.” If the agreement applied only to individual certification applications, CARB may be able to use its discretion. However, trucking stakeholders argue that the Clean Truck Partnership applies to all manufacturers, which affects all Californians.
“The (Clean Truck Partnership) operates as an underground regulation to enable CARB to continue enforcing these rules when CARB lacks permission to do so under federal law,” the petition states. “This could exacerbate the negative effects on (Western States Trucking Association) members by limiting their ability to buy the vehicles they need and want when they need and want them.”
In a statement, former CARB Deputy Executive Officer Craig Segall urged manufacturers to uphold the agreement. He warned the petition could set the trucking industry back. Segall helped negotiate the Clean Truck Partnership and played a key role in passing California’s vehicle emission rules.
“The companies shook hands with California on a workable path forward,” Segall said. “Will they now stand behind their commitments as others attack them? Or will they stay silent during this attack? My hope is that they will stand up for the electric future they claim to support.” LL
Credit: Source link
