
U.S. President Donald Trump’s executive order pen is likely running low on ink. And while most of the concern within Canada centers around the threat of tariffs and their impact on trade, the trucking industry can also anticipate some upheaval to the emissions regulations that govern the manufacture and operation of heavy trucks produced for the North American market.
Already, Trump has issued executive orders withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris climate accord and eliminating the EV tax credit. California’s Air Resource Board waved the white flag, withdrawing its Clean Air Act Waiver request to the EPA regarding its Advanced Clean Fleets rule, which would have forced the uptake of a rapidly increasing percentage of zero-emission trucks in the state, and others aligned with it.

TruckNews.com caught up with Allen Schaeffer, executive director of the Engine Technology Forum, to make sense of the announcements and to discuss the future of emissions regulations for the trucking industry. Here are some excerpts from our conversation:
Is there any reason to expect EPA27 emissions regulations will be killed or delayed?
Schaeffer feels the EPA27 NOx rules – expected to add about US$20,000 or more to the cost of a Class 8 truck in 2027 – will roll out as planned. “The manufacturers are well into the production [of those plans] already and are in the final phases of getting ready to start cranking engines out to meet those requirements,” he said.
How about the EPA Phase 3 greenhouse gas emission standards?
The U.S. EPA is phasing in tighter GHG standards for heavy trucks that aim to reduce CO2 emissions from truck tractors by 40% between 2027 and 2032, and from vocational trucks by 60%. These regulations may be more at risk, Schaeffer suggests.
“Of the two rules, I think that one is the most likely to have some adjustment made at some point,” he said, adding it’s too soon to know what that will entail.
California has canceled its Advanced Clean Fleets waiver, effectively abandoning a rule that would require fleets in that state to purchase zero-emission vehicles. However, the Advanced Clean Truck companion rule, which will force OEMs to produce and sell more zero-emission trucks — remains in place. How do regulators reconcile keeping the ACT rule when the demand will likely not exist from fleet buyers absent the ACF ‘stick’?
“Excellent question,” Schaeffer said, noting the agencies and stakeholders who crafted the two rules always anticipated they’d work in conjunction, with the ACF rule creating the demand for the zero-emission trucks the ACT rule forced truck makers to build and sell.
“If you take away the ACF, fleets don’t have a compliance obligation to buy [zero-emission] trucks anymore. That leaves manufacturers there still having to produce them. I’d say it’s a bit too early to say exactly how this might play out. Certainly, I think there’s plenty of handwringing going on across the country among the truck and engine makers trying to figure out exactly what that means…I would say this is a pretty big conundrum for manufacturers and for the state of California, and the five or so states that are following them.”
No one likes chaos when it comes to regulations, but does this changing of the guard in D.C. present an opportunity to maybe do a better job highlighting the progress we’ve made with clean diesel, and perhaps the opportunities that exist with other overlooked clean fuels like renewable natural gas?
Schaeffer agreed the previous administration focused almost exclusively on battery-electric vehicles as the answer to decarbonizing trucking. He’s hopeful other alternatives will get a fresh look under the new administration.
“The bread and the butter of their programs, their policies and their funding was really for electrification,” he said of the Biden regime. “And there was not really a focus on things like freight sustainability or the freight efficiency of the whole system and network.”
Schaeffer added, “When you take that tunnel vision look at one technology, you lose a lot of positive things on the edges, things like renewable natural gas, which could have quite a negative carbon footprint…One of my hopes for this administration is that we start to think about doing things based on common sense.”
That means exploring multiple fuels and technologies to reduce the trucking industry’s carbon footprint without forcing upon it a single technology such as batteries. While Schaeffer anticipates truck manufacturers will continue investing in BEV and other zero-emission technologies, his hope is greater consideration will be given to alternatives that are more viable for fleets today, reducing emissions while also making economic sense for the end users.
Do you feel there’s consensus among the OEMs on what they’d like to see this administration do with regards to future emission standards?
“No, I don’t,” Schaeffer said without hesitation. “It’s complicated. We have to keep in mind that every one of those companies are global manufacturers, so they’re feeling not only what’s happening in the U.S., but also pressures from other places in the world.”
Another consideration for manufacturers under this administration could be the effect tariffs have on the cost of components they source from outside the U.S. A truck maker that sources its batteries domestically may have an advantage over another that imports its batteries, influencing which technologies they’d like to see most aggressively pursued.
“So, I don’t think we have a strong consensus at the moment. I haven’t heard one articulated. Maybe there’s one coming and we would certainly welcome that,” he said.
Credit: Source link