U.S. EPA heavy truck GHG rule drawing legal fire - Truck News

Upon its release on March 29, the U.S. EPA’s latest final rule on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for new heavy trucks was met with stiff resistance by trucking interest groups.

Their initial salvos were strongly worded press releases countering EPA claims justifying the rulemaking. Now, they’ve escalated to launching lawsuits against the rule’s provisions. And environmental and health safety groups that aim to protect the rule are filing their own lawsuits to defend the rule as it is written.

If history is any guide, expect a long court fight that may not be resolved until after the rule’s provisions first start to kick in for model year 2027 heavy-duty trucks — less than three years from now. However, what gets lost in some discussions of the rule is that it tightens the emission limits in stages, which run out to Model Year 2032.

As one advocacy group that favors the rule pointed out to TruckNews.com the new standards for sleeper cabs do not begin until model year 2030. In other words, these standards do not cover any trucks already on the road. Also keep in mind that these limits only apply to new trucks, not ones on the road before the compliance dates are reached.

Courtside

The rule is being challenged and defended in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, where cases can take 12 to 18 months to fully brief and argue, a plaintiff familiar with the court told TruckNews.com.

If the D.C. Appeals Court decides the final rule should stand as written, then nothing about it will change for truck and engine makers — and truck buyers will gain more certainty to make purchase and trade-cycle decisions.

But if the court determines the rule should be thrown out or revised in some significant way, the EPA will have to revisit the rulemaking and that would throw a serious monkey wrench into the works, resulting in an uncertain delay for new compliance dates. That could send truck and engine makers back to their drawing boards and, of course, force fleets to reconsider their purchasing plans.

The new GHG emissions rule covers commercial vehicles with GVW ratings from Class 4 through Class 8, which EPA regards as heavy-duty vehicles. The new GHG emissions limit is described as “Phase 3” as it ratchets emission limits down from those of the prior “Phase 2” heavy-duty truck and engine, which were set in 2016. Phase 3 also updates GHG limits for model year 2027 vehicles, which were already covered by the Phase 2 rule.

Phase 3 limits cover an array of medium- and heavy-duty truck applications, including delivery trucks, day cab tractors, and sleeper-equipped tractors as well as certain vocational trucks.

EPA’s view

EPA claims the new GHG limits will prevent the release of 1 billion tons of greenhouse gases over the next 30 years. The agency calls the Phase 3 standards “technology-neutral and performance-based, allowing each manufacturer to choose what set of emissions control technologies is best suited to meet the standards and the needs of their customers.”

It is that unremarkable sentence that is the bane of contention for opponents of Phase 3. For starters, the EPA statement suggests that the new limits can be reached by implementing a range of technologies, from advanced internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles to hybrid electric drive, plug-in hybrid electric, battery-electric, and hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles. One upshot of that may be fleets ending up running both diesel and/or natural gas trucks as well as zero-emission vehicles (ZEV), aka electric trucks.

What’s more, even though the compliance dates for various model years and equipment types are staggered, the Phase 3 Class 7-8 tractor category alone contains 10 subcategories. And that spells a level of complexity that some interest groups can’t abide.

Opponents’ take

“We are concerned that the final rule will end up being the most challenging, costly and potentially disruptive heavy-duty emissions rule in history,” Jed Mandel, president of the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association, said in a statement.

Business and interest groups, pro and con, that are piling on litigation to protect or to counter Phase 3 include key truck lobbies on the one hand and on the other, prominent public health and environmental non-profits and community organizations.

While American trucking’s biggest lobby has stated its opposition to the Phase 3 rule, it has left the door open to interacting with EPA over it. The American Trucking Association (ATA) sees the post-2030 model year GHG limits as “entirely unachievable given the current state of zero-emission technology, the lack of charging infrastructure and restrictions on the power grid.”

A successful emission regulation must be technology neutral and cannot be one-size-fits-all, ATA president and CEO Chris Spear said in a statement. “While we are disappointed…we will continue to work with EPA to address [the rule’s] shortcomings and advance emission-reduction targets and timelines that are both realistic and durable.”

Nonetheless, other interest groups opposed to the rule have taken EPA to court.

On June 28, The American Petroleum Institute (API) filed a lawsuit challenging the Phase 3 limits in the D.C. Appeals Court. Joining in the suit as co-petitioners are the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, the National Corn Growers Association, and the American Farm Bureau Federation.

Making their case in a press release, API senior vice-president and general counsel Ryan Meyers contended that the EPA is “forcing a switch to technology that simply does not presently exist for these kinds of vehicles – and even if it were someday possible, it will almost certainly have consequences for your average American.”

He also stated that the rule is an attempt to push “unpopular policy mandates that lack statutory authority, and we look forward to holding them accountable in court.”

Citing the concern that Phase 3 will compel the adoption of electric trucks, American Farm Bureau Federation president Zippy Duvall stated that “heavy-duty vehicles that are powered by batteries have short ranges and require hours to charge. Impractical regulations will extend the amount of time on the road, putting the health and safety of drivers and livestock at risk if they need to stop for long periods of time to charge.”

In May, a group of Republican Attorneys General and Arizona state legislators together with the Arizona Trucking Association filed lawsuits against the Phase 3 limits in the same court, saying the final rule is exceeds EPA’s statutory authority and is “arbitrary, capricious and…not in accordance with law.”

Defenders of Phase 3

In response, 10 leading U.S. health and environmental groups filed a motion to intervene in those Arizona-based cases to defend EPA’s GHG limits for new heavy-duty vehicles.

“EPA’s Clean Truck Standards are critically important for protecting public health and our climate,” said Alice Henderson, director and lead counsel for transportation and clean air for the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), one of the 10 petitioners. “They are also attainable, cost-effective, and legally sound. We look forward to providing a robust defense against the legal challenges to these important safeguards.”

Along with EDF, the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, American Lung Association, American Public Health Association, Appalachian Mountain Club, Clean Air Council (represented by Clean Air Task Force), Environmental Law & Policy Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, Public Citizen, and Sierra Club joined the motion to intervene.

In defending the rule in court, EDF is joined by Ford Motor Company, CALSTART, the Zero Emission Transportation Association, a coalition of more than 23 states and cities, and a dozen other public health and environmental non-profits and community organizations. 

So, the battle to upturn or retain the Phase 3 limits has been joined. How it ends matters plenty to truck makers and truck buyers.