Watch Now


Truck makers take on EPA’s zero-emissions carbon rule

Lack of infrastructure to support proposal a ‘recipe for disaster,’ say OEMs

OEMs say EPA's EV truck rule does not address a lack of charging capacity. (Photo: Jim Allen/FreightWaves)

WASHINGTON — Truck manufacturers are pushing back hard against the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal to drastically cut carbon emissions from heavy trucks beginning in model year 2028.

While fully electric, zero-emission trucks are already on the roads, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) maintain that the biggest impediment to the EPA’s rule seeking aggressive adoption for the trucking industry is a lack of infrastructure to support it.

“We fully support that goal, demonstrated by the billions of dollars already invested by our members to develop and bring to market zero-emission power trains and vehicles,” said Jed Mandel, president of the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA), during EPA’s first public hearing on its proposal on Tuesday.

However, “without electricity recharging and hydrogen refueling infrastructures in place, our customers are not likely to make the needed investment to purchase the zero-emission vehicles that EMA members put out for sale,” Mandel said.


“We cannot afford a scenario where manufacturers must sell zero-emission vehicles but fleets won’t purchase them because there’s no infrastructure in place to operate them. That is a recipe for disaster.”

The EPA’s new greenhouse gas standards for heavy trucks would begin in model year (MY) 2028 and extend to MY 2032, and would govern a range of truck sizes from delivery trucks and dump trucks to freight-hauling day-cab and sleeper-cab trucks.

It is the third phase of carbon dioxide emission standards that began during the Obama administration. They would also reopen for revisions the GHG standards for the 2027 model year that were established under EPA’s Phase 2 rule in 2016.

Kevin Maggay, senior manager of public policy for Navistar, told EPA officials that while the company supports a zero-emissions future, “the reality is that this regulation as proposed is going to significantly change the trucking sector.”


“The regulation would essentially mandate the move away from liquid fuels, which would fundamentally change the trucking industry’s fueling, operational and business models. Truck drivers have never had to think much about where they’re going to get their fuel from when they’re purchasing a truck. And OEMs like Navistar have never had to work with electric utilities and think about things like electrical substations before selling a truck, because the fuel has always been ready and available.

“We and other OEMs have invested in the technology and we have product available. The success of the transition to zero-emission trucks really now hinges almost exclusively on infrastructure.”

Over 100 people participated in the first day of the two-day virtual public hearing. Most spoke on behalf of national and grassroots environmental groups. All either strongly supported EPA’s proposal or thought it should be even more aggressive.

But other trucking industry groups shared the OEMs’ concerns about infrastructure and aggressive timelines, including representatives from the American Trucking Associations and the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association.

Small fleet owner Monte Wiederhold, president of B.L. Reever Transport in Ohio, told EPA that he believed long-haul electric trucks will never work.

“If you really think EV trucking is feasible anytime soon, I encourage you to visit a truck stop near you,” he said. “Go between 8 p.m. and 6 a.m., and see trucks parked along the driveways or anywhere they can find a place to park. Then explain how all these trucks will get their batteries charged. Better yet, visit an interstate off-ramp and explain where the charging stations will be.”

Countering the argument about lack of infrastructure was the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the agency that is seen as driving the federal government’s aggressive emission reduction timelines.

CARB Executive Officer Steven Cliff said that eight states have joined California’s heavy-duty truck emissions reduction programs, with every fourth truck registered in an Advanced Clean Truck state. Cliff, like some of the environmental group witnesses, wants EPA to make the rule stronger.


“EPA should finalize a Phase 3 standard to push significantly more heavy-duty zero-emission vehicles [ZEVs] than proposed,” he said, “on par with the vehicle manufacturer targets many major heavy-duty truck manufacturers have themselves been publicly stating.”

He also wants EPA to ensure that a final rule does not promote certain technologies such as hydrogen internal combustion engines (ICE).

“CARB is concerned that, instead of deploying heavy-duty ZEVs, manufacturers may respond to the Phase 3 rule by making hydrogen ICE engines. Although these engines have near zero CO2 tailpipe emissions, their NOx [nitrogen oxide] emissions are a concern.”

Click for more FreightWaves articles by John Gallagher.

7 Comments

  1. Steve

    It’s not only a matter of building a LOT more truck charging stations. The bigger challenge may be finding the utility power to serve all those charging stations. Especially with a utility grid that’s becoming more reliable on renewables and phasing out more steady and reliable sources. Nobody talks about that. Or, the short supply of the material we’d need to build all those truck batteries ( lithium, cobalt, manganese, nickel, graphite, etc.) that’s mined across the globe in ways that exploit both human labor and the local environment in horrible ways. Logic lost the battle here, folks.

  2. Shagi

    We just need to get Trump back in office and he can get rid of these BS policies. This will only hurt the economy in the long run, which is exactly what the democrats want

  3. Randy

    Y’all do know that going all EV is not going to work and will help destroy this country and setting it up for China to take control

  4. Victor

    The simple solution is to let the OEMs and fleets solve the problem rather than an unelected government bureaucracy coming up with a solution to a problem that didn’t exist until they created the solution. This push to lower emissions increases the cost of equipment up front AND in the maintenance afterwards. It was tried with natural gas trucks and has been relatively stillborn in that it is confined to mostly local equipment such as buses and waste disposal trucks. I’ve only seen 4 fleets with natural gas trucks on the road and those are captive to dedicated lanes.

    The most economical and best approach is to realize the need for an “All of the above” approach as different sub-industries in trucking can utilize different technologies to achieve their best goals. There is no one size fits all approach that will work but CARB and other government agencies are determined to force it on us anyway consequences be damned.

Comments are closed.

John Gallagher

Based in Washington, D.C., John specializes in regulation and legislation affecting all sectors of freight transportation. He has covered rail, trucking and maritime issues since 1993 for a variety of publications based in the U.S. and the U.K. John began business reporting in 1993 at Broadcasting & Cable Magazine. He graduated from Florida State University majoring in English and business.

Thank you so much for your interest in our content. Please register to access this complimentary archived content.

 

 

Already Registered? Click here to confirm.