Truck OEMs Score Win Over CARB in Clean Trucks Lawsuit
Judge Rules Bonta Torpedoed Agency's Defense in DTNA-Led Action
Key Takeaways:
- DTNA, Paccar, Volvo Group North America and International argued that the Clean Trucks Partnership violates the Clean Air Act and the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
- OEMs claim federal instruction overrode state-level emissions regulations despite CARB arguing they must do otherwise.
- Department of Justice told DTNA, Volvo and International on Aug. 7 to “cease-and-desist” from compliance with the CTP, calling the deal an “illegal” pre-emption of federal law.
[Stay on top of transportation news: .]
Heavy-duty truck manufacturers won a preliminary injunction relieving them of the need to comply with the requirements of the Clean Truck Partnership in California.
U.S. District Judge Dena Coggins on Oct. 31 ruled that truck manufacturers responsible for 99.9% of U.S. Class 8 retail sales in 2024 would be harmed if denied an injunction temporarily blocking compliance with the 2023 CTP deal.
The original equipment manufacturers — Daimler Truck North America, Paccar, Volvo Group North America and International Motors — argued that the CTP violates the Clean Air Act and the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Coggins warned the and the state that Attorney General Rob Bonta’s Oct. 27 breach-of-contract suit meant their defense in this U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California case rang hollow.
“CARB’s filing of that lawsuit is clearly an attempt to enforce pre-empted standards [at] least in part, because the model-year 2036 zero-emissions requirement is included in the [CTP] yet CARB never obtained a pre-emption waiver for that requirement,” Coggins wrote.
'An Impossible Position'
The truck makers — parent companies of Freightliner, Western Star, Kenworth, Peterbilt, Volvo Trucks North America, Mack Trucks and International — sought relief in the case Aug. 11, arguing federal instruction overrode state-level emissions regulations despite CARB arguing the OEMs must do otherwise. The OEMs sought seven declaratory and injunctive relief claims.
“The OEMs are in an impossible position,” according to the suit. “On the one hand, California insists that plaintiff OEMs must follow CARB’s standards, including CARB’s truck and engine certification requirements, or be excluded from the California market, subjected to significant civil penalties, shut out of special considerations and flexibilities in future regulatory considerations, and excluded from state purchasing and incentive programs.”
Today we announced the Clean Truck Partnership, a historic agreement with the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association and its commercial engine and vehicle member companies, and to advance a future for the trucking industry.
— CARB (@AirResources)
“On the other hand,” the suit argued, “the United States Department of Justice has issued cease-and-desist letters to plaintiff OEMs stating that those same standards are invalid and unlawful, such that only the [Environmental Protection Agency] regulations apply, and that the cornerstone of CARB’s new enforcement efforts, the [CTP], is itself pre-empted by federal law.”
DOJ told DTNA, Volvo and International on Aug. 7 to “cease-and-desist” from compliance with the CTP, calling the deal an “illegal” pre-emption of federal law.
. is unhappy with ' adjustments to the Advanced Clean Trucks law and the rates of adoption. Story via . — Transport Topics (@TransportTopics)
But the case has its roots in President Donald Trump and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin seeking congressional review Feb. 19 of the Advanced Clean Trucks and Omnibus NOx rules under the Congressional Review Act. The CRA allows Congress to review and disapprove regulations through the Government Accountability Office.
Members of the House of Representatives introduced resolutions of disapproval April 2 for ACT and the Omnibus NOx regulation. The resolutions won full House backing April 30 and May 1. The Senate approved the resolutions May 21-22. Trump signed the resolutions into law June 12.
Trump said after signing the documents that because of the resolutions, ACT and the Omnibus NOx regulations were “fully and expressly pre-empted by the Clean Air Act and cannot be implemented.”
CARB told the truck manufacturers on May 23 it still planned to enforce the regulations.
Gov. Gavin Newsom also directed CARB in an executive order to develop alternative measures for keeping the ACT and NOx requirements alive if court challenges to the disapprovals fail.
Coggins Rejects Further Truck Maker Arguments
Meanwhile, Coggins rejected the OEMs’ argument that they would suffer irreparable harm from ACT and NOx because California is not currently enforcing the regulations and the prospect of future enforcement is speculative. The judge denied the request for injunctive relief.
The truck makers’ argument that CARB’s May stance and Newsom’s executive order violate the Supremacy Clause and Clean Air Act are moot, Coggins ruled.
Tim Bauer of Eaton's Mobility Group discusses the evolution of ADAS and its growing impact on trucking.Tune in above or by going to .
The judge said CARB provides an option for manufacturers to sell vehicles in California that comply with EPA mandates.
Also, the OEMs’ argument that their First Amendment free speech rights were violated is moot, Coggins wrote.
The two sides will return to court, meanwhile, in the breach-of-contract case in Alameda County Superior Court on Nov. 21.
Prior to CTP being announced in July 2023, truck makers in the current cases and their peers were suing over the timeline for implementing its emissions standards. The suit was withdrawn in August 2022.
Want more news? Listen to today's daily briefing belowor go here for more info:
