The California Trucking Association is suing the state’s air-quality agency over a new climate action rule that requires truckers to switch to zero-emissions vehicles by 2042, claiming it “threatens the security and predictability” of the trucking industry.
Calling the new rule “wildly unrealistic,” the trucking association’s CEO Eric Sauer said the agency’s “clearly unachievable regulation” aimed at eliminating trucks with internal combustion engines violated multiple federal laws.
Sauer also derided the state’s lack of planning and coordination with other state agencies and California’s lack of electric-vehicle infrastructure and what he said was an unrealistic timeline, in a statement provided to The Epoch Times Oct. 18.
“Make no mistake, the [Advanced Clean Fleets rule] is a supply chain and inflationary crisis in the making, one that is entirely self-inflicted by [the air resources board],” Mr. Sauer said.
The American Trucking Associations, which represents 37,000 members, supports the lawsuit, even though it was not part of the court filing.
“California’s Advanced Clean Fleets rule is completely divorced from reality, with unachievable requirements and timelines that will grind the supply chain to a halt in California and elsewhere,” association President Chris Spear said in the same Oct. 18 statement. “More to the point, the rule vastly exceeds the state’s legal authority. We fully support [California Trucking Association’s] effort to stop it in its tracks.”
The lawsuit claims the air resources board’s regulations violate federal law by demanding that virtually any vehicle that enters the state conform to its rules.
For instance, the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act, enacted by Congress in 1994, prevents states from undermining federal regulation of interstate commerce through a patchwork of state laws, according to the lawsuit.
The trucking association, which serves the state’s trucking industry, also claims the new rule violates the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution because of its “vague standards and the discretionary enforcement authority delegated” to CARB’s executive officer.
Officials from CARB did not immediately respond to a request for comment.