California agrees to repeal electric-truck emissions rule; Nebraska led opposition
LINCOLN — Nebraska's efforts to fight California on new electric-truck mandates and related regulations largely ended Monday with California officials moving to repeal the proposed rules.
In a Monday court filing, California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Steve Cliff, executive officer of the California Air Resources Board, pledged to formally scrub from the books the 'Advanced Clean Fleets' rule. The regulations, in part, would have required certain trucking companies to transition to electric trucks over time.
Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers and his office led a 17-state coalition with the Nebraska Trucking Association to challenge the California rule. Last May, he said it could prevent Nebraska and other states from doing business in California or reaching its ports.
Hilgers on Tuesday, announcing the 'significant victory,' said the 'tide is starting to turn.'
'This settlement is a huge win for everyone in Nebraska, from our outstanding logistics industry that is critical to the Nebraska economy, for consumers who would have faced higher prices, and for the rule of law,' Hilgers said. 'I am grateful for the strong coalition of sister states who joined our fight against this radical mandate.'
Gov. Jim Pillen, who joined Hilgers to announce the lawsuit last year, thanked Hilgers for the fight that he said could have raised prices for consumers.
'Our truckers don't need California bureaucrats forcing electric vehicles into their fleets,' Pillen said in a statement.
California regulators agreed to repeal the currently blocked rule and wait until it receives a Clean Air Act preemption waiver from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Hilgers had previously led a 24-state coalition to block California from getting such a waiver.
In addition to the Nebraska Trucking Association, the Arizona Legislature and attorneys general from the following states joined the lawsuit against California: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
12 hours ago
- The Hill
Electric about-face could open the door for new truck makers
'All your competitors just announced their strategy,' Craig Segall, former deputy executive officer and assistant chief counsel of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), told The Hill. 'How quickly can you ramp up to eat their lunch?' Segall asked. This now unmasked strategy — an about-face on compliance with the Golden State's heavy-duty vehicle standards — came to light this week when four manufacturers sued California regulators over the matter. Soon after, the Federal Trade Commission declared that a voluntary 'Clean Truck Partnership' between the companies and the state was 'unenforceable.' Last week's lawsuit, filed Monday by Daimler Truck, International Motors, PACCAR and the Volvo Group, alleged the federal government had deemed California's emissions rules 'unlawful' in June. At the time, President Trump signed off on three congressional resolutions revoking a Biden administration waiver that had allowed the state to set these rules. Under the 1970 Clean Air Act, California can create emissions standards that are stricter than federal norms but must acquire a waiver from the Environmental Protection Agency to do so. Segall described Monday's lawsuit as 'an audacious move,' noting in a Thursday op-ed that truckmakers just two years ago supported the Clean Truck Partnership, which he helped negotiate. He accused companies such as Daimler, which controls 40 percent of the country's truck market, of 'badly letting the trucking industry down.' Meanwhile, he warned, China is accelerating electric truck adoption. Pointing to the fact that delivery firms such as Amazon have smaller electric trucks operating nationwide, Segall forecast that 'giant semitrailers' will make a similar transition soon. With that in mind, he stressed there is 'an interesting opening' for other competitors, such as Chinese electric truck startup Windrose. Industry veteran Rustam Kocher echoed these sentiments in a recent post on LinkedIn, calling upon Windrose, other Chinese e-truck manufacturers and Tesla Semi to fill in this gap and 'let the market-share eating competition commence.' 'This industry is changing, just like the light-duty industry is changing,' Kocher told The Hill.
The Hill
2 days ago
- The Hill
New players may have window to disrupt after trucks exit California emissions deals
As the nation's major truckmakers seek to abandon California's stricter-than-federal emissions rules, experts are weighing whether this U-turn could allow new players to disrupt the market. 'All your competitors just announced their strategy,' Craig Segall, former deputy executive officer and assistant chief counsel of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), told The Hill. 'How quickly can you ramp up to eat their lunch?' Segall asked. This now unmasked strategy — an about-face on compliance with the Golden State's heavy-duty vehicle standards — came to light this week when four manufacturers sued California regulators over the matter. Soon after, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) declared that a voluntary 'Clean Truck Partnership' between the companies and the state was 'unenforceable.' Then, Friday, the Department of Justice sued California about the same partnership, in a bid to 'advance President Donald J. Trump's commitment to end the electric vehicle (EV) mandate.' The week's initial lawsuit, filed Monday by Daimler Truck, International Motors, PACCAR and the Volvo Group, alleged the federal government had deemed California's emissions rules 'unlawful' in June. At the time, President Trump signed off on three congressional resolutions revoking a Biden administration waiver that had allowed the state to set these rules. Under the 1970 Clean Air Act, California can create emissions standards that are stricter than federal norms but must acquire a waiver from the Environmental Protection Agency to do so. In Monday's filing, the truckmakers — also called original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) — argued California's demands have 'threatened' their ability to 'design, develop, manufacture and sell heavy-duty vehicles and engines.' The lawsuit noted the Department of Justice had instructed manufacturers 'to immediately cease and desist compliance with California's preempted and unlawful mandates,' leaving the companies 'caught in the crossfire.' CARB said it would not comment on pending litigation. The FTC declaration that followed on Tuesday determined a 2023 voluntary agreement between truckmakers and CARB — the 'Clean Truck Partnership' — was 'unenforceable.' In that partnership, the companies had agreed to abide by California's emissions standards in exchange for certain concessions. One such standard was the Advanced Clean Trucks rule, requiring 7.5 percent of heavy-duty vehicles to be emissions-free by 2035. A second, the Omnibus Regulation, focused on slashing nitrogen oxide releases by 90 percent and updating engine testing protocols. Segall described Monday's lawsuit as 'an audacious move,' noting in a Thursday op-ed that truckmakers just two years ago supported the Clean Truck Partnership, which he helped negotiate. He accused companies such as Daimler, which controls 40 percent of the country's truck market, of 'badly letting the trucking industry down.' Meanwhile, he warned, China is accelerating electric truck adoption. A possible goal of the sudden turnaround is to move costs onto the industry and 'to drag out the transition from diesel as long as possible,' Segall told The Hill. Because the companies haven't faced serious new competition yet — disruptors such as Tesla in the car space — and have the federal administration 'clearly on their side,' they 'can burn the regulators for the fourth largest economy in the world,' Segall observed. Yet at the same time, Segall noted, the truckmakers are up against a billion-person market in China, where other manufacturers 'are rapidly eating their market share.' The U.S. trucking giants, he continued, could jeopardize their presence in the world market while also getting the country 'stuck in diesel for a few years.' 'That's not a long-term win for them,' Segall said, arguing things may change when a new president enters office in 2029. The new president might realize 'with horror, the U.S. is badly behind on EVs,' Segall said. Policymakers at that point, he explained, could either revive CARB's rules or enact national-level legislation. Rather than leaving the freight system 'stuck in diesel' in 2040, Segall said he believes the industry will return 'hat in hand' to Congress and California. Pointing to the fact that delivery firms such as Amazon have smaller EV trucks operating nationwide, Segall forecast that 'giant semitrailers' will make a similar transition soon. With that in mind, he stressed there is 'an interesting opening' for other competitors, such as Chinese electric truck startup Windrose. Industry veteran Rustam Kocher echoed these sentiments in a recent post on LinkedIn, calling upon Windrose, other Chinese e-truck manufacturers and Tesla Semi to fill in this gap and 'let the market-share eating competition commence.' 'This industry is changing, just like the light-duty industry is changing,' Kocher told The Hill. While Kocher said he believes the companies made their decisions due to the short-term profit margins, he argued that 'the profitability they're going to gain off of combustion engines is going to change.' 'At some point, the resale value of those things is going to drop off the end of the Earth,' he added, noting Windrose or Tesla Semi are 'perfect examples' of market entrants that could perform better and cheaper. Kocher, who is now semiretired in Portugal, worked in various electrification-related roles for Daimler Truck North America from 2011-19 and then served as transportation electrification manager for Portland General Electric. During his time at Daimler, he said he helped launch the e-mobility group and worked on developing fast-charging standards 'with the full support of Daimler Truck, with the full support of everyone else in the trucking OEM world.' Kocher acknowledged that from a business perspective, although electric trucks are viable, they are not currently as profitable as existing diesel trucks and cost more up front. Yet they cost less to operate per mile and save money for fleets due to their reduced maintenance needs — needs that drive profits for truckmakers, according to Kocher. 'Every electric truck they put into the market means they're taking a cut on profit,' he said. 'They're not going to make those maintenance and after-sale part sales.' Recognizing the profitability 'conundrum' that the industry is facing, Kocher expressed sadness that the firms he had held in high esteem decided to choose this direction. 'To see them turn around and do this, it's made me very disappointed and frustrated,' he added.
Politico
3 days ago
- Politico
A silver lining in Trump's anti-climate agenda
Presented by With help from Noah Baustin, Annie Snider and Jordan Wolman THE SAFETY IN ENDANGERMENT: The Trump administration is about to roll back the federal government's power to regulate climate change, but a former top Biden administration official sees a silver lining for California. Ann Carlson, a UCLA professor who served as acting administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration under Biden, said the Trump administration's move to nix the so-called endangerment finding — which the Obama administration issued in 2009 and lays out the legal basis for EPA to regulate greenhouse gases as a threat to human health — could open the door for states to create their own emissions rules for the transportation sector. While states are preempted from setting vehicle greenhouse gas standards under Massachusetts v. EPA, a 2007 case that affirmed EPA's authority to regulate those emissions, Carlson said that the federal government getting out of the emissions game would present state leaders with a serious argument that preemption is off the table. That would be especially useful for California, after Congress in June revoked its unique ability to create stricter-than-federal pollution rules. Carlson spoke with POLITICO about the endangerment finding, the Supreme Court and what electric vehicle policies she wants California to push forward. This interview has been edited for length and clarity. It seems counterintuitive that the Trump administration rolling back EPA's ability to reduce greenhouse gases could potentially help California regulate its own emissions. Can you explain your thinking? I would start with the reality that what it looks like when you read the endangerment finding proposal from EPA is that it's essentially making arguments that greenhouse gases are not air pollutants under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act. That's the section that regulates vehicle emissions. So if that's true, then the states presumably are not preempted from regulating greenhouse gases. If you want Massachusetts v. EPA to be overturned, which is essentially what they're arguing, then you're basically saying that the Clean Air Act doesn't cover greenhouse gases, or at least with respect to mobile sources. How exactly would that help a state like California to develop greenhouse gas rules for vehicles? One of the arguments that opponents make against California's special authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate mobile sources is that Section 209, which is the section that both preempts other states and gives California its authority, is really designed to attack air pollution, because historically, that's been California's big problem. Los Angeles has the worst air pollution in the country, and that's really what that provision is about. And so if California is trying to use its authority to regulate greenhouse gases, opponents say that is beyond its scope. But now, if EPA is in fact arguing that Section 202 of the Clean Air Act, which gives it authority to regulate pollution from mobile sources, doesn't cover greenhouse gases, then states aren't preempted from regulating them. You could have 50 states potentially regulating greenhouse gases coming out of vehicles. Do you think that argument would hold up in front of a conservative Supreme Court? What EPA is doing is squarely putting on a collision course the combination question of whether Massachusetts v. EPA should be overturned and whether states can regulate independently because they're not preempted. Let's take power plants as an example. States can regulate greenhouse gases from power plants, because there's no preemption provision in the Clean Air Act. That's why California has its cap-and-invest program, for example. I believe the answer would be that if Section 202 doesn't cover greenhouse gases, there should be no prohibition on states regulating. Does that mean the Supreme Court would agree with me? Who knows. But it would raise a conundrum for them, because the conservatives on the court have been very reluctant to let EPA regulate greenhouse gases ambitiously. This seems to be a serious conundrum for the auto industry, which pushed the administration to revoke California's EV mandate. It's not an accident that the industry has not been urging EPA to withdraw the endangerment finding. If you look at who's aligned with that concept, going back to the first Trump administration, auto companies and the [U.S.] Chamber of Commerce are staying on the sidelines. It's the oil industry generally that has been arguing in favor of doing this. Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order after Trump revoked California's EV mandate, directing state agencies to develop recommendations for maintaining progress. If you were a state regulator, what policies would you advocate for? Incentives are one way to push. For example, replacing the rollback of the federal tax credits is one possibility. Cities and counties can invest in zero-emission technology and consider things like feebates, where you reward buyers of electric vehicles through lower vehicle license fees. You can use the indirect source rules that require stationary sources that attract a lot of vehicle traffic to ensure that some of those vehicles are low-emission or zero-emission. All of those sorts of things are, I think, appropriate. I think the harder question is, can you do enough to replace straight regulation? Yeah, right. That's why this opportunity is potentially interesting. If the endangerment finding is going to go away, maybe California has authority that it didn't think it had. — AN Did someone forward you this newsletter? Sign up here! WAIT FOR US: The Trump administration is jumping into truck manufacturers' lawsuit seeking to dissolve a zero-emission sales agreement with California. The Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division filed the motion to intervene in a Sacramento federal court on Thursday, three days after four truck makers — Daimler Truck North America, International Motors, Paccar and Volvo North America — sued to break a 2023 voluntary agreement with the state. The move is the latest step in the administration's aggressive effort to dismantle California's electric vehicle policies, most notably Congress' June revocation of EPA waivers that allow the state to enforce ZEV mandates. DOJ's filing, like the industry's lawsuit, argues that without the waivers, California no longer has the authority to enforce the Clean Truck Partnership, which was negotiated by nine manufacturers and the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association. 'Agreement, contract, partnership, mandate — whatever California wants to call it, this unlawful action attempts to undermine federal law,' Acting Assistant Attorney General Adam Gustafson said in a statement. — AN ROLL OUT THE RED CARPET: A who's who of the California wind energy industry, and their regulators, visited Merced County on Thursday to tour the under-construction Gonzaga Ridge Wind Farm. Just three of the new turbines being installed will produce more power than the 1980s-era installation of 166 turbines that it's replacing, according to the developer, Scout Clean Energy. In total, its capacity will reach 147.5 megawatts. 'That demonstrates how far the technology has come,' said California Energy Commission Chair David Hochschild as he gazed at the site. 'This is what the future looks like.' Besides the state's top energy boss, POLITICO also spotted Ignis Energy USA General Manager Pedro Blanquer, Wind Stream Properties co-owner Bob Gates, Assemblymember Esmeralda Soria's field representative Vanessa Barraza and California Wind Energy Association lobbyist Melissa Cortez. Also in attendance were representatives of Clean Power SF, whose agency has committed to purchasing the power for San Franciscans to use, and the state park system, whose land the installation sits on. Rows and rows of turbine blades were being stored on the location, a welcome site to Scout Clean Energy CEO Michael Rucker. When his team heard that the Trump administration would be imposing hefty tariffs, they sped to expedite shipping supplies from India, Germany, and Malaysia. The blades, which were manufactured in Turkey, cleared customs one day before Liberation Day, according to Rucker. 'We were lucky,' he said. — NB BETTER TO BE LUCKY: Warnings that the Trump administration's Forest Service downsizing could hamper wildfire response efforts haven't materialized yet, thanks in part to favorable weather conditions in fire-prone parts of the country. Democratic lawmakers and state officials across the country have warned that the Trump administration is courting disaster by removing about 5,000 Forest Service workers through early retirement and buyout programs, including about 1,600 people with wildland firefighting qualifications. But decent spring and summer rainfall and cooler temperatures across the West have helped contain wildfires, making existing personnel and resources adequate for ongoing response efforts, POLITICO's Jordan Wolman reports. 'He's gotten lucky in a way,' Steve Ellis, a former Forest Service supervisor who now serves as chair of the National Association of Forest Service Retirees, said of Trump. 'You're not really going to look bad until fire gets going and you don't have enough resources.' — AN, JW KEEPING THE TAP FLOWING: California can expect to receive steady Colorado River water supplies for the rest of the year, but the situation is getting dicey. The Interior Department announced Friday that states along the river will continue to get stable supplies, despite the latest projections for the waterway, which show water levels at the two main reservoirs continuing to plummet, POLITICO's Annie Snider reports. New projections show Lake Mead at elevation 1,056 feet at the beginning of 2026 — almost 8 feet lower than it was on New Year's Day 2025 — and Lake Powell at elevation 3,538 feet — 33.5 feet lower than it was on Jan. 1. But the Trump administration left open the possibility of making mid-year changes to how much water gets released from Lake Powell, and potentially also releasing water from other reservoirs upstream in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah and New Mexico. The news comes as the administration warns it could develop its own water-sharing rules for Western states if they can't reach an agreement among themselves. — AN, AS — Former Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter gives Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin's AB 1408 a shoutout in his call to speed up clean energy installations. — A small Napa County town is experimenting with a new microgrid run on batteries and liquid hydrogen. — An invasive swan species is a growing threat to California's wetlands, sparking a debate over whether hunters should be allowed to begin killing the beautiful birds.
