In November, the U.S. signed a nonbinding global agreement committing to 100% new zero-emission medium- and heavy-duty sales by 2040.
InfluenceMap found that while manufacturers privately oppose ambitious climate rules, they publicly promote zero-emissions fleets. The organization’s report notes that Ford Motor and General Motors disclosed “less on climate policy than the other EMA truck makers analyzed.”
Findings showed that Ford and GM did not join an EMA lawsuit against the California Air Resources Board that would delay emissions from heavy-duty trucks. The two companies were the only ones analyzed in the report that did not join Partners for a Zero Emission Vehicle Future. That’s a coalition of truck manufacturers, retailers and trucking associations that opposes what it calls “a patchwork” of state regulations for getting to zero emissions.
The extent of lobbying
InfluenceMap analyst Kalina Dmitriew wrote the report based in part on previously unseen lobbying documents, including private emails and letters received through 33 public records requests across 11 states.
Dmitriew says she knew lobbying was taking place but the “sheer scale” and the extent of it was surprising. She says such an endeavor “really appears to be a strategic and coordinated effort across multiple U.S. states.”
InfluenceMap’s report identified the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association as spearheading lobbying efforts, especially on ACT rules.
In an email, EMA President Jed Mandel wrote that his group is “committed to a zero-emissions future for the U.S. trucking industry, which is why manufacturers are investing billions of dollars, developing groundbreaking zero-emission technologies and commercial vehicles, and working to ensure that federal and state regulations are workable and effective.”
Truck manufacturers are responding to regulatory demands. Federal policy requires the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from diesel vehicles. States that have adopted the ACT rule require manufacturers to build zero-emissions trucks.
Patricio Portillo, senior advocate at the Natural Resources Defense Council, says the report shows that some truck manufacturers can’t be trusted. “The hypocrisy is frankly pretty outrageous,” he says.
“What’s unfortunate about this is that state and federal policymakers really look to (truck manufacturers) as valued stakeholders with important input,” Portillo says.
Maine and Colorado have delayed adopting versions of California’s ACT rule, and Portillo believes lobbying from truck manufacturers played a role.
“Rather than spending those millions to oppose clean truck rules, they should be investing [in] them,” Portillo says. “Build the manufacturing and supply chains that are actually needed to get these vehicles to market into fleets and into these states that want to see the big significant benefits that can accrue from this rule.”
Portillo says the regulations are not just good for the climate, but for local air quality. Medium- and heavy-duty trucks, he says, pass more frequently through lower-income communities and communities of color, generating pollution.
Bob Ramorino is president of Roadstar Trucking in Hayward, and he wants to add electric trucks to his fleet of about 25 vehicles. He thinks the new regulations at the federal and state levels are challenging for truck makers to address at the same time.
“They have got to meet the challenge,” Ramorino says, yet “they’ve got to remain profitable.”
For Carlos Morales, who owns and operates a tractor-trailer in Richmond, stricter standards in the state could force him to leave the industry he’s been a part of since 2003. Over the years Morales has upgraded his vehicle and bought new ones to meet changing emissions requirements.
“This may be my last truck,” he says in Spanish. “The laws are very strict and really impact us.” Morales says he’s concerned he won’t be able to buy an electric vehicle when the time comes.9(MDAxOTAwOTE4MDEyMTkxMDAzNjczZDljZA004))
