Let’s face it, even though the stakes are quite often very high, environmental rule making is rarely dramatic. Rules generally move at a glacial pace through extensive review processes at both the state and federal levels. That is why the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) decision on January 13, 2025, to drop its pursuit of a federal approval for its Advanced Clean Fleet’s (ACF) rule stunned the state and nation!
Adopted on April 28, 2023, the ACF would have required approximately 532,000 of the estimated 1.8 million trucks operating in California to reach zero emission between 2024 and 2045. The rule represented a sea change for the trucking industry, introducing new technologies and fuels. For the long-suffering environmental justice communities, it represented a vital chance to reduce the double threats of unhealthy air and future climate change that result from truck tailpipe emissions.
However, the Trump administration had loudly vowed to kill this rule, largely based on significant opposition from the trucking industry and other states, from Trump’s own fossil fuel agenda, and from a fundamental objection to California setting its own vehicle emissions standards. Many who followed the rule believed that California would go to the courts to defend the ACF as a cornerstone of the state’s environmental justice, air quality, and climate policies. But it was not to be and the ACF died with a whimper and without the expected legal knife fight.
In its statement explaining the sudden shift, CARB Chair Liane Randolph said, "The withdrawal is an important step given the uncertainty presented by the incoming administration that previously attacked California's programs to protect public health and the climate and has said will continue to oppose those programs." However, many of those closest to the rule believe that this was just a smoke screen to cover California’s retreat from what they describe as a fatally flawed regulation reliant on unworkable and immature technologies.
Early Warning Signs
During the lead up to the ACFs adoption in April 2023, CARB was deluged with comments from the trucking industry, environmental activists, local, state and federal agencies, and nongovernmental and special interest groups including local chambers of commerce and the powerful Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA). To its credit, CARB tried to provide access to its rule making process to as many stakeholders as possible. But with so much noise coming from every corner, the agency largely stuck with its own council.
This is not unusual, and many of us who have worked with CARB believe that the input process is largely performative – a box is checked and they move on. In their defense, CARB has had extraordinary successes operating like this. Take for example California’s passenger electric vehicle (EV) rule making, its cap-and-trade program, and the large reductions of harmful diesel emissions its rules have achieved at California’s container ports. So, while the trucking industry was animatedly pointing out that there was no electric power or hydrogen infrastructure capable of fueling their fleets, they were largely being ignored.
Ignoring Concerns by Utilities
CARB was also ignoring significant concerns being voiced by California’s Investor-Owned Utilities (IOUs), possibly viewing their input as foot dragging. In written comments on the ACF on October 17, 2022, PG&E noted “as the provider of electricity for approximately two in five Californians, CARB should include additional flexibility to the Infrastructure Delay Exemption given that many of the eligible reasons for delay, including interconnection delays, are likely to take longer than one year.” And PG&E gave an excellent reason for this since the utility wasn’t planning to have the infrastructure built out to fully accommodate truck charging for almost another decade. In their own words:
“In the long-term, PG&E will address 90 percent of the capacity constraints currently anticipated on our system for the next decade by 2032 through our integrated grid planning effort and will continue working to address all capacity constraints on the grid thereafter. In the near term there will likely be longer interconnection timelines to support the substantial distribution upgrades necessary to energize fleet customers’ projects.”
On top of these grid issues, PG&E also cited supply chain shortages, permitting, and environmental remediation as being problems that would seriously delay truck charging site energization.
Promises by State Agencies
However, instead of pulling back, CARB chose to rely on promises made by two other state agencies, the California Energy Commission (CEC) and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to forge ahead. At an October 27, 2022, hearing, CARB received assurances from both the CEC and CPUC that grid and hydrogen infrastructure would be ready to handle the additional fueling that the ACF required. CEC testified that its work with the CPUC, IOUs, and California’s Independent Systems Operator (CASIO) would ensure there was enough electricity for truck charging. CEC further stated it would ensure hydrogen fuel production and dispensing infrastructure would be there also.
The CPUC testified that it had been working on site energization issues (getting power from the grid to the trucks) and that – because of California Assembly Bill 841 – it now required IOUs to pass the costs of energizing truck parking sites “before the meter” to rate payers.This meant that truckers would not have to pay the significant costs of getting power lines to their parking sites directly. Also, the CPUC established a 125-day average connection time requirement for IOUs to bring that power to the truck parking sites – so problems solved! (What the CPUC didn’t mention was the fine print on energization. but more on that later). And so, ignoring industry and IOU concerns in favor of the state agency echo chamber, CARB adopted the ACF on April 28, 2023.
ACF Implementation Stalls
Almost immediately, the California Trucking Association sued, then WSPA, then 17 states led by Nebraska, and then others until there were at least six lawsuits against the ACF in state and federal courts. Some alleged procedural violations by CARB as part of the rule making process, but others, perhaps most significantly, challenged California’s right to set the emissions standards for trucks in the first place.
Historically, because California’s air pollution problems are so severe, it has been allowed to set its own stricter emissions standards for motor vehicles by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This is done through what is known as the preemption waiver process. Essentially, motor vehicles – or in this case truck emissions standards – adopted in California must be approved by EPA. The lawsuit from Nebraska and the other states objected to CARB proceeding forward with ACF implementation prior to EPA’s review and approval of the emissions waiver request.
Faced with the lawsuits and without EPA approval, ACF implementation stalled in early 2024, with CARB rolling back multiple rule requirements including compulsory Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) truck purchases.
Implementation Issues
While the lawyers battled it out in court and CARB scrambled to roll back the rule, on the ground the implementation issues were insurmountable for many heavy-duty fleets.
When looking for the trucks that would meet CARB mandate, truckers were initially stunned by sticker shock. The trucks available were double (in the case of battery electric) and triple (in the case of hydrogen) the cost of conventional vehicles. Truck suppliers tried to entice purchases by touting supposed operational savings with both technologies relative to the maintenance and fueling cost of conventional diesel trucks. However, that initial cost, on top of the lack of availability of electric charging and hydrogen infrastructure, was too great a barrier for most to overcome. This caused a spike in diesel truck purchases by California drayage (port) fleets in 2023 before the rule deadline – the exact opposite effect that the ACF was intended to have. For those who bought the electric or hydrogen trucks, or those lucky enough to secure grant funding to help defray their costs, the waiting time to get power to their truck parking facilities was frequently quoted in years by the IOUs or the hydrogen infrastructure was simply unavailable. This left those assets stranded and grant monies unused.
Looking at the fine print on the CPUC’s requirements, it turns out the IOUs had multiple options to stop the clock on supplying power, including if a power request was over two megawatts. This meant that – depending on how the trucks were charged – fleets with as few as four to six Class 8 trucks were out of luck. This struggle was reported on in detail by Canary Media in September 2024 by Jeff St. John. His excellent piece details efforts by the California legislature to address the truck charging issue with the IOUs, the years-long wait for power in many areas, and the mounting incredulity with ACF requirements. However, in November 2024, Donald Trump was reelected, sounding the death knell of the ACF and perhaps sparing California and CARB’s blushes.
What Lessons Can CARB Learn?
At the start of this article, we rightly praised CARB for the work that led to their significant successes in improving health outcomes and their programs to protect global climate for Californians. However, they have also been responsible for more than a few calamitous outcomes including the use of methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) in gasoline, the failure of California’s first EV mandate, the various scrambles around the implementation of the original truck, bus, and car rules, and now the ACF debacle.
While regulatory setbacks are to be expected when pushing the technological envelope, in this charged political and economic environment CARB simply must take more care to ensure that the rules it adopts will stick. This may mean being more conservative in the short term and making smaller and better understood technological leaps with willing partners. For example, there were some notable successes in ACF implementation. Companies like FEDEX and Amazon deployed significant numbers of electric trucks. However, these companies had duty cycles that suited those solutions, corporate commitments to greenhouse gas emissions reductions targets, available power at warehouse locations, and over a decade of advanced planning to ensure smooth integration of those ZEVs.
Small Steps vs. Large Defeats
Ultimately, small steps forward are still progress. Large defeats like the ACF, especially where the technology is arguably unworkable, significantly undermine the credibility of the environmental movement. This fuels critics’ attacks on rule making and makes progress harder to achieve. It also serves to discourage allies in industry from doing the right thing and frustrates impacted communities who are relying on these types of rules to ensure better health outcomes.
So how can CARB avoid this in the future? It needs to fundamentally change how it takes and values input – no more checking boxes! This will mean exiting the state echo chamber and coming to a real understanding of the industries it is trying to regulate, the technologies that are available to help, and the expectations of the communities it is seeking to serve.
About the Author: Damian Breen is the founder of Environmental Communication Strategies and former Deputy Executive Officer of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. He has worked at the crossroads of the environment, people, business, and future technology for over 29 years. For more information on this article, contact Damian at damian@ecs-ca.com.