Reading the article, this seems like a massive concession to the truck manufacturers with no real upside for CARB?
>As part of the agreement, the companies promised to uphold their commitment to 100% clean truck sales by 2036, even if the state’s plan faces legal challenges in court.
This is not CARB’s first rodeo so I’d be surprised if they weren’t figuring this out in the agreement. I’m not familiar with this agreement but I’d speculate something like: It sounds like the manufacturers are getting things they want too, which means that if they want to keep those concessions in place, they have to honor their side of the agreement, independent of whether a court says CARB could force a specific piece of their regulations. (I suppose if a court said CARB couldn’t enforce any regulation then the agreement would be moot, but if they leave anything intact then the manufacturers would presumably be best served by keeping up the deal.)
CARB’s history and track record working through bending the arc of the industry for this type of thing is pretty good, even without Mary Nichols at the helm.
(Another thing worth noting here is most car manufacturers have had a large preference towards consistency and stability in their regulatory agreements, so they often would prefer to sit down and plan a timeline for transitions that doesn’t keep changing around on them and their peers.)
And for the utterly ineffectual regulation of restaurant emissions. (Which, I think, are the dominant source of PM2.5 in a lot of places that get a lot of foot traffic in California.)
> Why do we need zero-emission technology in the transportation sector?
Mobile sources and the fossil fuels that power them are the largest contributors to the formation of ozone, greenhouse gas emissions, fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and toxic diesel particulate matter. In California, they are responsible for approximately 80% of smog-forming nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions. They also represent about 50% of greenhouse gas emissions when including emissions from fuel production, and more than 95% of toxic diesel particulate matter emissions. Zero-emission vehicles have no tailpipe emissions. When compared to diesel vehicles, they are two to five times more energy efficient, reduce dependence on petroleum, and reduce GHG emissions substantially.
>What is the Advanced Clean Truck Regulation?
The Advanced Clean Truck Regulation is part of a holistic approach to accelerate a large-scale transition of zero-emission medium-and heavy-duty vehicles from Class 2b to Class 8. The regulation has two components including a manufacturer sales requirement, and a reporting requirement:
> Zero-emission truck sales: Manufacturers who certify Class 2b-8 chassis or complete vehicles with combustion engines would be required to sell zero-emission trucks as an increasing percentage of their annual California sales from 2024 to 2035. By 2035, zero-emission truck/chassis sales would need to be 55% of Class 2b – 3 truck sales, 75% of Class 4 – 8 straight truck sales, and 40% of truck tractor sales.
> Company and fleet reporting: Large employers including retailers, manufacturers, brokers and others are required to report information about shipments and shuttle services. Fleet owners, with 50 or more trucks, are required to report about their existing fleet operations. This information will help identify future strategies to ensure that fleets purchase available zero-emission trucks and place them in service where suitable to meet their needs.
I appreciate clean emissions, but I’m skeptical this will happen in 13 years time. Are there similarly ambitious programs that have worked in CA’s past?
The reason nationwide emissions are as good as they are is because CARB is massively influential. Famously from a few years ago, Trump tried to make it illegal for states to set their own emissions standards because CARB's goals were much more aggressive than the auto manufacturers and other lobbyists preferred.
>As part of the agreement, the companies promised to uphold their commitment to 100% clean truck sales by 2036, even if the state’s plan faces legal challenges in court.
Is that even remotely binding?