Join us.

We’re working to create a just society and preserve a healthy environment for future generations. Donate today to help.

Donate

California Keeps on Truckin’

When California adopted its first-in-the-nation regulations requiring truck electrification on June 25, the state took a step (or drove a mile) toward reducing pollution in the nation's most vulnerable communities. The new regulation exemplifies a key feature of California's approach: its integration of climate goals, clean air goals, and, at least in this case, environmental justice goals.

According to the press release from the California Air Resources Board (CARB), trucks in California contribute 80 percent of the state's diesel pollution and 70 percent of its smog-causing pollution while constituting less than 7 percent of registered vehicles. The rule's environmental assessment explains that particulate matter from diesel engines is responsible "for approximately 60 percent of the current estimated cancer risk for background ambient air." These risks are highest near freight hubs, including "ports, rail yards and distribution centers." And these areas, in turn, are often in low-income communities of color. Trucks play no small part in the state's pattern of racial injustice, a pattern repeated throughout the country, as EPA's assessment of exposure disparities near ports reveals.

Building on California's existing zero-emission requirements for passenger vehicles and lighter pick-ups like the Ford F-150, the rule requires truck manufacturers to phase in zero-emission vehicle sales beginning in 2024. For light-duty trucks (classes 2b-3), including some minivans, cargo vans, and pick-up trucks, manufacturers' sales of zero-emission vehicles must reach 5 percent by 2024, increasing to 55 percent by 2035. The requirements are more demanding for mid- and some heavy-duty vehicles (classes 4-8), the zero-emissions sales of which must reach 9 percent by 2024 and increase to 75 percent by 2035. Heavy-duty tractor trucks, consisting of a cab that hauls a detached cargo load, face less demanding requirements, however, beginning at 5 percent in 2024 and increasing to 40 percent by 2031 – an earlier deadline but a less stringent requirement.

In developing climate policies, states have choices. California's decision to control truck emissions reflects its commitment to offering critical public health and environmental justice benefits alongside climate benefits. Although greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide do not have significant localized effects, they are almost invariably accompanied by pollutants that do. Rather than address its pollution challenges in distinct silos, California has taken a more comprehensive approach that provides far-reaching benefits. Home to some of the worst localized air pollution in the United States, most notably in Los Angeles and the San Joaquin Valley, these benefits are significant.

Also notable in California's emphasis on truck emissions is the policy's racial justice benefits. Many of the areas with the highest truck traffic, and the highest toxic diesel emissions, are located in low-income Black and Latinx communities. West Oakland, a historically Black Oakland neighborhood, has experienced high levels of diesel pollution from the Port of Oakland, as trucks move goods from ships to rail lines and warehouses. New warehouse districts in southern California have led, in one community, to more than 1,000 diesel trucks per hour on the roads, according to counts made by the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice. Recent efforts to reduce diesel pollution near the ports have substantially reduced prior levels, and the Advanced Clean Truck rule takes the state to the next level by expanding the range of communities that will benefit from reduced diesel emissions.

Truck manufacturers lobbied hard against the measure, stating that they do not have the technology to meet these goals by the deadlines and that the COVID-19 pandemic has slowed technology testing and development. In contrast, CARB asserts that many zero-emission vans and trucks are already commercially available and are suitable for the majority of truck travel, which is less than 100 miles per day. In terms of the cost to truckers and fleet operators, the agency acknowledges that zero-emission trucks currently cost more upfront. However, over time, CARB suggests that that cost will be offset by lower operating costs, so that the total cost of ownership will be comparable to conventional trucks. An existing state voucher program also helps small owners replace diesel trucks.

Other states may well follow suit. Although California is the only state permitted to adopt its own vehicle emission rules, all states are free to choose between the less stringent federal requirements and more stringent California requirements. (The Clean Air Act allows only California to adopt alternative emission standards so that auto manufacturers have to worry about only two emissions standards, rather than 50.) Several states, including Nevada, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, are already signaling their support for California's approach.

Before California and the states seeking to follow its lead can proceed, they will have to obtain approval from the federal EPA, which takes the form of waiving otherwise applicable preemption. At first glance, that hurdle may appear formidable, since EPA recently withdrew its waiver for California's zero-emission vehicle program for automobiles, arguing that only programs designed to achieve local air quality benefits, not the more attenuated benefits of greenhouse gas reductions, meet the waiver criteria. EPA also stated that greenhouse gas controls are preempted by parallel fuel economy legislation. However, because California did not rest its clean truck rule solely on greenhouse gas objectives and clearly articulated the importance of the regulation to achieving localized air quality challenges, the Trump administration may be hard-pressed to deny the waiver.

If Congress follows the recommendations of the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, issued June 30, the entire nation could benefit from reducing trucks' diesel pollution. Acknowledging California's new truck standards, the Select Committee recommended an ambitious national sales requirement for medium and heavy-duty trucks of 30 percent by 2030 and 100 percent by 2040. The committee also recommended a suite of additional measures to further truck electrification, including greenhouse gas tailpipe emission standards, vouchers to help small fleet owners replace diesel trucks and to support production, and support for charging infrastructure for commercial vehicles. Recognizing the impact of diesel pollution on "environmental justice communities," the Select Committee also recommended that Congress prioritize funding to benefit environmental justice communities and those that experience disproportionate levels of air pollution.

In our collective reckoning with systemic racism and collective recognition of longstanding patterns of privilege and suffering, something as seemingly mundane as a truck rule can be seen as a beacon of hope. California's Advanced Clean Truck rule and the Select Committee's attention to truck pollution demonstrate our capacity to provide an integrated response to a trifecta of crises – climate, public health, and racial justice.

Showing 2,821 results

Alice Kaswan | July 1, 2020

California Keeps on Truckin’

When California adopted its first-in-the-nation regulations requiring truck electrification on June 25, the state took a step (or drove a mile) toward reducing pollution in the nation's most vulnerable communities. The new regulation exemplifies a key feature of California's approach: its integration of climate goals, clean air goals, and, at least in this case, environmental justice goals.

William Buzbee | June 19, 2020

The Supreme Court’s DACA Decision, Environmental Rollbacks, and the Regulatory Rule of Law

On June 18, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Trump administration's rescission of the Obama administration's immigration relief program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). In explaining and then defending its DACA rollback, the Trump administration had raised an array of claims that, if accepted, would have undercut numerous regulatory rule of law fundamentals. Instead, the Court strengthened these longstanding requirements. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) v. Regents will become central to battles over the many Trump administration rollbacks and reversals of environmental and other regulations.

Katie Tracy | June 19, 2020

Supreme Court Affirms Title VII Protections for LGBTQ+ Community

Until this week, laws in a majority of U.S. states permitted some form of employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. On Monday, the law changed – dramatically, sweepingly, historically – when the U.S. Supreme Court made clear that in this respect the 1964 Civil Rights Act's anti-employment discrimination provisions mean exactly what they say. The Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia makes clear that it is illegal to base employment decisions – hiring and firing, the allocation of work, the grouping of employees, compensation practices, harassment – on sexual orientation or identity. The prior patchwork of state laws – most of which permitted some type of employment discrimination based on orientation or identity – is no more.

Darya Minovi | June 18, 2020

The Climate Crisis and Heat Stress: Maryland Farms Must Adapt to Rising Temperatures

A blog post published last month by the Chesapeake Bay Program, a collaborative partnership focused on Bay restoration, addressed the many ways that the climate crisis will affect farms in the region. Data from the program shows temperatures on Maryland’s Lower Eastern Shore, home to a high concentration of industrial poultry farms, increased between 2 to 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit, on average, between 1901 and 2017. By 2080, temperatures in the Chesapeake Bay watershed are projected to increase by 4.5 to 10 degrees, posing a serious risk of heat stress to farmworkers and livestock.

Daniel Farber | June 18, 2020

D.C. Circuit Restricts ‘Housekeeping’ Regulations

On June 16, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decided two cases that add to the legal difficulties the Trump EPA will face in court. The difficulties relate to two proposed EPA rules that attempt to hamstring future efforts to impose tighter restrictions on pollution. Both EPA rules rely on vague, general grants of rulemaking authority from Congress. That just became more tenuous.

Thomas McGarity | June 17, 2020

OSHA, Other Agencies Need to Step Up on COVID-19, Future Pandemics

Governments and industries are "reopening" the economy while COVID-19 continues to rage across the United States. At the same time, the lack of effective, enforceable workplace health and safety standards puts workers and the general public at heightened risk of contracting the deadly virus. In a new report from the Center for Progressive Reform, Sidney Shapiro, Michael Duff, and I examine the threats, highlight industries at greatest risk, and offer recommendations to federal and state governments to better protect workers and the public.

Katlyn Schmitt | June 16, 2020

Environmental Justice Impacts of COVID-19 on the Delmarva Peninsula

On June 9, the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change held a remote hearing, “Pollution and Pandemics: COVID-19’s Disproportionate Impact on Environmental Justice Communities.” The Center for Progressive Reform, joined by Fair Farms, Sentinels of Eastern Shore Health (SESH), and the Sussex Health and Environmental Network submitted a fact sheet to subcommittee members outlining the impacts of COVID-19 on the Delmarva Peninsula, along with a number of recommendations for building a more sustainable model for the region. The area is home to a massive poultry industry, hit hard by the coronavirus pandemic. We addressed several of the most severe problems in our fact sheet.

Michael C. Duff | June 15, 2020

Pandemic Heroes Compensation Act of 2020: Preliminary Observations on the Proposed Bill

While I suspect that workers' compensation claims, even without the aid of workers' compensation causation presumptions, may fare better than some actuaries suspected (preliminary scuttlebutt of about a 40 percent success rate is higher than I expected), there is no reasonable doubt that large numbers of workers will ultimately go uncovered under workers' compensation during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Brian Gumm, Katie Tracy | June 11, 2020

Court Order Okays OSHA Inaction on COVID-19

In a June 11 order, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied an AFL-CIO writ of mandamus asking the court to compel the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to do more to protect workers from infectious diseases, such as COVID-19. The order continues the dangerous status quo of workers laboring with no enforceable protections from the highly contagious and deadly virus.