Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association Supports EPA in Key Emissions Lawsuit
The Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) has formally filed a motion to intervene in a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), supporting the EPA's repeal of the Phase 3 greenhouse gas standards for heavy-duty vehicles. The standards were originally scheduled to take effect in 2027, but the EPA recently rescinded the 2009 endangerment finding that served as the regulatory basis. Meanwhile, 24 states and multiple cities have filed lawsuits alleging that the EPA violated the Clean Air Act and Supreme Court precedent. EMA argues that the Phase 3 standards did not account for actual market demand and effectively mandated zero-emission vehicles, while environmental groups and state officials criticize the move as departing from scientific consensus and harming public health.
Core Summary
- The Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) filed a motion on March 20 to intervene in a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), supporting the EPA's repeal of the Phase 3 greenhouse gas emission standards for heavy-duty vehicle manufacturers.
- The standards were originally set to take effect on January 1, 2027, but the EPA recently rescinded the 2009 endangerment finding—which had determined that greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and welfare, serving as the legal basis for regulating emissions under the Clean Air Act.
- A coalition of 24 states and several cities filed a lawsuit on March 19 challenging the repeal. The plaintiffs argue that greenhouse gases qualify as "air pollutants" under the Clean Air Act, and that under the precedent of the 2007 Massachusetts v. EPA case, once the agency finds they endanger public health and welfare, it must regulate them.
In-Depth Analysis
The Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) argues that, unlike Phase 1 and Phase 2, the Phase 3 greenhouse gas limits did not take into account the current market's actual demand for zero-emission vehicles.
Although the rule does not set explicit sales quotas, manufacturers are still required to produce a sufficient number of zero-emission vehicles to meet the mandatory emission reduction requirements for carbon dioxide from heavy-duty vehicles. The industry group argues that this would effectively force a market shift and limit trucking fleets' choice of vehicle models.
EMA President Jacqueline Gelb stated that member companies have invested "significant capital" to comply with the EPA's Phase 1 and Phase 2 rules.
"These standards were successful because they were supported by fleet demand for the relevant technologies—technologies that met performance needs, saved operating costs for EMA customers, and successfully reduced emissions," Gelb said in a statement. "Although manufacturers have invested tens of billions of dollars in research and development and bringing zero-emission heavy-duty vehicles to market, the GHG Phase 3 sales mandate should not be the means to force the market toward zero-emission technology."
Other trucking groups also expressed support for the EPA's decision. Todd Spencer, president of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, noted that due to the initial cost of purchasing electric trucks and the availability of charging infrastructure, there is currently no evidence that electric trucks are practically viable for trucking businesses.
"Mom-and-pop trucking businesses will be crushed by the high costs and operational challenges of being forced into zero-emission trucks," Spencer said in a statement.
If EMA's intervention efforts succeed, the EPA could overturn its long-standing finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health, which could completely rewrite the federal climate regulatory framework tied to that finding.
Environmental groups and state officials, meanwhile, criticized the EPA for abandoning its own scientific record and statutory duties, putting public health at risk in the process.
"The agency's reinterpretation of the Clean Air Act is inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent and contradicts decades of scientific consensus," Kate Zyla, executive director of the Georgetown Climate Center, said in a statement. "Vehicles, in particular, are the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, and we know of practical technological solutions to reduce these emissions. Rescinding these standards is a major step backward."