Letter from Sacramento: The Push to Get Filth Out of the Air: A Truck Story

They don’t do what they promised you they would do. They let you down. They act like something is wrong with you for expecting better.

 

That’s kind of how it’s been with the California Air Resources Board staff lately when we talk to them about trucks.

 

They have promised over the years that they would deliver clean air to Californians and that cutting pollution from diesel trucks was a priority.

 

Even the governor under whose helm they work has said as much.

 

In December 2017, then Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom published a Medium blog post about his gubernatorial goals: “I want to put us on the fast track starting with a goal of zero diesel pollution by 2030. Diesel is a hat trick pollutant. It needs to go. But instead of driving jobs out of the state, we need to replace diesel with zero pollution clean technology like hydrogen fuel cells and Electric Vehicles.”

 

Yet despite all of this, the CARB staff will deliver to its board of directors on December 12 a wimpy rule on electric truck development.

 

I say wimpy because the rule comes nowhere near what is technologically feasible and environmentally necessary.

 

I don’t need to remind you that we’ve entered a climate emergency. Everyone who watches this emergency in California agrees that we need to substantially cut climate pollution from vehicles.

 

Arguably, we also have a public health emergency. People who live near a port, a freeway, a freight rail yard or a warehouse district get hit daily by ground-level toxic diesel pollution from trucks. As a result, they are more likely to suffer from lung and heart disease and shortened lifespan.

The technology for zero-emission trucks has moved very quickly in recent years. Even companies that do almost nothing but delivery services are now announcing that they’re going to buy tens of thousands of all-electric delivery trucks.

 

A Union of Concerned Scientists analyst recently compiled a list of zero-emission trucks in various classes that are either already commercially available, in demonstration mode, or expected to come out in the next few years. That list numbers 40 trucks, including the heavy-duty trucks that pull big trailers.

 

The rule the CARB staff is proposing sets a goal for truck manufacturers to gradually produce more zero-emission trucks each year over the next 10 years. That’s a good thing. Experience shows that these manufacturer mandates work.

 

But the goals don’t reflect the technology or the need. Today there are about 1.9 million trucks on California’s roads. If one assumes the same number of trucks in 10 years, the CARB rule would make sure that a mere 75,000—just 4%—of the trucks on the road would be zero-emission.

 

That means that nearly 1.9 million would still be spewing pollution.

 

A coalition of environmental organizations, health advocates, labor and environmental justice groups have been pressing CARB to do better. The coalition has conservatively estimated that the technology would allow at least 15% of the trucks on the road in ten years to be zero emission.

 

That could amount to about 282,000 zero-emission trucks.

 

That still leaves a lot of fossil-fueled polluting trucks on the road. But the number of zero-emission trucks would make a big enough dent to help make sure the market for zero-emission trucks grows.

 

The coalition's comment letter to the CARB board describes the rule as “a historic opportunity for California to take leadership on implementing a regulation that truly makes a significant difference in reducing toxic air pollution and GHGs sooner. We cannot waste this opportunity.”

 

There are 14 voting members on the CARB board who will have to review the staff’s proposed rule on December 12. Some of those are health professionals. Some are former legislators. Some are sitting elected officials. There are lawyers, business people and long-time air quality advocates on the board.

 

All are from areas that suffer from truck pollution.

 

Will the board tell the staff to do better? Will they amend the proposal to have higher targets?

 

Will they rise to the need or waste an opportunity?