Fuel Economy Demands Trump Fear of GHG Rollback

[kscarbel2]

Trailer-Body Builders  /  May 4, 2017

Continued demands for greater fuel efficiency by fleets means there will not be changes to current product development plans, even if there are alterations to the Phase 2 greenhouse gas (GHG) rules for heavy-duty trucks, a panel of truck manufacturers explained.

Speaking at the Advanced Clean Transportation (ACT) Expo, representatives of five OEMs often found themselves in agreement on current industry issues, along with the belief that emerging technologies will create dramatic changes in the near future.

“I don’t see any changes in product development, nor or we counting on any rollback or seeking any changes [to GHG rules],” noted Jonathan Randall, senior vice president of North American sales for Mack Trucks. 

There are two ways the phased-in rollout of the Phase 2 final rule from the Environmental Protection Agency and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, scheduled to begin in 2018, could be disrupted.

The first is a pending legal challenge to the first ever standard for trailers, includes as part of the overall rule. Additionally, the Trump administration indicated it plans to conduct a government wide review of regulations.

“The product development pipeline has been filled in advance of this [rule],” Kary Schaefer, general manager of marketing and strategy for Daimler Trucks North America (DTNA), pointed out. “A rollback won’t change the technical development of vehicles that have happened or are slated to happen in the future. “

The other OEM representatives on the panel shared that sentiment: Steve Gilligan, North America vice president of product and vocational marketing for Navistar; Brian Lindgren, research and development director for Kenworth Truck Co.; and Bill Kahn, principal engineer and engineering manager of advanced concepts for Peterbilt Motors Co.

Jim Mele, Fleet Owner’s retiring editor in chief, moderated the panel.

The panelists all said they would benefit from an easing of costly and overlapping testing processes, with the savings being redirected into product development.

Gilligan noted that Navistar is “encouraged by the discussion around some lessoning of regulations and is supportive of streamlining cumbersome or conflicting regulatory policies.” However, he expressed concern about the potential fallout from trade decisions.

With manufacturing facilities located outside the U.S., the company is closely watching what happens with the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Trump initialed threatened to withdraw the U.S. from the deal, though more recently said he was more interested in a renegotiation.

Additionally, the desire for a greater global vehicle harmonization has taken a hit from the administration’s decision not to move forward with the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

“TPP was the structure for a harmonization agreement to take place,” Navistar’s Gilligan said. “If it is off the table, the foundation to begin that discussion is gone.”

Likewise, “without a trade agreement between the [European Union] and U.S., there’s virtually no chance of that occurring,” he added.

All of the panelists noted that harmonization is a desired goal, but there are complicating factors.

Lindgren pointed out lower fuel quality in some parts of the world requires different engines, while Kahn noted the unique duty cycles of European trucks, compared with the U.S.

The OEMs officials also shared similar views on alternative fuels, saying they would be prepared to serve customers once favorites emerge. Currently, though, there remain many options in the very early stages, including hydrogen, natural gas and hybrid electrics.

No one alternative for diesel will be the answer for all fleets, they stressed – it will be determined much more by specific application.

That can be seen currently playing out with compressed natural gas.

“The drumbeat may have slowed a little bit . . . but the refuse business is still very heavy into CNG [compressed natural gas],” Mack's Randall explained.

Complementing the sustainability push are new developments in advanced safety systems, optimized cruise control and related technologies that takes some of the driving decisions away from the trucker.

“Data will help determine how to get the right truck in the right operation, and coach the driver to operate the vehicle correctly,” DTNA’s Schaefer emphasized.

Peterbilt’s Kahn in particular remained skeptical on the idea of electric trucks being used in over-the-road operations, such as the one long-teased in recent weeks by Tesla Motors.

Barring a significant battery breakthrough, the estimated $60,000-to-$100,000 cost for batteries and the weight of the equipment makes it a very unlikely scenario, he stressed.

[kscarbel2]

Trump time: Trucking, construction interests challenge GHG regs

Kevin Jones, Fleet Owner  /  May 8, 2017

Even as truck makers and some of their biggest customers gathered to review—and praise—the latest and greatest in environmentally friendly technologies last week, others in trucking were petitioning the Trump administration to reconsider the fundamental premise that allowed the Obama EPA to regulate greenhouse gases (GHG) in heavy-duty vehicles. This comes as the new leadership at EPA has asked for additional time to review a pending appeal of a federal waiver that allows California to establish its own standards for diesel emissions.

The gist, as explained by Joe Rajkovacz, director of governmental affairs and communications for the Western States Trucking Assn., is that the petitioners object to the “forward-pushing mandates” imposed by EPA.

“We don’t have a quarrel with somebody who wants to pay the money to advance a technology standard,” he says. “But to have EPA—and by extension, the California Air Resources Board (CARB)—force feeding these mandates onto the trucking industry, we consider an abuse of power.”

The petition, filed by the Texas Public Policy Foundation on behalf of a range of trucking, construction, and agricultural interests, focuses on EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding, calling it “the cornerstone” of EPA’s effort to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

And because carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most prevalent greenhouse gas, “the Endangerment Finding provides EPA with a springboard for regulating virtually every aspect of our nation’s economic life,” it reads. “At the same time, it is the product of serious legal, scientific, evidentiary, and procedural errors. Those errors reflect the past Administration’s rush to judgment, which was spurred by political expediency.”

President Trump campaigned on a promise to undo federal regulations that are harmful to business, and EPA has been a top target. Indeed, over the weekend half of the members of a scientific review board were told their terms would not be renewed, clearing room for business and industry representatives to replace the academics.

But given the pressure on EPA, CARB is “doubling down,” Rajkovacz suggests.

“They view themselves as some sort of heroes, the center of the resistance,” he says. “But they are not as independent as they would like to project. They are not an agency that can wave a magic wand and regulate as it sees fit without the approval of the federal government.”

Indeed, the same petitioners also have a lawsuit pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, challenging EPA’s granting California an authorization under the federal Clean Air Act section to adopt and enforce its off-road diesel regulations. Oral arguments are scheduled for May 18, but EPA last week moved for a continuance.

“In light of the recent change in Administration, EPA requests continuance of the oral argument to give the appropriate officials adequate time to fully review the Off-Road Diesel Decision,” the motion states. CARB opposes the motion.

Rajkovacz says those who’ve been fighting CARB now have reason to be hopeful, at least.

“It gives us a sense of optimism, regardless of what the Schneiders and J.B. Hunts are saying in their Kumbaya moment in Long Beach [at ACT Expo]. There’s bunch of us that have no problem with your implementing [these goals for] yourself, but we have a real problem with your supporting and imposing mandates on everyone else,” Rajkovacz says. “There are significant other players in this industry that believe this government overreach by environmental zealots needs to end. We’re thinking we might have a pretty good chance.”