The Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA) and the National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA) have filed suit in the U.S. District Court’s Eastern District of California against the California Air Resources Board (CARB) seeking immediate declaratory and injunctive relief to stop electric vehicle mandates proposed by CARB through its Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) regulations.

The organizations contend that CARB’s actions far exceed California’s constitutional and state statutory authority, and will have a dire effect on an industry that historically has led the way toward cleaner, safer vehicles through innovation and American ingenuity — particularly through alternative-fuel innovations, replacing older engine technologies with newer and cleaner versions, and converting older internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles to new electric or hydrogen-powered vehicles.

SEMA and NTEA claim that CARB’s ACF regulations would only allow zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) to cross California’s borders, regardless of which state the vehicles were purchased or registered in. The ACF regulations require all new California-certified medium- and heavy-duty vehicle sales to be ZEVs beginning in 2036.

Vehicles covered by the regulation include on-road and off-road vehicles such as heavy-duty tractors with sleeper cabs, work trucks, pickup trucks, and light-duty package delivery vehicles.

This issue is currently under consideration by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, whose waiver is necessary for the state to proceed. The suit notes that the ACF regulations are being challenged in other pending lawsuits.

“SEMA and NTEA are filing the lawsuit on behalf of their members who own and operate fleets of vehicles regulated by the ACF regulations, or manufacture, market, and sell specialty vehicles, trucks, and automotive aftermarket products that may become obsolete in California and other markets if CARB is allowed to proceed in “decreeing an end to internal combustion engine vehicles,” a joint news release from the organizations states.

“The overreach of California has forced the hand of the automotive industry, making this legal action necessary to protect the interests of the thousands of automotive aftermarket companies whose $337 billion annual economic impact helps drive our nation’s economy,” said SEMA President and CEO Mike Spagnola, in the release. “The illegal means by which California has sought to tilt the board by siding with just one technology is to the great detriment of a giant swath of the nation’s small businesses and threatens a dangerous precedent upon the American people.”

NTEA President and CEO Steve Carey added that work trucks should be available, capable, and affordable through a sensible and cost-effective approach so member businesses can continue to build and supply essential commerce vehicles.

“Left unchecked, the current suite of California regulations will severely curtail the ability of work truck users to obtain the vehicles they need to successfully and efficiently carry out their vital missions and support ongoing business operations,” he said, in the release.

SEMA and NTEA argue that the regulation will “undermine, rather than foster, the innovation that historically has generated so many novel ways to drive the development of cleaner, safer automobiles.”

According to the lawsuit, the organizations state they have legal standing because”

• • Regulated entities, including SEMA and NTEA, must comply with ACF regulations immediately, even though the EPA hasn’t approved the state’s action.
  • California reserves the right to enforce ACF’s provisions retroactively — including by forcing fleets to remove vehicles recently added to their fleets — once the proceedings before the EPA are over.
  • Vehicles purchased or sold outside of California are subject to the federal Clean Air Act and Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act. The plaintiffs contend that both acts preempt ACF regulations and California’s authority over interstate commerce.
  • California’s legislature more than 20 years ago prohibited CARB “full-stop” from setting the prohibitions contained in the ACF regulations when it proposed a similar regulation in which CARB “shall not require… a ban on the sale of any vehicle category in the state.”
  • Dormant Commerce Clause and Equal Protection Clause violations, meaning federally regulated and out-of-state organizations face a larger compliance burden than those within California.
  • Multiple ACF provisions render the regulations “unconstitutionally vague.”

“Neither SEMA nor NTEA are anti-EV; rather, the organizations are steadfast in their shared belief that a technology-neutral approach is the best way to achieve lower vehicle emissions,” the press release states. “By declaring one technology as the preferred solution of government, California is kneecapping other potential solutions, regardless of their promise for delivering the results the state seeks.”

Images

Featured image: Rendering of electric freight and delivery vehicles. (Credit: Chesky_W/iStock)