UHCA Thwarts Pre-1987 Diesel Ban Through persistence and determination, UHCA emerged from the 1995-96 state legislative session as a defender of fair competition between small trucking companies and large commercial fleets. An effort by the California Trucking Association would have effectively tipped the balance in favor of the larger fleets, had UHCA not stepped into the debate in order to speak on behalf of family-owned, "mom and pop" trucking companies. For the benefit of those readers who are unfamiliar with CTA's effort to ban heavy haulers based on the model-year of their engine, the following is a brief description. Early in the year, UHCA began to research an Assembly bill introduced by Assembly Member Jan Goldsmith (Republican: San Diego). Goldsmith's bill, AB 1675, would have imposed a mandatory retrofit and emissions program for owners of pre-1987 diesels. If these diesels did not meet post-1987 emissions standards by the year 2004, AB 1675 would forbid their continued operation. Although at first glance the bill appeared to be mildly reasonable, we later recognized the disastrous effects a bill of this nature could perpetuate upon the trucking industry. We printed a front-page article on the previous issue of Highway (Volume 33, Number 2) describing our uncertainties about AB 1675. Shortly after the newsletter was mailed out, we received an overwhelming response from UHCA members and nonmembers alike (along with a handful of CTA members) asking us to voice opposition to AB 1675. The following letter was drafted and approved by UHCA's President: To: Assembly Member Jan Goldsmith From: David Barnes, President United Highway Carriers Association Date: August 26, 1996 Subject: AB 1675 (Goldsmith) -- OPPOSE The United Highway Carriers Association (UHCA) oppose AB 1675. We regret expressing our opposition at this late date, but feel this bill could be extremely detrimental to small companies who own trucks. It is unfortunate that AB 1675 has been misrepresented as a measure "supported by the trucking industry." A major contingency of the trucking industry would in fact be adversely affected by this legislation for the following reasons: AB 1675 places a disproportionate, and in some cases detrimental, financial burden on small trucking companies. This segment of the trucking population, which represents the majority of UHCA's membership, does not replace its fleets with the same regularity as larger trucking companies. Many of these businesses, often family owned, would normally continue to operate pre-1987 diesels beyond the year 2004. The emission reducing benefits of AB 1675 will fall miserably short of the 11-ton requirement of the State Implementation Plan for the year 2005. The gross polluters, or large trucking fleets, will be left completely unaffected by a measure that seeks to prohibit 17-year-old trucks from operating in California. Ultimately, small trucking companies would be unduly penalized by this measure, while the state would reap negligible emission reductions. Besides the alternatives of selling their pre-1987 diesels to Mexican trucking companies or to bordering states, AB 1675 leaves owners with the option of retrofitting their trucks with cost-prohibitive or nonexistent emission control technology. According to CARB, no retrofit kit is yet available whose emissions have been rigorously quantified and which would provide assurance that it will significantly reduce emissions over its useful life. AB 1675 sets an unacceptable precedent for future policy regarding SIP attainment levels. As opposed to the consistently expressed intentions of CARB to meet the emissions standards though voluntary, incentive-based programs that do not have a significant cost impact on private persons or businesses, AB 1675 imposes a command and control type of regulatory environment. If the policy set by AB 1675 is adopted, it won't be long before pre-1995 diesels are prohibited. For the above reasons, we must oppose AB 1675. We recognize the inescapable reality that efforts must be made by the trucking industry to attain the emission requirements of the State Implementation Plan. At the same time, we firmly believe that a more practical, equitable, and effective solution can be achieved than AB 1675. At least 15 trucking company owners felt strongly enough against CTA's truck ban to participate in UHCA's grassroots letter campaign. One owner mentioned that her company currently operated 15 pre-1987 diesels (including a handful from the mid-1970's), and would suffer irreparable financial losses if AB 1675 were enacted into law. Many of the trucking company owners who wrote letters of opposition were primarily concerned with the precedent set by forbidding trucks based on their model-year in order to meet emission standards. Ultimately, AB 1675 died an unceremonious death on the Assembly Floor around midnight on the final night of the session. When the final roll call was taken, 31 members of the Assembly voted "NO", 27 Members voted "AYE", and 22 members abstained from the vote. The bill needed at least 41 "AYE" votes to pass. Notable votes on UHCA's side were the Speaker of the Assembly, Curt Pringle; Chair of Assembly Transportation, Larry Bowler; Steven Kuykendall of Long Beach; Bernie Richter of Chico; and Mike Machado of Stockton. Assembly Member Sal Cannella, an outspoken adversary of CARB's overzealous regulations, also voted against AB 1675. By looking closely at the voting record and groups listed in opposition of AB 1675, any suspicions that this bill was defeated solely because of CARB's influence are adequately dispelled. This will not be the last time UHCA members are faced with legislation geared at reducing emissions. In order to achieve the emissions standards mandated by the State Implementation Plan (SIP), the California Trucking Industry will have to come to an agreement with the Air Resources Board on how to reduce emissions by 10 tons in the year 2005. As the deadline approaches, retrofit technology remains nonexistent or cost-prohibitive. The only acceptable means of achieving the emission reductions mandated for California while maintaining a level playing field is through the replacement of gross polluting fleets with low-emission, alternative energy vehicles. The only way to make this plan economically feasible for all members of the trucking industry is through voluntary, incentive-based credit programs that do not have a significant cost impact on private persons or businesses. Incidentally, the California Air Resources Board reflects these policy views in a number of public reports. In a September 1994 report on "The Feasibility of Reducing Emissions from Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles through Retrofitting Existing Diesel Engines," CARB states on pages 44-45: "As discussed previously in this report, the ARB believes that there are opportunities to reduce emissions from existing heavy-duty diesel vehicles by retrofitting engines to low-emission configurations, but that these emission reductions will best be achieved through a voluntary, incentive-based credit program, rather than through a regulatory requirement...The ARB believes that mandating emission reductions by requiring heavy-duty diesel vehicle retrofits is not technologically or economically feasible at this time for the entire heavy-duty vehicle population in the state....For these reasons, the ARB believes continued emission reductions through implementation of increasingly more stringent new vehicle standards with normal fleet turnover is a more effective approach to reducing heavy-duty diesel emissions....Retrofit-for-credit programs provide: a financial incentive for operators to modify their vehicles for emission reductions; financial support for the costs involved; and an air quality benefit when appropriate offset ratios are used." The challenge that remains for UHCA is to keep a vigilance over the legislative and regulatory process to ensure that future emission reduction policies reflect the overtly and consistently stated policy of the CARB. Our industry cannot absorb a fleet-rule or a prohibition of diesels based on model-years and still remain competitive with trucking companies from out of state.