The trucking industry, a vital backbone of America’s supply chain, continues to grapple with the cascading effects of California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations, which are now influencing state-level policies across the nation. The recent abandonment of CARB’s Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) rule—a move seen as a victory for many trucking associations—has done little to quell concerns about the ongoing enforcement of the Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) regulation and its broader implications.
Despite CARB withdrawing its pursuit of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approval for the ACF rule on January 14, the ACT regulation persists, with staggered implementation dates in 10 states. While the trucking community welcomes the ACF decision, the challenges posed by ACT mandates remain a pressing concern.
The Complex Path Forward: Trucking Associations Navigate CARB Regulations and State Adoptions
The trucking industry, a vital backbone of America’s supply chain, continues to grapple with the cascading effects of California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations, which are now influencing state-level policies across the nation. The recent abandonment of CARB’s Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) rule—a move seen as a victory for many trucking associations—has done little to quell concerns about the ongoing enforcement of the Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) regulation and its broader implications.
Despite CARB withdrawing its pursuit of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approval for the ACF rule on January 14, the ACT regulation persists, with staggered implementation dates in 10 states. While the trucking community welcomes the ACF decision, the challenges posed by ACT mandates remain a pressing concern.
The Industry’s Uneasy Reality
Louis Campion, president and CEO of the Maryland Motor Truck Association, views the ACF decision as a modest win but emphasizes that it has minimal impact on Maryland’s situation. “While we view this as a positive, it wasn’t entirely unexpected and really does not impact Maryland,” Campion noted. He explained that the EPA never granted California a waiver for the ACF rule, which focused on zero-emission truck purchase requirements. However, the ACT regulation—a sales mandate requiring manufacturers to increase the percentage of zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) sales—has already taken root.
Campion theorized that CARB’s decision to pull back on the ACF rule may have been influenced by political calculus. As administrations change in Washington, the feasibility of securing regulatory approvals for such stringent rules becomes uncertain.
In Pennsylvania, Rebecca Oyler, president and CEO of the Pennsylvania Motor Truck Association (PMTA), expressed cautious optimism about the ACF development but highlighted the ongoing uncertainty stemming from ACT implementation. “Trucking companies, dealers, and manufacturers in Pennsylvania and across the country are operating with an uncertain future,” Oyler remarked. “When the fate of an industry in your state hinges on a policy decision of another state, there’s something wrong.”
PMTA, alongside several member companies, is actively challenging Pennsylvania’s adoption of CARB’s NOx rule. The ripple effects of neighboring states’ regulatory decisions are already being felt, complicating business planning and procurement strategies.
Early Adopters Face the Heat
The ACT regulation is already in effect in several states, including Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and Washington. While some states, like Vermont, have delayed implementation until 2026, others—such as Maryland, Colorado, New Mexico, and Rhode Island—are poised to adopt ACT mandates by 2027.
Kevin Weeks, executive director of the Trucking Association of Massachusetts, noted the outsized impact of these rules on his state. “Massachusetts, as one of the early CARB adopters, is happy that the ACF regulation was pulled, but we are in the midst of the unworkable Advanced Clean Truck rule, which was instituted January 1,” Weeks said. Efforts by a coalition of over 40 associations to delay or revise the ACT rule have, thus far, been met with silence from Governor Maura Healey’s administration.
Weeks underscored the unrealistic nature of the mandates, pointing to a December 23 letter signed by 46 state legislators urging the governor to postpone the rules until 2027. “We will continue working to promote a common-sense approach that balances Massachusetts’ environmental goals with reality, but to date, common sense is not prevailing in Massachusetts,” he lamented.
The Complex Path Forward: Trucking Associations Navigate CARB Regulations and State Adoptions
The trucking industry, a vital backbone of America’s supply chain, continues to grapple with the cascading effects of California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations, which are now influencing state-level policies across the nation. The recent abandonment of CARB’s Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) rule—a move seen as a victory for many trucking associations—has done little to quell concerns about the ongoing enforcement of the Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) regulation and its broader implications.
Despite CARB withdrawing its pursuit of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approval for the ACF rule on January 14, the ACT regulation persists, with staggered implementation dates in 10 states. While the trucking community welcomes the ACF decision, the challenges posed by ACT mandates remain a pressing concern.
The Industry’s Uneasy Reality
Louis Campion, president and CEO of the Maryland Motor Truck Association, views the ACF decision as a modest win but emphasizes that it has minimal impact on Maryland’s situation. “While we view this as a positive, it wasn’t entirely unexpected and really does not impact Maryland,” Campion noted. He explained that the EPA never granted California a waiver for the ACF rule, which focused on zero-emission truck purchase requirements. However, the ACT regulation—a sales mandate requiring manufacturers to increase the percentage of zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) sales—has already taken root.
Campion theorized that CARB’s decision to pull back on the ACF rule may have been influenced by political calculus. As administrations change in Washington, the feasibility of securing regulatory approvals for such stringent rules becomes uncertain.
In Pennsylvania, Rebecca Oyler, president and CEO of the Pennsylvania Motor Truck Association (PMTA), expressed cautious optimism about the ACF development but highlighted the ongoing uncertainty stemming from ACT implementation. “Trucking companies, dealers, and manufacturers in Pennsylvania and across the country are operating with an uncertain future,” Oyler remarked. “When the fate of an industry in your state hinges on a policy decision of another state, there’s something wrong.”
PMTA, alongside several member companies, is actively challenging Pennsylvania’s adoption of CARB’s NOx rule. The ripple effects of neighboring states’ regulatory decisions are already being felt, complicating business planning and procurement strategies.
Early Adopters Face the Heat
The ACT regulation is already in effect in several states, including Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and Washington. While some states, like Vermont, have delayed implementation until 2026, others—such as Maryland, Colorado, New Mexico, and Rhode Island—are poised to adopt ACT mandates by 2027.
Kevin Weeks, executive director of the Trucking Association of Massachusetts, noted the outsized impact of these rules on his state. “Massachusetts, as one of the early CARB adopters, is happy that the ACF regulation was pulled, but we are in the midst of the unworkable Advanced Clean Truck rule, which was instituted January 1,” Weeks said. Efforts by a coalition of over 40 associations to delay or revise the ACT rule have, thus far, been met with silence from Governor Maura Healey’s administration.
Weeks underscored the unrealistic nature of the mandates, pointing to a December 23 letter signed by 46 state legislators urging the governor to postpone the rules until 2027. “We will continue working to promote a common-sense approach that balances Massachusetts’ environmental goals with reality, but to date, common sense is not prevailing in Massachusetts,” he lamented.
The Road Ahead
The trucking industry is navigating a challenging landscape where state-level adoption of CARB regulations can create a patchwork of compliance requirements. These mandates, while well-intentioned in their aim to curb emissions and address climate change, often overlook the practical realities of fleet operations, supply chain logistics, and infrastructure readiness.
As states like Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Massachusetts continue to grapple with these policies, the trucking community is calling for greater collaboration and a balanced approach. “PMTA is grateful for the work of our colleagues in other states demonstrating how unachievable and unworkable CARB’s mandates are,” Oyler said, emphasizing the need for states to assert more control over their own regulatory frameworks.
For many trucking associations, the ultimate goal is not resistance to environmental progress but the development of practical, achievable solutions that align with both economic realities and sustainability goals. Until then, the industry will remain in a state of regulatory limbo, striving to balance compliance with the operational needs that keep America moving.
This critical moment in the trucking industry serves as a reminder: policies must be informed by feasibility, not dictated by political expediency. The path to cleaner transportation is one that requires cooperation, innovation, and above all, practical implementation strategies.