NTEA – The Work Truck Association™ and the Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA) today 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 CARB intends to implement 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, cleaner versions, and converting older internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles to new electric or hydrogen-powered vehicles.

CARB’s ACF regulation includes requirements that only zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) may cross within California’s borders, regardless of which state the vehicle was purchased or registered. Vehicles covered by the regulation include everything from heavy-duty tractors with sleeper cabs to work trucks, pickup trucks, and light-duty package delivery vehicles. Interstate motor carriers and others who do not own CARB’s vehicle of choice would be barred from operating within the nation’s largest single-state economy for even a moment. This issue is currently under consideration by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, whose waiver is necessary for the state to proceed.

NTEA and SEMA 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.

“Ultimately, work trucks must be available, capable and affordable. It is important to reach this desired outcome using a sensible and cost-effective approach so our member businesses can continue to build and supply the vehicles that are essential for commerce,” said NTEA President & CEO Steve Carey. “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 in critical industries such as public works, utilities and telecommunications, emergency response, construction, food and agriculture, last-mile delivery and many others.”

“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. “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.”

The lawsuit highlights unprecedented necessity due to the significant overreach the ACF regulations represent, far exceeding California’s constitutional and state statutory authority. The regulation furthermore will undermine, rather than foster, the innovation borne of the automotive aftermarket industry that has historically generated many groundbreaking solutions to cleaner, safer motor vehicles.

In seeking the court’s relief, the organizations establish standing on the basis of:

  • Ripeness, in that regulated entities (which include NTEA and SEMA members) must comply with the ACF regulations immediately, even though the EPA has not approved the state’s action. California is reserving the right to enforce ACF’s provisions retroactively—including by forcing fleets to remove vehicles newly added to their fleets—once the proceedings before the EPA conclude.
  • Preemption, in which vehicles purchased or sold outside of California are subject to the federal Clean Air Act and Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act, both of which preempt the ACF regulations and California’s authority over interstate commerce.
  • State law prohibition, in which California’s own legislature more than 20 years ago prohibited CARB full-stop from setting the prohibitions contained in the ACF regulations when it declared for a similar regulation that CARB “shall not require . . . a ban on the sale of any vehicle category in the state.”
  • Dormant Commerce Clause and Equal Protection Clause violations, which are discriminatory in nature, because ACF regulations place burdens on federally regulated
    out-of-state organizations, solely because of their nationwide, non-California operations. This means that non-California organizations – even those whose operations are primarily out-of-state – face a larger compliance burden than their California-based counterparts.
  • Due process (vagueness), in which multiple ACF provisions render even the most fundamental requirements of the regulations unconstitutionally vague.

In bringing this action, NTEA and SEMA seek a declaration and injunction, and any other appropriate relief, to redress injuries and prevent further unlawful actions by the defendants in issuing and enforcing the ACF regulations.

Neither NTEA nor SEMA are anti-EV; rather, the organizations are steadfast in their shared belief that a technology-neutral environment is the best way to achieve lower vehicle emissions. 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.