BURSTA group of truck manufacturers have filed a lawsuit against California regulators, contending that the Golden State lacks the authority to enforce its heavy-duty vehicle emissions standards, which are stricter than federal standards.
The complaint, submitted on Monday to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, maintained that truck makers should not have to comply with the state’s emissions rules, after the federal government rendered them “unlawful” in June.
Filed by Daimler Truck North America, International Motors, Paccar and Volvo Group North America, the lawsuit requested a declaratory judgement against Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and the California Air Resources Board as well as injunctive relief.
The complainants argued that recent federal government resolutions “statutorily preempted California’s emissions standards governing heavy-duty vehicles and engines.”
“Notwithstanding that new legislation, California continues to demand compliance with its heavy-duty emissions standards,” the case stated.
The legislation, signed by President Trump in June, included three congressional resolutions that upended California’s rules on gas-fueled vehicle phaseouts.
One of the three resolutions targeted the Advanced Clean Trucks rule — a regulation aimed at accelerating the state’s transition to less-polluting trucks that would have required 7.5 percent of these vehicles to be emissions-free by 2035.
A second was the state’s Omnibus Regulation, which aimed to slash heavy-duty nitrogen oxide emissions by 90 percent, update engine testing protocols and further extend engine warranties.
In signing the resolutions, Trump revoked the Biden administration’s previous authorization of California’s emissions standards via the Congressional Review Act, which allows the repeal of recent such approvals with a simple majority.
California had been able to acquire the Biden-era Environmental Protection Agency’s authorization via a 1970 Clean Air Act clause that allows the state to set stronger emissions rules than those at the federal level.
Immediately after Trump signed the resolutions in June, California officials filed a lawsuit against the administration with 10 other states, accusing the president of illegal interference.
In Monday’s complaint, the truck makers — also called original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) — argued that California’s continued demands for compliance have “threatened” their ability to “design, develop, manufacture and sell heavy-duty vehicles and engines.”
The lawsuit noted that the U.S. Department of Justice has issued letters instructing the manufacturers “to immediately cease and desist compliance with California’s preempted and unlawful mandates,” noting that the state’s insistence “is contrary to federal law.”
“Plaintiffs are caught in the crossfire: California demands that OEMs follow preempted laws; the United States maintains such laws are illegal and orders OEMs to disregard them,” the complaint stated. “This situation is not tenable.”
Describing the regulatory requirements as “inconsistent” and responsible for an “unstable” manufacturing landscape, the truck makers said that “the misaligned federal and California emissions standards provided plaintiff OEMs with barely two years of lead time to comply with California’s aggressive emissions standards.”
The manufacturers characterized that period as “a woefully inadequate compliance window,” referring to the Clean Air Act’s four-year lead time requirement for new heavy-duty vehicle pollution standards.
The lawsuit also slammed a July 2023 Clean Truck Partnership, in which the manufacturers voluntarily agreed to abide by California’s emissions rules in exchange for certain concessions.
In response to the lawsuit, environmental groups and policymakers issued a collective statement alleging the complaint “paints wealthy truck manufacturers as victims.”
Craig Segall, former deputy executive officer and assistant chief counsel of CARB, questioned whether the companies “have any idea how to sell their products.”
Noting that the partnership would have promoted electric truck sales and financed related infrastructure in one of the world’s biggest economies, Segall accused the companies of “burning” regulators and “destroying shareholder value by blowing up that agreement.”
“Red flags abound,” he added.
Guillermo Ortiz, senior clean vehicles advocate for the Natural Resources Defense Council, characterized the lawsuit as “a cynical reversal of course” and accused the plaintiffs of acting in “bad faith.”
“These companies helped negotiate the Clean Truck Partnership to secure regulatory certainty,” Ortiz said in a statement. “Now they’re trying to dismantle the very deal they shaped — injecting instability into a market they claim to lead.”