OTTAWA — When president Barack Obama announced last May that his government would be introducing a regulation to establish fuel efficiency/GHG reduction standards for heavy trucks, Canada’s environment minister announced that Canada would follow-suit.

The US issued its six hundred page proposed final rule last month, and while Canada’s first draft is not expected until early 2012, Environment Canada issued a consultation paper.

It gives an overview of the regulatory direction set by the US, and discusses possible options for the Canadian rule, and had a deadline of September 9th, 2011 for comments.

The Canadian Trucking Alliance (CTA) responded to the paper in a recent press release, suggesting that the regulation is likely to have a modest impact on reducing GHG emissions as the regulation is imposed at the manufacturer level, only applying to new tractors and engines beginning in 2014.

Instead, the CTA suggests a better alternative would be if the regulation were complimented with a tax program, and other incentives to encourage accelerated investment in GHG-compliant tractors, as well as the installation of market-ready technologies on new trailers — or as retrofits on existing tractors and trailers.

"Unlike previous regulations governing heavy truck emissions which prescribed that smog-causing pollutants from heavy trucks had to be eliminated — and the consumer had no choice in terms of the new equipment they could buy — this time around, as it concerns the GHG regulation motor carriers and owner-operators will still have plenty of choice as to what they purchase," says the CEO of the trucking alliance, David Bradley.

"That is not inherently a bad thing," he continues, "as the trucking industry is not homogenous in terms of the type of equipment used to transport various commodities, the terrain, etc., but it does mean that more substantive reductions in GHG could be delayed when the industry would be prepared to invest in market-ready technologies now, if the proper incentives — like those already provided to the rail and manufacturing sectors — were extended to the industry."

The CTA maintains that by adopting such a program, the environmental benefits will not only come quicker and be more substantial, but it would also decrease the exposure of motor carriers to less proven technologies.?

"The US and Canadian rules are focusing exclusively on new tractor engine and cab design to reach 20 percent GHG reduction targets sometime between 2014-2018," says Bradley. "Under our plan, the industry would easily be able to surpass that target, reducing the need to be tempted by unproven, perhaps not ready for primetime bleeding edge technologies‚ that would be more costly and more risky down the road." ?

While the CTA says there are obvious benefits in trying to harmonize with the US rules, they maintain that US rules cannot be superimposed on the Canadian industry due to the differences in vehicle configurations and operating conditions between the two countries.

The CTA said that Canada should consider its own path in determining what credit to give for GHG reduction strategies such as speed limitation, alternative fuels and automatic transmissions, adding that those are downplayed in the US rule.

"The political and other considerations that went into the development of the US rule are not always identical to the Canadian situation," Bradley explained. "And while the technical standards and overall framework might be the same or close to it, there is nothing to stop Canada expanding the solutions it sees as contributing to the continued greening of the industry."