WASHINGTON — A cap-and-trade mandate in the U.S. would impose significant costs on truckers and jeopardize their businesses, American Trucking Associations First Vice Chairman Tommy Hodges told a Congressional Committee.

The so-called American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2454) places disproportionate burdens on mobile sources like trucking companies, which should be addressed differently than traditional stationary under any carbon reduction regulation, explained Hodges, who also serves as Chairman of ATA’s Sustainability Task Force. 

ATA says a national cap and trade
policy would hurt truckers the most

"Fleets are extremely sensitive to rapidly shifting operating costs given thin operating margins," he said. "These margins continue to be chipped away, given the numerous and unprecedented costs being imposed upon the industry to reduce emissions from trucks."

Hodges said provisions the bill which grant oil refiners 2 percent of the carbon allowances between 2014 and 2016 are "inadequate and will result in significant price increases for refined products."

"The 2 percent allotment to refineries over a 2-year period covers the refineries’ facility emissions, but totally ignores carbon emissions from the combustion of petroleum products, leaving downstream users, such as trucking companies, exposed to dramatic and sudden fuel price spikes."

Hodges pointed out that the ATA’s own "sustainability agenda" already includes measures that would reduce cut fuel consumption and GHG emissions, such as mandatory speed limiters, fuel economy standards and engine idling laws.

Meanwhile, a number of jurisdictions in both Canada and the U.S. have banded together to set common environmental targets, which includes, among other things, a cap and trade system.

The so-called Western Climate Initiative (WCI), which includes half a dozen U.S. states as well as B.C., Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec, is opposed by truck groups here as well.