CARB mandate: ‘Government working against us’

| June 24, 2013

CARB poll 07/13Following the Channel 19 dissection of the independent business of Tom and Karen Moore, based in Bakersfield, Calif., as well as Kevin Rutherford’s analysis of what it would take to justify upgrading a California Air Resources Board Truck and Bus Rule-noncompliant tractor, the Moores weren’t the only ones who felt like “our government is working against us,” as Tom put it. As deadlines approach at yearend for 2005-06 engines under the Truck & Bus Rule (find the full upgrade schedule via this post), readers commented in droves on our Facebook page and at Find further responses below.

A commenter under the name “Melody” reiterated the point that, regarding any upgrade decision, it’s important to remember that the Truck & Bus Rule’s compliance rules are by engine — not truck body — model year. Her own experience attempting to upgrade well-illustrates potential disasters: “CARB Compliance is based on the engine model year, not the model year of the truck body itself. The Engine Family Number is required to determine the engine model year. The engine family name is on the emission control label (ECL) attached to the engine,” she wrote. “In 2011, I bought a 2007 Pete (like new, with less than 180,000 miles) and in January 2012, I bought a 2007 KW. It wasn’t until I was attempting to report our vehicle that I learned of the engine model year.”

“Another option might be charging … more across the board to deliver to or pick up from California, or any other states playing this game.” –James Stepp via on ways to deal with the California emissions regs.

The Pete and Kenworth both were outfitted with 2005-model-year engines.

“If I’d only known then what I know now…”

Find further commentary below:

welcome to CaliforniaGary Johns: They are working against us. It’s time for all of us to start complaining to our local governments in large numbers – and this means you reading this. If we don’t, thing will get worse.

Gordon Alkire: In 2004, I had my truck engine overhauled. In the process, it was mandated that I install the EPA and CARB emissions programing in the ECM. My truck is a 1997 Freightliner Century. I had no choice in the decision. Immediately, I had a 2-mpg reduction in fuel mileage – also a severe loss of power. That was an additional cost of near $15,000 a year [on fuel]. … Since my ECM started to die a few months ago, I purchased a new one – upped the horsepower to 600 and <i>no</i> pollution crap in it. I gained my fuel mileage back plus some. I may go to California until the end of the year if the loads pay better than good – after that, I don’t care, as there are many other places to go to earn the buck.

Chris Harkins: I say we all just stay out of California and let it die – then use it as an example of how not to run your state into the ground.

Jeff Baird: I quit going to [California] a year and a half back. There is plenty of good-paying freight in the United States without ever crossing into California.

James Stepp: Another option might be charging … more across the board to deliver to or pick up from California, or any other states playing this game. Stopping service to these states would only cause them to have their reps legislate … to make drivers serve the states, but continuing to “serve” them while making it incredibly expensive to get their product moved would let them see what a “financial crunch” really feels like, while enabling the drivers who are willing to go there to make decent money for their added expense and hassles.

Anonymous: I live and operate in [California]. You guys should keep coming out here. They have only 100 enforcement people to take care of this debacle. The chances of getting caught are like playing the lottery. Everyone here is still running their junk. I have upgraded and am suffering the ills of making big payments. I am compliant, reluctantly.

  • Pingback: CARB mandate: ‘Government working against us’ | America Truck Driving

  • Keith

    Two things: First all loads into and out of California should have a CARB Surcharge of at least $1.00 per mile. Second, exercise your Constitutionally authorized Freedom and just do not go into our out of California. Freedom of Expression is granted under the 1st Amendment and a industry wide boycott would either wake the regulators up or put the Farmer’s in California out of business. As far as the government forcing us to go out there – just let em’ try and see it blow up in their faces. People, it is time to stand up and do something about the overall run away government rules and regulations or shut up and become their slaves!!!!

  • hooperll24

    I used to haul various loads destined for Mexico to Calexico, CA to the broker there, for the Mexican truckers to pick up and deliver. Is Arizona going to be the new Calexico? Someone sets up a distribution center on the AZ border for you to drop CA loads and hook others needing to go east? If the government, state or federal, thinks that they hold the cards over the trucking industry, they’re dumber than they appear. When they pay $11.50 for a gallon of milk or they start paying 3-5 times the price for heartland commodities, they’ll change their tune. Unless you live on a rail line, yuu’re screwed without a truck. They need to get used to that fact!

  • smitty

    I’ve been preaching this for 5 years hoping someone would listen. Now there’s two of us. Let the revolution begin

  • RETMIL97

    It was simple for me. Don’t go to California anymore. Just imagine the loss of stress from having to deal with that state ever again

  • godfearingrebel


  • Peoples Republic Of China

    don’t come to my state California , if it wasn’t for my grand kids i would leave here , but stay out and starve the monster and go make money elsewhere. sooner or later the stupid people here will run the village idiots at the capitol out –

  • Jim

    I have absolutely no intention of upgrading my ’06 Columbia, but I like the idea of a CARB surcharge for those who continue to run out there.

  • JeepCollector91

    I completely gave up on trucking due to fear of the new emissions requirements. I didn’t want to hurt the fuel mileage or reliability of the 12.7L 60-series Detroit in my 2003 Freightliner Columbia so I completely got out of the business and sold my truck before it would become worthless. I have been unemployed for a year now. I had planned on running that truck until retirement but when I saw that wouldn’t be possible I calculated the cost to meet new emissions standards vs purchasing a newer truck and the added cost of either choice would have made staying in the trucking industry more trouble than its worth. Also figure extra maintenance required on my truck if I upgraded the drivetrain or the fact that I couldn’t even work on the newer trucks engines which also means more money out of pocket. I miss my truck and my income but it is what it is and I’m out. Stay safe out there everyone and good luck.

  • Mark French

    I live in California and have made plans to leave the state before the end of the year. I have a 2006 model year engine and refuse to invest in a $15000.00 muffler! California can eat my a**!

  • Webb Kline

    If the CARB equipment causes a 2 mpg deficit, @ 150,000 miles per year, that comes to about 8750 gallons of fuel more, or about 1.75 tanker loads! Come on, people, are we REALLY going to believe that we will pollute less by burning upwards of 2 tanker loads more fuel per year? The oil companies, and EGR manufacturers are laughing all the way to the bank at this one–right along with all the corrupt crony politicians who passed this legislation. Environmentalists mean well, for certain, but they are among the biggest suckers out there, while the rest of us are just getting screwed by corrupt businesses and politics.

  • Kerry Mullins

    You won’t find me in California for anything. They could offer a $2 a mile surcharge for loads going in and coming out and I’d still turn it down. I refuse to be a part of their food chain until someone with common sense takes control of their government.

    Actually all three states on the left coast are on my do not haul list.

  • Kerry Mullins

    Hi old friend, hope life is treating you well. I think you’re on to something. Manufacturers lobbying the government to legislate the use of their technology.

    The fuel mileage has come up on the 2012 and up models, at least the DD15. It’s back to 7. But the added cost of upgrading isn’t worth cowering to those that would follow the rules set up by a guy who didn’t even have the education needed to scientifically craft them. How long have they had emission laws out there? Since 1972? And they’re still complaining about crappy air? I wonder if any of them have ever looked at the evidence from NASA that shows where the pollution is coming from…. The trade winds of China..

  • Webb Kline

    Good to hear from ya, Ker. We’re doing great. That’s a really good point you make. The way that Pacific breeze pushes inland, that makes perfect sense. Everything is about cronyism these days. That’s why every prospective politician who dares to even breathe the word cronyism gets thrown under the bus by their own in a matter of days or less. This gig would be up if they weren’t all in it, or if we would wake up and demand their heads on a platter. Until then, it’s just more of same and the lemmings keep sucking it up. I surely hope some of it sticks soon.

  • Josef


  • dan

    i quit going there over 10 years ago in fact all three of those west coast states. their crap can rot there .the rest of the country doesnt need anything thats produced there.the rates dont justify the right lane only 55 mph limit.and money grabbing scales and the traffic.

  • localnet

    I recall seeing some of the first photos ever taken of the LA Basin, back in the mid 1800’s… The smog was there, just as it is today. The cause, as you said the wind, and also the indigenous vegetation. People are so gullible, or just plain stupid… And we are the ones paying for it.

  • Truckertwotimes

    The population numbers keep going up, so they keep trying to get more from less but it’s the population increase, I can’t figure out why they can’t figure this out, just like a news report on the television set showing the I-5 L.A. area traffic jams, even the news reporters call it “heavy traffic” if people want to cut down on pollution they need to cut back on the population, problem solved sheesh

  • Truckertwotimes

    The last I heard back in 2010 California is moving to Montana I’d sure hate to see a beautiful state like Montana trashed

  • Truckertwotimes

    That’s another one of the things on my long list of ptsd from overpopulation, when I did drive and did go into the country of california, I’d run the seatbelts through the door handles and cover the windows just to run the air conditioner while trying to get a few comfortable hours of sleep, after I worried about a carb enforcer busting out my window to give me a ticket for trying to stay cool to get some rest in the desert

  • Truckertwotimes

    I hear that, the right lane unit train, CA people are so stupid and or educated out of their common sense they had to pass a law to put guard rails down the side of trailers, that’s just plum wild….

  • Truckertwotimes

    it’s just a shame that the land is so beautiful away from the city areas

  • martymarsh

    This isn’t rocket science, it is just another way for the government to keep the money wheel turning, and we will let them. strives to maintain an open forum for reader opinions. Click here to read our comment policy.