Estes is Fined by EPA for Air Violations - Another Volkswagen?

I just saw an interesting news article stating the EPA has fined Estes $100K (Plus Estes has to pay another $285K in projects) because they violated the California Truck and Bus Regulations.  From the news article:

"EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld said Estes violated the California Truck and Bus Regulation dozens of times between 2012 and 2014.

The regulation, adopted in 2009, requires that all commercial heavy diesel trucks and buses operating in the state be equipped with diesel particulate filters (DPFs), which limit toxic emissions."

In light of the Volkswagen issues where the car company clearly violated environmental laws on purpose, I think we are going to see a lot more of this.  As we all know, with regulations companies take "calculated risks" and one of them appears to be around meeting environmental regulations.  My advice to compliance departments is they may want to tighten up what they are doing.

There were also two very important items embedded in the article and the first one has to do with sub-contractors to Estes:

"In reaching the settlement, Estes cooperated with federal investigators, admitting that the company or its subcontractors in California operated more than 80 trucks between 2012 and 2014 that were not equipped with diesel particulate filters"

What is fascinating in that statement is they are taking direct responsibility for their sub contractors. So, one way "around" the laws is not to just broker freight and say it is their fault.  Looks like Estes will own that liability too.

Finally, the article states:

"Sax said this was “the first of many cases” the EPA and CARB will bring against trucking companies in order to enforce the California Truck and Bus Regulation.

Blumenfeld confirmed the EPA has been investigating out-of-state trucking companies operating in California since the spring of 2014."

If that is not a direct statement of intent, I do not know what is.  Clearly, companies had better be careful with what they are doing in California and I would suspect you will see a lot of new trucks headed West soon.

I think the regulators are getting emboldened as they are finding more and more of this abuse. There also was a case against Samsung where they had defeated the Energy Star ratings in refrigerators and in that case had to compensate every consumer. We all know of the troubles International / Navistar has had.

If I were at a trucking company I would be less concerned about "more regulation" and far more concerned about whether my company was meeting requirements in the first place.  

Companies Mentioned in This Article:

1. Estes Express Lines
2. Volkswagen
3. Samsung
4. CARB - California Air Resources Board
5. EPA - Environmental Protection Agency

The EPA May Have Got it Right

For the last 4 - 6 years we have heard many people grumbling about the need to clean up diesel trucks from an environmental  perspective.  All the same arguments heard whenever new goals are set were rolled out:  "It will cost a fortune", "It will never work", "The technology doesn't exist"... etc. etc.  Same comments made by the automotive companies when the initial clean air act was passed and now we hear them again when it comes to Natural Gas. Now, in an article entitled, The Emissions Dividend in Fleet Owner Magazine, we find out the EPA may have been right.  Thank goodness they stuck to their guns.

What is even more fascinating about the data in the article is it seems to suggest now that all these changes may actually end up in reduced costs for the carriers.  Engines are lasting a million miles, drain intervals are being extended  and other operating costs are improving.  Yes, the acquisition costs of the engines may be higher but it appears there is evidence the total cost of ownership (Generally figured by adding: Acquisition costs+ownership cost-residual revenue) may actually be lower.  It is certainly improving and this is verified by a presentation I was at where a very large trucking company confirmed this phenomenon.

As a shipper it has to make you wonder what all this talk is of "increased costs"?  Yes, there are increased acquisition costs but it is TCO I am concerned about.  If TCO is decreasing that is a good thing isn't it.

This reinforces why, as a shipper, you have to understand the costing model of transportation as well or better than anyone in the industry.

Could you imagine what LA would be like from a smog perspective if the EPA had not stuck to its guns all these years?  It would have been a disaster.  Now, it looks like the same success is coming to the actions concerning diesel trucking.  Congratulations EPA... and my future grandchildren thank you.

Penn Wells Considered Safe by EPA - Fracking Politics

The politics around fracking, the way we are getting natural gas out of the ground, has been somewhat unbearable.  Here is the first time I have read good "science" behind the argument and it looks like the politics were much ado about hype than anything.

Keep an eye on this.  Natural Gas is the way our Country will get off our addiction to foreign oil.  I fully support a strict and detailed EPA enforcement to ensure we do not fix one problem and cause another.  However, I want to also ensure we use science and not politics to solve the problem.