Why Don't Military Trucks Have to Meet the Same Emissions Standards We Do?

Way back in 2010, HDT Editor Deborah Lockridge got an email from an owner-operator who was curious about why the government doesn't have to follow its own emissions rules when it comes to trucks owned by the military.

Here's how that went:

Bill Taylor and his wife are team drivers with their own truck, a 2007, paid-for Western Star with a million miles on it. They get it serviced at a Western Star dealer in Bethel, Pennsylvania.

"A few weeks ago while I was there having my truck serviced, in the next stall was a 2011 Western Star, owned by the U.S. Air Force," Bill wrote. "Looking under the hood, I noticed two things, there were no emissions [aftertreatment equipment] and the 14-liter Detroit was stamped for 'export only.' Last time I checked, Pennsylvania is part of the continental United States. A few weeks later, there was another one being serviced, surprise, no emissions and stamped for 'export only.'

"I called my Congressman Joe Courtney from Connecticut, and told one of his staff members, who I know, about this. True to form, 'We will investigate this and get back to you,' was the reply.

"We, as an industry, should be outraged at the government's failure to follow its own emission rules. We are being forced to replace trucks with engines that cost a lot more and are having quite a few problems. I can see us not sending these vehicles to Iraq or Afghanistan, last thing that I would want, is to have to pull over for a regen, while I am being shot at."

I asked Senior Editor Tom Berg, who is ex-Army and likes to keep up with the military side of trucking, what he knew about the situation. Here's what he said:

"Federal law exempts the U.S. Armed Forces' 'tactical' trucks from meeting the exhaust-emissions regulations that civilians must meet. That's why the vehicles Bill saw had 'export' Detroit engines. The soot, NOx, etc., in their exhaust gases meet 1999 regulations, but the exemption allows them to legally operate today on public roads here.

A Lot Has Changed -- But A Lot Has Not

Today, the U.S. military takes climate change very seriously. In fact, the Pentagon actively plans for future wars being fought over climate-induced crisises, refugee crisises and weather-related disasters.

But the U.S. military today also takes emerging transportation technology seriously. The Pentagon is interested in autonomous vehicles -- for obvious reasons. It is also on the cutting edge of research in alternative-fuels like natural gas, and zero-emission technologies powered by hydrogen and batteries. And not just for vehicles, either. The U.S. military is looking to cut its carbon footprint in every aspect of its operations possible. 

But when it comes to exhaust emissions, things are pretty much the same way they were back in 2010.  And the reasons why haven't changed much in years since this column was written: With the U.S. military, the mission always comes first. And that means that sacrificing performance -- such as the ability to run vehicles on multiple fuels -- will always be trumped by the need to perform under combat conditions.

All that said, by some measures, the U.S. military remains the single largest emitter of greenhouse gases on the planet.