Wait Until California Mandates Electric-only Trucks
Sometimes I lazily revert to a line used by the title character in the movie “Forrest Gump” to explain whatever California policy madness has animated a family member or friend: “California is as California does.”
For those who don’t know the reference, my apologies. But there’s really no rational way to explain why California’s air quality regulators – and the Newsom Administration – would knowingly put our state on the road to a supply chain calamity.
Finalized by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in October 2023, the Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) rule mandates many businesses operating in the state transition their medium- and heavy-duty vehicles to zero-emissions by 2045.
As with so many regulatory dreams, the ACF rule aims at a worthy outcome. The regulation aims to reduce greenhouse gases and improve air quality by requiring fleet owners to gradually replace their existing diesel trucks, buses and vans with battery- or hydrogen-powered vehicles over the next two decades. Furthermore, additional CARB regulations outside the scope of the ACF rule require that all new California-certified medium- and heavy-duty vehicle sales be zero emissions starting in 2036.
According to American Trucking Associations President Chris Spear, the ACF rule is destructive and “sets wildly unrealistic targets and timelines that are already creating confusion on the West Coast and threaten to cause severe disruptions to our supply chain nationwide.”
We learned in the early weeks of the COVID shutdowns that supply chain disruptions have enormous economic consequences, particularly for perishable products. Yet the State of California is hellbent on a repeat.
Since the zero-emissions truck rule was first floated, Western Growers has been working publicly and behind the scenes – both independently and as part of larger business coalitions – to push back on the ACF rule, most recently with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
CARB must receive a waiver of preemption from the EPA under the federal Clean Air Act, which historically grants California the latitude to set its own air emissions standards. A waiver would pave the way for full implementation of the zero-emissions mandate.
WG is among a host of trade organizations that oppose this waiver request. By law, EPA is required to consider, among other factors, the availability of technology and ability of fleets to comply in its determination.
Penske Truck Leasing offers a sobering analysis of the current zero emissions vehicle (ZEV) landscape: “ZEV trucks remain significantly more expensive than conventional models, and their prices continue to rise. The performance, range and payload capabilities of the current generation of ZEVs create unavoidable inefficiencies that require more vehicles for the same work.”
Unfortunately, the EPA has a long track record of rubberstamping CARB waivers. This time, however, a rubber stamp would unleash an economic nightmare.
In our recent comments to the EPA, we focused on the timelines, infrastructure and cost constraints of the rule.
Agriculture is a transportation-dependent industry. Whether it is hauling fresh produce from the fields to coolers, processing facilities and – ultimately – the buyers or hauling the people, supplies and equipment that make such food production possible, our industry will be disproportionately impacted by the zero-emissions truck rule.
Farming has hours, miles and horsepower requirements that have been shunted aside by CARB. Commercially viable and cost-effective replacement vehicles for agricultural production are still years away. Even further away is the rural electrical grid required to put charging stations for thousands of pieces of heavy equipment in place – not to mention the state’s already-strained electricity generation capacity.
Beyond its impact on agriculture, the bigger picture of the zero-emissions truck rule may be this: What starts in California too often spreads to other states. Look no further than the wholesale adoption of California’s agricultural labor policies in states like Colorado.
The state’s regulatory authorities are proud of this. (Sigh.) CARB has an entire webpage dedicated to tracking the number of states that have adopted California’s vehicle emissions standards in lieu of the federal requirements. (The answer is 17 states, including the WG home states of Colorado and New Mexico, and our nation’s capital.)
Gov. Newsom has two more years at the helm. In that remaining time, he has many opportunities to rebalance state policies impacting economic vitality, just as he did on PAGA reform. He can direct his regulatory apparatus to pursue a reasonable compromise that considers not only California’s climate goals, but also its business climate and the realities of an interconnected global economy.
I am quite certain that his successor, whoever it turns out to be, would be very grateful.