Environmental, health and community groups attending a much-anticipated hearing Dec. 12 on a controversial rule requiring medium- and heavy-duty truck manufacturers to make zero-emissions vehicles an increasing percentage of their California sales panned the standard as ineffective.
As the standard is currently written, zero-emission truck/chassis sales would need to be 7% of Class 4 to Class 8 straight truck sales and 3% of all other truck sales by 2024.
By 2030, they would need to be 50% of Class 4-8 straight trucks sales and 15% of all other truck sales.
During the California Air Resources Board (CARB) hearing, held in Sacramento, dozens of people criticized the targets, arguing that implementing a 50% sales standard by 2030 means that only 4% of the approximately 2 million medium- and heavy-duty trucks on the road would be zero-emissions vehicles.
That figure, critics said, is not enough to help meet state greenhouse gas emissions goals or reduce the pollution impacting low-income and minority communities in so-called “diesel death zones,” areas of Southern California with high levels of truck pollution.
“We need a sales target that doesn’t ignore our lived community,” testified one community member representing an environmental justice group. In a refrain that echoed throughout the hearing, she said 4% is an insult and that “we need to implement the most aggressive medium- and heavy-duty truck standard possible.”
Representatives from the American Lung Association, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), an Amazon warehouse workers’ group, the CAUSE youth organization and many more groups called on the Board to tighten the proposed standard by increasing the proportion of zero-emissions trucks on the road to 15% by 2030.
That on-road target would require boosting the sales targets in 2030 to 75%, up 25% from the proposed standard.
The often emotional testimony from environmental and community groups stood in contrast to the relatively muted commentary from the trucking industry.
Alex Cherin, executive director of the California Trucking Association’s Intermodal Conference, testified that the industry had invested $1 billion since 2008 to deploy cleaner trucks at the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles.
The intermodal conference, he said, has demonstrated “unwavering support” for the replacement of “outdated technologies.”
An American Trucking Associations (ATA) representative expressed cautious support for electric trucks but emphasized the technology was in the early stages. He did not mention the rule’s sales targets.
“There is a great deal of intrigue when it comes to electric trucks but not a lot of experience,” he said.
“There is hope and anticipation that vehicles stand up to daily demands of industry,” the ATA speaker added. “But companies are evaluating prototypes at this point, and we are just beginning the stages of understanding the challenges and opportunities.”
“We look forward to continuing that journey, and we will work with the Board.”
The ATA representative reserved his strongest criticism for the rule’s reporting requirements.
In addition to the sales targets, the zero-emissions manufacturing standard would require fleets with 100 or more trucks to report about their existing fleet operations. Employers, retailers and manufacturers would also be bound by reporting requirements.
Trucks crossing state lines “are unlikely candidates” for the state’s initial electrification, the representative said, and ATA does not believe they should be included in the rule’s reporting requirements.
The proposed electric truck manufacturing rule is a sales standard, not a fleet purchasing standard like the state’s Truck and Bus regulation. That is, fleets will not be required to buy electric trucks, but manufacturers will be under a mandate to sell them.
Companies that manufacture clean trucks will be able to sell credits to conventional truck makers that can’t or won’t invest in developing zero-emission vehicles.
In letters submitted to CARB, and in previous interviews with FreightWaves, truck manufacturers have expressed concern about the state providing sufficient incentives for purchasing electric trucks, as well as lack of charging infrastructure to fuel the new clean fleets.
The CARB hearing comes as momentum grows around the country for more aggressive zero-emissions vehicle standards.
On Dec. 11, eight states — California, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont — committed to developing an agreement and action plan to put hundreds of thousands more zero-emission trucks and buses onto their roads and highways.
The multi-state effort will be facilitated by the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM).
Also on Dec. 11, the UCS released a report calling for accelerated electrification of trucks and buses. Titled “Ready for Work: Now Is the Time for Heavy-Duty Electric Vehicles,” the report states that electric trucks emit 44-79% less emissions than diesel trucks, depending on the type of vehicle. They have zero tailpipe emissions. Further, ownership costs can be lower.
“Fuel and maintenance savings can offset the higher upfront costs of heavy-duty electric vehicles, making them cheaper than a diesel or natural gas vehicle over the life of a vehicle,” the report said.
A final vote on the California clean truck manufacturing standard will take place in spring 2020.
