Summary
California has an aggressive mandate for zero-emission trucks, which are powered by electricity or hydrogen. But trucking companies face big obstacles — and people are still breathing dangerous diesel exhaust.
If anyone is interested what the owner/operator side of the trucking industry is saying about this, Land Line Now recently did an update piece on this. https://landlinenow.libsyn.com/land-line-now-dec-5-2024 The TL/DL is that the required tech just doesn’t really exist in a usable format to continue operating same as before. Folks in areas affected by CARB should expect significantly higher prices for goods and much slower shipping times, and a lot of small businesses will be forced out of business as a result of the new rules. Upside is that freight rates will likely shoot through the roof, which will be great for anyone that has the compliant equipment to take advantage of it.
Sounds like more regulations made from the golf course without considering anything outside of it. Typical California problems.
anyone that has the compliant equipment to take advantage of it.
So which legislator’s brother-in-law would that be?
I can’t believe I saying something nice about CARB, but they don’t usually operate like that. They were given the mandate of making California’s air clean again. They have their lane and they stick to it and fuck all what anyone else thinks of it or the consequences. I have had major bones to pick with them over the years I’ve been driving professionally, but that’s not one of them.
I know you’re trying new a format, but personally not a fan of the summary in the spoiler. Just my two cents.
Anyway…
Starting in 2036, no new fossil-fueled medium-duty and heavy-duty trucks can be sold in California, and by 2042, large companies must convert their trucks to zero-emission models. … The trucking industry says the regulation is unreasonable and will wreak havoc on the economy, making it difficult to make long-haul shipments.
They’ve got over a decade before the first change happens and nearly 2 decades before they would have to have their fleets converted (assuming I’m understanding that correctly). Yeah, the article has some good points about vehicle/cargo weight trade offs, hydrogen refueling availability, and charging/grid infrastructure. But again, 10-20 years. That’s plenty of time, and it’s not like that all has to happen in a vacuum.
All the while, the problems all those trucks’ emissions are causing are still problems for residents and their health.
IMO, the companies aren’t so much “struggling” as stamping their feet and saying “I don’t want to, and you can’t make me”
It’s not so much that we don’t want to as much as it is that the equipment needed doesn’t exist and neither does the required infrastructure, which is the bigger problem. Add to that the fact that most truck “companies” in the US have less than 10 truck and they were usually bought used…
That said their is one company I’m watching that does seem to actually understand the problem, but they are mostly focusing on heavy haul and logging trucks. https://www.edisonmotors.ca/ Their trucks are going to be hybrid diesel electric which helps with the infra problem as opposed to Tesla’s all electric solution which requires an entire new infrastucture to be built when there isn’t enough truck parking as is in many places.Yeah, I get that. That’s kind of what I was referring to with “10-20 years” and “not happening in a vacuum”. The infrastructure is being deployed, and at this point, really, all they need to be doing is making plans for 5-10 years down the line (giving them 5-10 years after that, respectively, to implement those).
This is assuming, of course, that 5-10 years is enough time for most trucking companies to deal with each phase. I’m assuming it is, but I could be a bit uninformed / naive with that assumption.
The trucking industry has a very long tail when it comes to equipment. Big trucking companies (100 plus trucks) generally replace their equipment every 3 to 5 years. Smaller companies (10 to 100 trucks) often buy a mix of new and used equipment with an average age somewhere in the 5 to 10 year old range. Then you have the majority of the trucking industry who buy whatever makes financial sense to them at that moment in time and then run it till they can no longer get parts or they hang up the keys. The latter being more common.
As I was writing this a cab over Kenworth drove by the dock I’m currently parked at. They haven’t been made since the late 80’s, I think. Once the tech is available, then a 10 to 20 year time frame makes sense and will see some 90% to 98% of the old trucks replaced.
Thanks for the insight.
I have no experience with larger companies, but a neighbor growing up and a friend’s dad (separate people) both had 1-2 vehicle trucking companies. They were the “drive them till they fall apart” style like you mentioned.
You might like this YouTube channel:
https://youtube.com/@edisonmotors?si=_O5hmnkl56oarlx6
Canadian trucker with a mindset like your friends dad, but also is building trucks that is in my opinion the way forward for the trucking industry. Got to bounce, load to move.
If you make plans for the trucking “companies” that are just 1 guy with a truck, and how he can afford to replace it.
If it’s just one guy with a truck, I would imagine 10-20 years is enough time to save up for a trade-in, right?
I’m not sure I’m not a truck driver. But 5 years doesn’t sound long enough unless they’re was some kind of diesel buyback program.
Much like the coal and steel factories did when they were told to improve their emissions and dragged their feet (only to find the changes saved them money in the end).
Lol, exactly.
It also makes me think of a contrary toddler refusing to eat until the parent basically shoves the spoon in its mouth, and the kid’s like “Oh, that’s pretty good”.
Just like they are dragging their feet with installing live saving bars on the sides to prevent cars from going under them. It was a $50 piece and labor would be like $100.
They said their companies would go bankrupt if they installed them.
Dude 5 trucks a year, and you can’t afford it? Sucks, but other companies with fill in the void don’t worry.
If that is truly the cost then any arguments from the trucking companies should just be ignored. They will waste more money fighting it than it would cost to implement.
