Hauling In California? That Rig Had Better Be Green

Matt Posky
by Matt Posky

The California Air Resource Board (CARB) just passed a mandate that will require manufacturers of big rigs, heavy duty pickups, and some construction equipment to adhere to new zero-emission quotas and a carbon-credit system.

As all-electric 18-wheelers are in short supply, California wants to wait a few years to put the new rules into play. Still, it’s eager to get the ball rolling so it can start replacing diesel-driven transport with something from the battery-electric section. It also gives the state another opportunity to pat itself on the back despite not having any clue whether or not the strategy is economically sustainable. Even with battery technology moving at a fair clip, there’s a lot of engineering left to be done before these types of vehicles can become commonplace.

The energy grid needs to be bolstered to support higher loads as more EVs plug into it, requiring local storage centers and more facilities that produce power overall. Energy density is another serious issue that must be sorted out, otherwise the brunt of these vehicles’ payload will be sacrificed for gigantic battery packs. That’s to say nothing of waste management. Eventually, these colossal batteries will need to be disposed of in a way that doesn’t contaminate soil and water.

No matter, those particulars are of little concern when you’re living in the most futuristic state in the nation. “California is once again leading the nation in the fight to make our air cleaner,” Governor Gavin Newsom said in a statement following the vote.

According to Reuters, the mandate was passed unanimously by CARB and was hailed by all those voting on it “as a major step toward reducing climate-warming emissions and improving public health for low-income communities near busy highway corridors and ports.”

From Reuters:

Environmentalists say the mandate, which applies to medium-duty and large trucks, will put an estimated 300,000 zero-emission trucks on the road by 2035.

The proposed mandate is expected to start in the 2024 model year and initially require [5-9 percent] zero emission vehicles (ZEV) based on class, rising to [30-50 percent] by 2030. By 2045, all vehicles should be ZEVs “where feasible.”

The regulation would apply to pickup trucks weighing 8,500 pounds or more, but not to light-duty trucks, which are covered by separate zero emission regulations.

CARB plans a separate rule in early 2021 that will require large fleet owners to buy some ZEVs.

California has more electric vehicle startups than anywhere else in the nation, so it has probably the best chance of making something like this work. It’s also had historic smog problems in some areas, making its desire to eliminate diesel-powered vehicles a little easier to understand. That said, its leadership has clearly gone overboard with the recreational marijuana (speaking as someone who has been there, brah) because these targets look untenable — unless alien technology arrives within the next few years.

We might be able to hang in there on the HD pickup front if battery tech maintains good progress — especially since it seems that segment’s being cut a break, and mainstream manufacturers are already working on them — but the rest sounds fairly fantastical.

“For decades, while the automobile has grown cleaner and more efficient, the other half of our transportation system has barely moved the needle on clean air,” said CARB Chair Mary D. Nichols said in a statement. “Diesel vehicles are the workhorses of the economy, and we need them to be part of the solution to persistent pockets of dirty air in some of our most disadvantaged communities. Now is the time — the technology is here and so is the need for investment.”

The California Air Resources Board has an impressively long document outlining the new regulations from a public hearing in 2019 — if you’re interested. Most of the data focuses on the environmental impact of the changes and how to implement them. We’ve only given you the broadest brush stokes here, but there are inclusions for construction equipment and the obligatory carbon credit system green manufacturers can use to make money off those producing too many diesel-burners. It does offer some flexibility to all companies, however, by allowing them to focus on electrifying one segment and and having those credits carry over to another.

[Image: D-VISIONS/Shutterstock]

Matt Posky
Matt Posky

A staunch consumer advocate tracking industry trends and regulation. Before joining TTAC, Matt spent a decade working for marketing and research firms based in NYC. Clients included several of the world’s largest automakers, global tire brands, and aftermarket part suppliers. Dissatisfied with the corporate world and resentful of having to wear suits everyday, he pivoted to writing about cars. Since then, that man has become an ardent supporter of the right-to-repair movement, been interviewed on the auto industry by national radio broadcasts, driven more rental cars than anyone ever should, participated in amateur rallying events, and received the requisite minimum training as sanctioned by the SCCA. Handy with a wrench, Matt grew up surrounded by Detroit auto workers and managed to get a pizza delivery job before he was legally eligible. He later found himself driving box trucks through Manhattan, guaranteeing future sympathy for actual truckers. He continues to conduct research pertaining to the automotive sector as an independent contractor and has since moved back to his native Michigan, closer to where the cars are born. A contrarian, Matt claims to prefer understeer — stating that front and all-wheel drive vehicles cater best to his driving style.

More by Matt Posky

Comments
Join the conversation
6 of 67 comments
  • Master Baiter Master Baiter on Jun 28, 2020

    This is so typical of modern government: Do something meaningless for public relations purposes; while failing to manage the important things. In CA's case, they pass regulations like this while doing nothing to stop wild fires--a much greater source of air pollution. I lived through this in the Bay Area two years ago when wild fires made the air unbreathable for millions of people for many days. This is because PG&E is not allowed to clear the underbrush from overhead power lines lest it endanger some sort of lizard or other weird creature no one's ever heard of. I've recently said goodbye to the Golden State, and am re-locating to the Free States of America, where COVID masks are optional and there's still some semblance of competent government.

    • See 3 previous
    • Lou_BC Lou_BC on Jun 29, 2020

      @EBFlux- I hear that getting out there and raking the underbrush works. Go give it a try and let me know how it works.

  • 28-Cars-Later 28-Cars-Later on Jun 29, 2020

    Three questions: 1. How much of the nation's food supply is produced by Cali as a percentage? 2. Does Cali produce enough food to feed itself without major imports? 3. What happens to the rest of the country if Cali food is only sold locally?

  • JK Savoy Blue is a thing, but Sestriere White? Sestriere is a ski town near Turin, so I guess it meant to conjure up thoughts of snow. Pretty car. I hope Pininfarina has success. The industry in and around Turin has taken a big hit and is a shadow of its former self.
  • Ravenuer My 2023 CRV EX, 6 mo old, 4800 miles: $0.
  • TheEndlessEnigma My '16 FiST: Oil changes, tires, valve cover gasket (at 112k miles), coolant flush, brakes.....and that's itMy '19 Grand Caravan: Oil changes, coolant flush
  • John Clyne I own a 1997 GMC Suburban that I bought second hand. It was never smoked in but had lost the new car smell when I got it four years after it was sold new. I own a 2005 Chevrolet Avalanche & that still has the new car smell. I like the smell. I could never afford a new car until the Avalanche. It might be my last new car? Why do they build cars with fire retardant materials in them. Smoking rates are falling & if someone continues to smoke in this day & age is a fool especially with all the information out there.
  • Theflyersfan Non-performance models, probably the Civic based on the fact the interior feels and looks better in the Honda. Both of them are going to drive like adequate appliances with small engines and CVTs and get decent mileage, so this is based on where my butt will rest and things my hands and fingers will touch.Toyota doesn't have an answer to the Civic Si so the Honda wins by default.CTR vs GR Corolla. One dealer by me is still tacking on $10,000 markups for the CTR and good luck with the GR Corolla and the "allocation" system. There's that one dealer in Missouri that I pasted their ad a while back wanting $125,000 for a mid-level GR. Nope. But cars.com is still showing markups. Both of these cars will have little depreciation for a while, so the markups equal instant loss. It looks like Cincinnati-area dealers are done with CTR markups. So this is a tough choice. I don't like the Corolla interior. It looks and feels inexpensive. I'm glad Honda toned down the exterior but the excessive wing still looks immature for such an expensive car that 20-somethings likely cannot afford. FWD vs AWD. With price being an object, and long-term maintenance a thing, I'd go with the Honda with a side eye at the Golf R as a mature choice. All with stick shifts.
Next