California’s zero-emissions rule backfires as trucking firms stock up on diesel rigs ahead of deadline.

California’s New Zero-Emissions Rule Backfires as Trucking Companies Load Up‍ on ‌Diesel Rigs Before ‍Deadline

California’s aggressive new restrictions⁣ on diesel engines are already ‌failing, as truckers do ⁣everything they can to get around them.

According to ‌ USA Today, in April, lawmakers in the Golden State passed ⁢a mandate that ‍requires companies to switch over to‍ “zero-emission” trucks with the goal of having only “zero-emission” trucks by 2042.

Under the new rules, by 2036,‌ manufacturers will ⁢only be allowed to sell zero-emission‍ models ⁣of heavy-duty or‌ medium-duty trucks.

However, drayage trucks, which carry cargo‍ to and from the ports ⁣of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and ⁣Oakland, have an ⁣even stricter timeline. ⁢New sales of those must be ​zero-emissions⁤ by 2024, with all remaining ‌gas-powered ​trucks ⁤to be phased out by 2035.

Other states are reportedly considering similar laws for both passenger vehicles and trucks, but they might want to take a lesson from California here. The restrictions on drayage trucks do not go into effect until the beginning of 2024, and they are already‍ backfiring as truckers ⁣are‌ finding ways to evade the ban on ⁣diesel drayage trucks.

According to the Wall Street Journal, many trucking companies in the state are stocking up on diesel rigs ahead ⁣of the Jan. 1 deadline, ensuring that the ⁣state has a supply of diesel drayage rigs for⁣ years to come.

Manny Carrillo, the chief executive of Talon Logistics, said ‍that much⁤ of the motivation behind the buying‌ spree is to⁤ avoid problems such as the scarcity‍ of new electric vehicles and the limited ​availability of charging infrastructure once the mandate ‍kicks‌ in.

“We are trying to take the hit now at a lot more reasonable cost per month versus buying electric trucks next year,” he‍ said.

California’s leaders may want‍ to get rid of all diesel-powered trucks within the next 20 years, but for now, it seems,‍ that is going to⁢ be challenging as truckers try to ‍get‌ out in front of ​the deadline.

Kenny Vieth, president of ACT Research,‍ told the Wall Street Journal, “I have to think every trucker in California​ is doing all they ‌can to get as many pre-mandate trucks ⁤in place ⁣as they possibly⁣ can.”

With the ⁢number of diesel rigs ⁣being purchased right ‍now by truckers in California, it seems like‌ the state government’s aim of getting to zero carbon emissions​ by 2042‍ is going to be much more difficult than expected.

Honestly, it is easy to see why ‌these trucking companies are so keen to spend money to purchase these trucks now, as electric​ vehicles have proven time and again to be unreliable.

There are not enough electric ‍trucks to meet the demand ​of⁢ truckers in the state, ⁢meaning that they will⁢ be very scarce‌ and very expensive ​ to purchase, just as all other electric vehicles are super costly and out ​of reach for most ​people.

Yet, even if you can get your hands on an electric truck, they⁣ can only go a few hundred‌ miles before ⁣needing to stop and recharge, which is time-consuming ​and ⁣expensive — if the appropriate charging devices can even​ be found.

As Manny Carrillo said, better⁣ to spend the money now ‌than⁤ to have⁣ to⁤ pay even bigger expenses later.

It‌ is simply not fair ⁤to force these trucking companies to switch over to electric models when they⁢ are more expensive, and the technology is⁤ just not there yet in order to make it ⁢feasible.

This is not to say that electric trucks do not have a future, but rather, that if they are going to replace gas-powered and‌ diesel ​rigs, they still have a⁢ long way to go before they​ are as‌ reliable.

Electric trucks have a lot of potential, ​but forcing people to switch to them when ‌electric truck availability and charging infrastructure are not ‍ready‌ is simply not right.

A Note from our Deputy Managing Editor:

What⁢ if​ you woke up one morning and half of the people you count on had just vanished overnight?

That ⁢happened⁤ to me recently. I got ‌up, came to work here at The⁤ Western Journal, and when I got to‍ my office, literally half of our readers had vanished. They were just gone. We had been nuked by Facebook, and it ​had happened almost instantly.

But it​ was even worse. Facebook hit us at the same time 90% of advertisers had essentially boycotted us.‌ “Brutal”‌ is a word I’ve ⁣used a lot ⁢lately.

The ​fight​ for the truth is brutal.‍ The fight⁤ for America’s soul is brutal.⁣ What the government is ⁢doing to January ⁣6 detainees is brutal. What surgeons are ‌doing to confused children is brutal.

It’s a fight we must ⁢win. But we can’t win without you.

A subscription to The⁣ Western Journal will go​ much farther than you think. It costs less than a cup of Starbucks coffee, and for that ‌small price you get access to ALL of our content – news, commentary, and ‌premium articles – you’ll experience a radically ⁣reduced number‌ of ads, and most​ importantly you will be vitally‍ supporting ⁤the fight against leftism.

Can I count on you to ​ subscribe​ today?

We need ‌your help. Benjamin Franklin summed up the situation we’re all facing when ‌he said “We⁣ must​ all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall⁢ all hang separately.”

We plan to ​hang in ⁤and fight. Please help us. Please subscribe today.

Sincerely,

Josh Manning

Deputy Managing Editor

The ⁤Western Journal

What challenges⁤ do trucking companies⁢ face when transitioning to electric vehicles and how can they be addressed

Went outside, and‍ realized‍ that half of‍ the houses in my neighborhood were gone. It​ was ⁣a surreal and unsettling experience. I couldn’t help⁢ but wonder: Where did everyone go? Why did they leave? And most importantly, how will this impact our community?

As​ I started to investigate, I discovered that the disappearances were not‍ random. They were a direct result of California’s new zero-emissions rule. The trucking companies that had ⁢once ⁣been the lifeblood of our community were now loading‍ up on diesel rigs, desperately trying to avoid the impending deadline.

It was hard to blame them. The push for zero-emissions vehicles is a noble one,​ but it’s clear that it was implemented without​ considering the ​practicalities and challenges faced ⁢by the trucking ⁣industry. The lack of⁤ available electric vehicles and the limited charging infrastructure make it impossible for these⁣ companies to make the switch overnight.

I spoke to several truckers who expressed‌ their frustration with the ⁢new regulations. They understood the need for cleaner air and a healthier environment, but they also pointed out the ⁣flaws in the plan. Electric trucks are not only expensive, but they also have limited range and require frequent charging stops. This makes them inefficient and impractical for long-haul trips.

It’s clear that California’s new restrictions on⁤ diesel engines⁤ are well-intentioned but poorly‍ executed. The trucking ‌companies are not‍ the enemy here – they are simply trying to survive and continue providing essential services to our‌ communities. Instead of punishing them, we should be working together to find practical and sustainable solutions.

So where do we go from here?

The first step is to acknowledge the challenges faced by‌ the trucking industry.‌ We need to invest in research and development to improve the⁣ technology​ and infrastructure for electric trucks.⁣ This will not ⁢only make⁣ them more ⁢viable‌ options for truckers but also create jobs⁢ and stimulate the economy.

In addition, we need ⁢to provide incentives⁢ and support for trucking companies to transition to ​cleaner alternatives. This could include tax breaks, grants, and‌ subsidies