The campaign by California to force trucking companies to adopt electric trucks will soon crash.
Mike Hilgers, Nebraska’s attorney general, says Nebraska Will Fight the Radical Campaign for Electric Trucks
Heavy-duty trucks form the backbone of the U.S. logistics industry. They are essential to the movement and affordability of goods. Shipping costs account for a significant part of the price of everything sold in America. Now an unelected group of powerful actors has opened a three-front effort to transform the nation’s logistics fleet from diesel-powered to electric-powered at a breakneck pace. This terrible policy is being crafted almost entirely out of public view. Nebraska is fighting back.
More than 70% of the nation’s freight is moved by truck, and 80% of U.S. communities rely exclusively on trucking to receive goods. The infrastructure for a diesel-powered logistics industry is robust and predictable—millions of such trucks are already in service, fuel stations are plentiful, and the roads are designed to meet the payload capacity and vehicle weight of trucks powered by an internal-combustion engine.
Charging stations for heavy-duty trucks, which draw significant amounts of power, hardly exist anywhere in the country. Nebraska, with the country’s longest stretch of Interstate 80, doesn’t have a single charging station that could charge an electric semi truck. Even if that infrastructure magically appeared, charging a semi is a slow process that wastes precious time. A full charge will take an electric truck only about one-fourth as far as a full tank will take a diesel one, and cold weather makes the electric truck’s range even shorter. Good luck moving freight long distances in severe Midwestern winter.
Electric semis are also heavier than their internal-combustion counterparts, meaning they have less carrying capacity and will cause more damage to roads. And it’s unclear that the country’s stressed electric grid can handle an electric trucking fleet. It’s also an open question whether or not the battery components could be sourced at scale to make an electric shipping fleet. Even if that proves possible, it would make the U.S. more dependent on hostile foreign powers, which control the vast majority of the needed minerals.
It is highly improbable that politically accountable policymakers or a free market would drive this radical transformation. It is happening anyway, led by three sets of unelected actors.
First, state regulators, such as the California Air Resources Board, have issued regulations that force trucking companies to add electric trucks to their fleets if they make even a single trip to California. Sacramento is effectively attempting to force electric-truck mandates on the rest of the country. Several other states have adopted California’s standards or announced their intent do to so.
Second, the regulators in the Biden administration’s Environmental Protection Agency have used statutes that Congress passed well before electric vehicles were commercially viable to impose nationwide mandates. Today, less than 0.001% of all heavy-duty vehicles are battery powered. The Biden administration projects that its EV rule would require 45% of all heavy-duty vehicles sold nationwide to be electric in seven years.
Third, the private companies that make semi trucks are using their market power to force this change. The country’s largest truck manufacturers agreed not to push back against California’s electric-truck mandates and to abide by them even if they are struck down in court. This effectively operates as a restriction on output, a classic antitrust concern, which will increase prices for consumers of internal-combustion engine vehicles.
Each of these three efforts to eradicate the internal-combustion engine is illegal, and Nebraska has spearheaded a three-pronged counteroffensive against them. We are leading a 24-state coalition in a lawsuit against the EPA, a 17-state coalition in a lawsuit against California regulators, and a Nebraska-specific antitrust lawsuit against four of the largest truck manufacturers and their trade association.
The separation of powers and the rule of law matter. Unelected bureaucrats at the EPA, unelected bureaucrats in California, and the unelected oligopolists that make semi trucks can’t unilaterally enact a sweeping electric-truck mandate that Congress never authorized and that would never take place in a free market.
This issue will be mostly settled next week, perhaps even Monday, the day Trump takes office.
I say “mostly settled” because there will be ridiculous lawsuits all of which will soon be flushed down the toilet where they belong.
We should all look forward to sensible energy policies, not nonsense dictated by California.
Amen to that- California’s influence needs to be reined in, as does some of the things that only they are allowed to do.
With ongoing deterioration in interstate Highway system from lack of maintenance making a Truck heavier wears out local roads, highways and increases costs of actual transportation.
A Truck carries cargo. Seems an obvious point. Make the Truck heavier and with Road load limits generally set at 80,000 lbs. Electric vehicles will not be able to carry same loads as ICE powered Trucks. Means more road miles by Trucks to carry same quantity.
Since Biden ruled by executive order setting precedent, Trump can easily do same.
No can like, then sue in Court.
Biden’s attempts to sabotage incoming Administration will not go unnoticed and be overturned promptly by Trump.
– The campaign by California to force trucking companies to adopt electric trucks will soon crash.
> Agreed, and it appears an awful lot of the issues coming up in CA. Of late, are “Forced Issues” or “Mandate’s” as some like to refer to them as. Most things (EV Union Deals that will burn them badly, as an example) done way too early and with total disregard for the Environment, will and already are coming back to bite them.
– Most campaigns for “Climate Change” initiatives have crashed and burned.
> They were done for “Greed” and not the actual Environment. The Environment was just the “Buzzword” (think of others like “BLM” & “Booster” & “Bird Flu” & “Covid”and so many more).
– We have to Get ALL This Done Immediately.
> Code for “We don’t know how or what to do, so let’s make it ALL necessary ASAP “For The Children” or some other BS line to play on “Emotions” which is there Biggest & Best place to reside in people heads. Works on certain types really well, so they ram it down our throat, and hope to reach as many as possible, and as quickly as possible.
– So “No Actual Plan” is in place, “No Actual Infrastructure” is in place. “No Money” Except Taxpayers against there collective will. “No Way to Manufacturer” the material we need. “No Way to Get Material” even if we had the capability to manufacture the products we need. ETC.
See A Trend? A trend of “Incompetence” and a trend of “Irrelevance of the Democrat Party” as a result? Things need to change agreed, but with a solid plan that makes sense, and slowly climbs onboard. We don’t disrupt existing working methods today, as we slowly invest and bring new ideas onto the scene. Make sure they are efficient and workable with our existing infrastructure or plan out and make sure it works, the new infrastructure “BEFORE” we change or mandate the removal of “ANY EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE”
Children know this with the toys they play with. Watch them play with Legos, and you see even children build things that “Go Together” or they break it down and try again, until it works! THEN the build it out! Children Do This “Old Joe” & “Cackles” but you don’t see that now do you…
MAGA!!!
Would make no sense for trucks to stop for hours to charge – batteries would (unlike cars currently) need to be pull in / out and swapped for fresh.
And the extra weight will tear up the roads and require the roads to be repaved more frequently.
An extremely costly endeavor I might add! Especially for roads with “Heavy Traffic” as the road will need to eventually be torn completely up, and redone from the dirt up completely! The mostly costly roadwork you can do I believe, as it’s more of an overall replacement than a repair (just recently watched this be done).
Much ado about nothing. EV semis are not going to happen anytime soon in any significant quantities in the US.
While EVs “may” eventually dominate semi-trucks, the next decade will see significant growth in CNG (LNG) semi-trucks in both China and the US. In addition, the newest diesel semi-trucks are “near zero” emissions anyway.
In China, sales of CNG semi-trucks are already growing rapidly, while Diesel is declining.
China 2023 semi-truck sales: Diesel 69%, CNG 25%, EV 5%, FCV 1%
China 2024 semi-truck sales: Diesel 55%, CNG 35%, EV 9%, FCV 1%
China 2025: It is expected that Diesel and CNG sales will be equal at 45%
I expect the same thing to happen in the US over the next decade. The CNG infrastructure is expanding and several manufacturers are producing CNG class 8 trucks. There are roughly 20,000 class 8 CNG trucks on US roads. And just 100 class 8 EVs.
EV trucks only make sense in the last mile. Long haul between cities will remain diesel and those trucks will stop at truck stops at the end of major cities and swap over to
EV cabs for the final delivery.
That keeps smog down in larger cities while allowing diesel trucks to do what they do best on long haul.
There are a lot of possibilities for a variety of class 8 EVs depending on battery ranges. Those with shorter 150 mile ranges will do last mile stuff in cities. Those with ranges up to 500 miles will be used for regular, repetitive point to point long hauls.
But none of this will happen quickly. I expect much greater growth in CNG class 8, compared to EV. And diesel will remain dominant in the US for quite some time.
I see progress being made in forms of energy other than EV for truck and long haul use. I have to wonder, and so I will ask You.
Will people eventually see that the demand placed on our “Electricity Grid” is perhaps not doable in the short term, and perhaps even the mid-term for “Mandated EV Use” and maybe not even necessary as other forms are doing just fine in becoming much more environmentally friendly? We have plenty of (Cleaner) energy options for vehicles without having to disrupt, or worse place in danger, our electrical energy needs, correct?
I see the Grid being something that could literally “Shut us Down” and it has to a small degree at times. Do we really want to risk such occurrences from happening to “Our Country” when it doesn’t appear at all to be necessary? I say we do away with EV for now, and revisit it after we see where we are at with alternate sources, that seem to be working just fine…
The push for EVs is already beginning to dissipate. I expect EV adoption to continue to grow, but at a slower pace than some would hope for.
Yes. There are many alternatives to diesel and EV for class 8 semi trucks. CNG (compressed natural gas), FCV (hydrogen fuel cell), propane, and biofuel are all being developed.
Which ones are successful will depend partly on availability of fuel and cost.
At the moment, CNG is the clear winner among the alternatives based on numbers. We have a lot of natural gas in the US and it is relatively cheap.
Interestingly, China imports 40% of it’s natural gas, yet CNG trucks will soon be the dominant fuel in class 8 trucks sold there.
You are correct about the electric grid. It needs massive expansion as we place new demands on it, not just for EVs, but for data centers, AI, and crypto as well. It also needs upgrading and hardening to reduce damage that is increasingly occurring due to extreme weather events.
Some advocate for putting more of our electric grid underground.
Advantages
Reliability: Underground cables are less susceptible to damage from extreme weather, such as hurricanes, ice storms, and high winds. They are also less likely to cause wildfires.
Aesthetics: Underground cables are hidden from view, which can be beneficial in urban and scenic areas.
Safety: There is no risk of accidental contact with live wires, reducing the danger to the public and maintenance personnel.
Maintenance: Once installed, underground cables require less maintenance compared to overhead lines.
Disadvantages
Cost: The initial installation cost of underground cables is significantly higher than overhead lines due to the need for excavation, specialized equipment, and labor.
Repair Time: If a fault occurs, locating and repairing underground cables can be more time-consuming and expensive.
Heat Dissipation: Underground cables can have issues with heat dissipation, which may require additional cooling measures.
Roughly one third of all energy used in America is electricity. The US Department of Energy estimates that the country will need 47,300 gigawatt-miles of new power lines by 2035, representing a 57% expansion of the current grid. That is an expensive undertaking. As is generating the electricity. Most of the new electricity supply will come from natural gas and renewables.
If local truck manufactures won’t provide diesel trucks then buy foreign. Lots of European brands out there.
If California wants to force electric trucks then let Long Beach port die as truckers refuse to enter California. Can California compete with ports in others states or indeed Canada or Mexico?
Will California suffer brownouts as their generating capacity won’t meet the demands of all the EV trucks and cars? What manufacturer of anything wants to stay in a state where the power fails regularly due to demand or the price of that power shoots up every time the demand exceeds supply?
Will the NIMBY and green movement make building more nuclear and other power generation plants be blocked or take decades to get through legal challenges to meet the EV demand?
Let CA dictate their own policies in their own state so the state will “die” quicker.
“California has decided to abandon its groundbreaking regulations phasing out diesel trucks and requiring cleaner locomotives because the incoming Trump administration is unlikely to allow the state to implement them.”
https://calmatters.org/environment/2025/01/trump-california-withdraws-diesel-clean-air-rules/
Good read. Thanks for posting.
“Now an unelected group of powerful actors…”
“…nonsense dictated by California.”
Not democracy.
CA retreats:
https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/california-abandons-regulations-phasing-out-diesel-trucks-5793108?
Yes, the country has been engulfed by a main street media, social media, and Blackrock promoted insanity. DEI, BLM, St. George Floyd, the Covid-19 “vaccines”, the pandemic, Biden as competent. An unbelivable time in American history, useful at the very least for easily identfying who is sheeple and who is not.
“An unbelivable time in American history, useful at the very least for easily identfying who is sheeple and who is not.” 🙂
It’s amazing that so many people think all you mentioned is just normal. IT’S NOT NORMAL. It was forced on us by Biden’s progressives at the behest of the World Economic Forum just 3-4 years ago.
And before calls of a conspiracy theory, look at the members and attendees of the WEF, and you see a straight line between that and all the “woke” companies and US entities pushing this crap (my employer included).
I propose that the CA rules only apply to trucks that deliver goods in CA when they enter CA.. They could create huge trucking depots at the various entry points into CA and switch to electric trucks like Amtrak does on the unelectrified portion of the NE Corridor. Ideally, this would make the cost of goods delivered to CA be higher than the other 49 states so the additional costs of lunatic policies are evident. and only the costs for the CA consumer would be impacted. If they chose to require the reverse to be true, that goods that originated in CA had to be shipped to the state line in electric trucks so be it., Suddenly, the cost of goods from CA will cost more and enterprising entrepreneurs will seek to provide those goods in lower costs areas if feasible. Perhaps a carve out could be prepared for produce and the like via federal legislation using the interstate commerce clause or something.
Great article – the main elements are directly relatable to the pending national increase in home insurance rates based on the culpable actions of those in charge in California.
I agree w/Nebraska but … the 3 pronged attack on ICE is not going away immediately. All of the concerns (including the weight of the trucks, the range of the trucks, and the availability of the rare earth elements) are legit … but the manufacturers are going to take this opportunity to raise the prices on ICE to subsidize their EV fleet (however unfeasible) and make more money in the process … so it hurts even if Nebraska “wins”. It is reminiscent of when roof shingles were pushed to reduce petroleum in fabrication. That was the most expensive part and so they created a cheaper (dollar wise and quality wise) shingle that they could charge more for. I’m sure that they were cheering on the government … and to some extent, so were roofers who knew they’d get repeat business that much sooner.
Nature is healing.