Trucking companies are currently suing the state of California in federal court, trying to protect their ability to continue forcing poison into your lungs and the lungs of their employees because they don’t want to save themselves money by shifting to electric trucks.
The ambitious, world-first proposal sets high requirements for commercial fleet electrification and bans new diesel truck sales by 2036, with earlier timelines for more narrow applications. For example, drayage trucks, which bring freight from ports to distribution centers and are largely responsible for poor air quality in California’s Inland Empire, need to switch to all-electric purchases by the end of this year.
It’s a complement to California’s Advanced Clean Trucks rule, which was finalized in 2020 and focused more on the production side, ensuring that manufacturers would produce enough electric trucks for fleets to purchase once the fleets rule was implemented.
And that doesn’t even include other environmental benefits, like reducing noise pollution and protecting California’s wildlife and wilderness areas, sources of biodiversity and tourism dollars and important pollinators for California’s huge agricultural industry.
While lifetime costs are significantly lower for electric trucks, upfront costs can be higher – currently, most electric commercial vehicles cost 2-3x as much upfront as their non-electric counterparts, though that is expected to ease significantly within the decade. Current prices can result in sticker shock for fleets, but huge incentives are available both on the state and federal level.
But despite all of those savings, a trade group representing truck operators called the California Trucking Association has decided not to engage in making the rule better, but has instead sued in federal court to permanently stop the state from protecting the health and pocketbooks of its residents, and even of the trucking companies it represents.
We spoke with Guillermo Ortiz with the Natural Resources Defense Council, who pointed out that this fleets rule was in the works for several years, and stakeholders were heavily engaged during that process. Even after the rule’s finalization, some industry sat down at the table with the state to tweak the regulation and come to a compromise.
The Engine Manufacturer’s Association, a separate trade group representing truck manufacturers (including EV truck makers Volvo and Daimler) which has made plenty of anti-electric statements, originally opposed the rule. But it made a compromise with the state, which it calls the “Clean Trucks Partnership.” In exchange for some tweaks ensuring regulatory stability and a harmonization with federal low-NOx guidelines, the EMA now supports CARB.
Daimler has a wide range of electric trucks available and we drove them all
So the CTA is complaining about a rule which fleets are already finding it easy to comply with. And instead of going the more mature route that the EMA did – trying to sit down at the table and come up with a workable solution – CTA instead jumped straight to federal court.
The choice to file in federal court is notable. It shows that the CTA likely hopes that the environment-hostile U.S. “supreme” court might eventually get a chance to issue yet another ruling that is hostile to human life, and to established US law, and that flies in the face of the wishes of the public. But then, it is unsurprising that a group, more than half of whom were appointed or confirmed undemocratically to irreversible lifetime terms with the help of millions of dollars worth of bribes from the oil industry, would feel unassailable on their mission to aid the evil industry that bought them their seats.
What’s worse, it’s hard to find out exactly which companies are members of CTA. The organization doesn’t publish a member list (the directory is private), so the only names the NRDC could find are from testimonials on its website.
How the rule helps everyone – including the CTA
And the CTA’s lawsuit is against the interest of these trucking companies themselves – those $48 billion in operational cost savings would go into their pockets, not the manufacturers’.
We hear so much grousing about gas prices – which, even at today’s rates, are artificially low due to trillions in global fossil fuel subsidies in the form of ignored external costs – raising the price of goods. Yet when there is an opportunity to save $48 billion on the cost of shipping those goods, we see companies sue not to save that money. If fuel costs matter, this lawsuit doesn’t make sense.
And there is high public support for this transition as well, and of course there is. It would reduce pollution and the costs of shipping. It would likely improve public perception if the industry electrified. This could (and will) be a huge win for the industry, if they’d only see it.
On another front, it would help their employees too. These workers would get to drive and work around cleaner vehicles with less exhaust and vibration from big diesel engines, meaning less health problems for employees, more productivity, and more happiness. We’ve already heard of some truckers delaying retirement because electric trucks are so much easier on their body – important in a time when the trucking industry is dealing with a long-term driver shortage.
The same health benefits apply particularly to the low-income communities in which many of these ports and distribution centers are located. The Port of Long Beach/Los Angeles is a pretty desolate place, choked with exhaust from moving 40% of the US’ containerized traffic from the coast to California’s Inland Empire, which has some of the worst air quality in the US.
CA’s Inland Empire is surrounded by mountains – often made invisible by smog. Photo by Ken Lund
This is why drayage trucks are being targeted first for electrification, because the environmental justice air quality gains are outsized when electrifying that specific application. In discussions over the Advanced Clean Fleets rule, a diverse coalition including labor representatives joined the usual suspects (scientists, public health, environmental justice organizations, etc) in supporting the rule.
Ortiz pointed out to us that if the higher-up business leaders making decisions in the CTA had to live in these communities, or had to explain themselves to these communities, maybe they’d have more trouble passing along their talking points so uncritically. That $26.5 billion in health costs isn’t just a number – that’s real misery, and it’s a burden that is mostly borne by the communities that can handle it the least.
Those communities aren’t just writing checks to get out of this cost, they’re being forced into early retirement and disability, saddled with weekly doctor’s appointments, and filling up ERs. Their children are getting asthma and having their mental development stunted by pollution. That’s the actual cost here if the trucking companies prevail in this idiotic lawsuit, not just their own dollars which they could save if they dropped it.
Why do business orgs oppose improvements?
So, if everyone else understands that this transition is a good thing – manufacturers, laborers, accountants, the public, scientists, people with lungs, and so on – then what is CTA’s problem? It’s just another example of a business reacting negatively to any sort of regulation, even if that regulation is beneficial for everyone.
Perhaps the CTA could learn something from the auto industry’s last boondoggle, and stop wasting time and money fighting against regulations that will save them money, and will save the lives of their employees and the public.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
On today’s hyped up hydrogen episode of Quick Charge, we look at some of the fuel’s recent failures and billion dollar bungles as the fuel cell crowd continues to lose the credibility race against a rapidly evolving battery electric market.
We’re taking a look at some of the recent hydrogen failures of 2025 – including nine-figure product cancellations in the US and Korea, a series of simultaneous bus failures in Poland, and European executives, experts, and economists calling for EU governments to ditch hydrogen and focus on the deployment of a more widespread electric trucking infrastructure.
New episodes of Quick Charge are recorded, usually, Monday through Thursday (and sometimes Sunday). We’ll be posting bonus audio content from time to time as well, so be sure to follow and subscribe so you don’t miss a minute of Electrek’s high-voltage daily news.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
Got news? Let us know! Drop us a line at tips@electrek.co. You can also rate us on Apple Podcasts and Spotify, or recommend us in Overcast to help more people discover the show.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
Believe it or not, you can lease an EV for under $200 a month. New deals on models like the 2025 Hyundai IONIQ 5 and Kia EV6 are hard to pass up this month.
Electric vehicles have been all over the news lately, with the Trump administration threatening to end federal incentives and introducing new tariffs that are expected to lead to higher prices.
On the positive side, new EV models are arriving, giving buyers more options and driving prices down. Many automakers reported record US electric car sales in the first three months of 2024.
GM remained the number two seller of EVs behind Tesla after sales doubled in Q1 2025. With the new Equinox, Blazer, and Silverado EVs rolling out, Chevy is now the fastest-growing EV brand in the US. Ford’s Mustang Mach-E is off to its best sales start since launching, with over 11,600 models sold in the first quarter.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
With the 2025 models rolling out and about 15 new EVs arriving this year, many automakers are introducing steep discounts to move vehicles off the lot.
2025 Hyundai IONIQ 5 Limited (Source: Hyundai)
EVs for lease for under $200 a month in April
Although the decade-old Nissan LEAF remains one of the most affordable this April at just $149 per month, there are a few EVs under $200 right now that are worth taking a look at.
The new 2025 Hyundai IONIQ might be the best EV deal this month, with leases as low as $199. Hyundai is currently promoting a 24-month lease deal with $3,999 due at signing.
Hyundai’s new 2025 IONIQ 5 Limited with a Tesla NACS port (Source: Hyundai)
Hyundai upgraded the electric SUV with a bigger battery for more range (now up to 318 miles), a sleek new look inside and out, and it now comes with an NACS port so you can charge it at Tesla Superchargers.
The offer is for the IONIQ 5 SE RWD Standard Range, which has a driving range of up to 245 miles. For just $229 a month, you can snag the SE RWD model, which has a range of up to 318 miles and a more powerful (225 horsepower) electric motor. It’s also a 24-month lease with $3,999 due at signing.
To sweeten the deal, Hyundai is offering a free ChargePoint Home Flex Level 2 EV charger with the purchase or lease of any 2024 or 2025 IONIQ 5. If you already have one, you can opt for a $400 public charging credit.
After slashing lease prices this month, the 2025 Nissan Ariya is actually cheaper than the LEAF in some regions. In Southern California, the 2025 Nissan Ariya Evolve AWD is listed at just $129 per month. The AWD model has a range of up to 272 miles.
The deal is for 36 months, with $4,409 due at signing. In April, Nissan cut Ariya lease prices to around $239 in most other parts of the country.
Kia has a few EVs available to lease for under $200 a month in April. The 2025 Kia Niro EV Wind is listed at just $129 for 24 months, with $3,999 due at signing. Kia’s crossover SUV has EPA-estimated range of 253 miles.
2024 Kia EV6 (Source: Kia)
The 2024 EV6 may be worth considering at just $179 for 24 months ($3,999 due at signing). In California, the EV6 Light Long Range RWD is only slightly more than the Niro Wind.
In most other parts of the country, you can still find the EV6 for under $200 a month. The Light Long Range RWD trim offers up to 310 miles of EPA-estimated range.
Lease Price
Term (months)
Amount Due at Signing
Driving Range
2025 Hyundai IONIQ 5 SE RWD Standard Range
$199
24
$3,999
245 miles
2024 Kia EV6 Light Long Rang RWD
$179
24
$3,999
310 miles
2024 Kia Niro EV Wind
$129
24
$3,999
253 miles
2025 Nissan Ariya Evolve AWD
$129
36
$4,409
272 miles
2025 Nissan LEAF S FWD
$149
36
$2,629
149 miles
2024 Fiat 500 INSPI(RED)
$199
24
$2,999
149 miles
EVs for lease for under $200 a month in April 2025
And don’t forget the 2024 Fiat 500e, which is now listed at just $199 for 24 months with $2,999 due at signing. The electric hatchback offers a range of up to 149 miles.
Ready to snag the savings while they are still here? At under $200 a month, some of these EV lease deals are hard to pass up right now. Check out our links below to find deals in your area.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
Project Nexus, the first solar panel canopies over irrigation canals in the US, is now online in California, and there are plans to expand the project to other areas.
Project Nexus is a $20 million pilot in central California’s Turlock Irrigation District launched in October 2022. The project team is exploring solar over canal design, deployment, and co-benefits using canal infrastructure and the electrical grid.
India already has solar panels over canals, but Project Nexus is the first of its kind in the US.
The Turlock Irrigation District was the first irrigation district formed in California in 1887. It provides irrigation water to 4,700 growers who farm around 150,000 acres in the San Joaquin Valley.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
Project Nexus will explore whether the solar panels reduce water evaporation as a result of midday shade and wind mitigation, create improvements to water quality through reduced vegetative growth, reduce canal maintenance as a result of reduced vegetative growth, and, of course, generate renewable electricity.
The California Department of Water Resources, utility company Turlock Irrigation District, Marin County, California-based water and energy project developer Solar AquaGrid, and The University of California, Merced, are partnering on the pilot. Project Nexus originated from a 2021 research project led by UC Merced alumna and project scientist Brandi McKuin.
Solar panels were installed at two sites over both wide- and narrow-span sections of Turlock Irrigation District canals in Stanislaus County, in various orientations. The sections range from 20 feet wide to 100 feet wide. University of California, Merced has positioned research equipment at both sites to collect baseline data so the researchers can decide where solar will work and where it won’t.
In February 2023, Project Nexus announced it would also deploy long-term iron flow battery storage in the form of two ESS 75kW turnkey “Energy Warehouse” batteries.
If you live in an area that has frequent natural disaster events, and are interested in making your home more resilient to power outages, consider going solar and adding a battery storage system. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. They have hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisers to help you every step of the way. Get started here. –trusted affiliate link*
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.