Connect with us

Published

on

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 lawsuit is over California’s Advanced Clean Fleets rule, which was finalized by the California Air Resources Board earlier this year. Since then, it has been adopted by 10 other states, as often happens with California clean air regulations.

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 sure enough, as time came to finalize the fleets rule, progress had gone so well with ZEV truck availability that California felt confident setting high targets for the fleets rule.

wattev port of long beach electric truck charge depot
WattEV opened the US’ largest public truck charging depot earlier this year in CA

The result is a rule that will save Californians $26.5 billion in health costs and will save fleets $48 billion in operational costs due to lower fuel and maintenance expense. Those health savings come from thousands of avoided deaths, hospital admissions and ER visits from heart and lung illnesses.

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.

For example, Daimler’s new RIZON Class 4-5 truck just qualified for a $60,000 incentive from the state of California (which is available to other brands as well), on top of the $40,000 federal incentive as part of the Inflation Reduction Act. Then there are further incentives available for some classes of vehicle, for example school buses which are almost free to school districts.

Instead of improving the rule, CTA sues

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 electric trucks lineup
Daimler has a wide range of electric trucks available and we drove them all

Ortiz also pointed out that compliance with the rule has come faster than expected. CARB says that ZEV truck availability is roughly double projected 2024 requirements, and sales are about two years ahead of schedule – indicating that the rule could have even been stronger than it was.

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.

In addition the move to file in federal court is probably also intended to have a chilling effect on EPA’s upcoming “phase 3” truck regulations, which build further on its first update to truck rules in 21 years, finalized late last year.

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.

We saw this happen before – in California no less – when in 2016 virtually all car companies begged the EPA’s new oil-funded boss to reverse President Obama’s historic national fuel efficiency standard which represented an alignment between federal and California standards for the first time.

With any foresight they might have known that asking idiots to destroy regulations would cause a difficult split market for them, but they fell victim to the big business compulsion to avoid science and the public interest at all costs. Only after the fact did they realize their mistake and instead started lobbying the EPA to close the “Pandora’s Box” which they themselves had originally opened.

Luckily, California eventually won that fight, as we predicted it would. And good regulations continued on, despite all the nonsense efforts to resist them.

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.

Continue Reading

Environment

Kia’s electric van spotted with an open bed and it actually looks like a real truck

Published

on

By

Kia's electric van spotted with an open bed and it actually looks like a real truck

Is it an electric van or a truck? The Kia PV5 might be in a class of its own. Kia’s electric van was recently spotted charging in public with an open bed, and it looks like a real truck.

Kia’s electric van morphs into a truck with an open bed

The PV5 is the first of a series of electric vans as part of Kia’s new Platform Beyond Vehicle business (PBV). Kia claims the PBVs are more than vans, they are “total mobility solutions,” equipped with Hyundai’s advanced software.

Based on the flexible new EV platform, E-GMP.S, Kia has several new variants in the pipeline, including camper vans, refrigerated trucks, luxury “Prime” models for passenger use, and an open bed model.

Kia launched the PV5 Passenger and Cargo in the UK earlier this year for business and personal use. We knew more were coming, but now we are getting a look at a new variant in public.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Although we got a brief glimpse of it earlier this month driving by in Korea, Kia’s electric van was spotted charging in public with an open bed.

Kia PV5 electric van open bed variant (Source: HealerTV)

The folks at HealerTV found the PV5 variant with an open bed parked in Korea, offering us a good look from all angles.

From the front, it resembles the Passenger and Cargo variants, featuring slim vertical LED headlights. However, from the side, it’s an entirely different vehicle. The truck sits low to the ground, similar to the one captured driving earlier this month.

Kia-electric-van-open-bed
Kia PV5 open bed teaser (Source: Kia)

When you look at it from the back, you can’t even tell it’s the PV5. It looks like any other cargo truck with an open bed.

The PV5 open bed measures 5,000 mm in length, 1,900 mm in width, and 2,000 mm in height, with a wheelbase of 3,000 mm. Although Kia has yet to say how big the bed will be, the reporter mentions it doesn’t look that deep, but it’s wide enough to carry a good load.

Kia-PV5-open-bed
Kia PV5 Cargo electric van (Source: Kia)

The open bed will be one of several PV5 variants that Kia plans to launch in Europe and Korea later this year, alongside the Passenger, Cargo, and Chassis Cab configurations.

In Europe, the PV5 Passenger is available with two battery pack options: 51.5 kWh or 71.2 kWh, providing WLTP ranges of 179 miles and 249 miles, respectively. The Cargo variant is rated with a WLTP range of 181 miles or 247 miles.

Kia-PV5-open-bed-pickup
Kia PBV models (Source: Kia)

Kia will reveal battery specs closer to launch for the open bed variant, but claims it “has the longest driving range among compact commercial EVs in its class.”

In 2027, Kia will launch the larger PV7, followed by an even bigger PV9 in 2029. There’s also a smaller PV1 in the works, which is expected to arrive sometime next year or in 2027.

What do you think of Kia’s electric van? Will it be a game changer? With plenty of variants on the way, it has a good chance. Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.

Source: HealerTV

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Solar and wind industry faces up to $7 billion tax hike under Trump’s big bill, trade group says

Published

on

By

Solar and wind industry faces up to  billion tax hike under Trump's big bill, trade group says

Witthaya Prasongsin | Moment | Getty Images

Senate Republicans are threatening to hike taxes on clean energy projects and abruptly phase out credits that have supported the industry’s expansion in the latest version of President Donald Trump‘s big spending bill.

The measures, if enacted, would jeopardize hundreds of thousands of construction jobs, hurt the electric grid, and potentially raise electricity prices for consumers, trade groups warn.

The Senate GOP released a draft of the massive domestic spending bill over the weekend that imposes a new tax on renewable energy projects if they source components from foreign entities of concern, which basically means China. The bill also phases out the two most important tax credits for wind and solar power projects that enter service after 2027.

Republicans are racing to pass Trump’s domestic spending legislation by a self-imposed Friday deadline. The Senate is voting Monday on amendments to the latest version of the bill.

The tax on wind and solar projects surprised the renewable energy industry and feels punitive, said John Hensley, senior vice president for market analysis at the American Clean Power Association. It would increase the industry’s burden by an estimated $4 billion to $7 billion, he said.

“At the end of the day, it’s a new tax in a package that is designed to reduce the tax burden of companies across the American economy,” Hensley said. The tax hits any wind and solar project that enters service after 2027 and exceeds certain thresholds for how many components are sourced from China.

This combined with the abrupt elimination of the investment tax credit and electricity production tax credit after 2027 threatens to eliminate 300 gigawatts of wind and solar projects over the next 10 years, which is equivalent to about $450 billion worth of infrastructure investment, Hensley said.

“It is going to take a huge chunk of the development pipeline and either eliminate it completely or certainly push it down the road,” Hensley said. This will increase electricity prices for consumers and potentially strain the electric grid, he said.

The construction industry has warned that nearly 2 million jobs in the building trades are at risk if the energy tax credits are terminated and other measures in budget bill are implemented. Those credits have supported a boom in clean power installations and clean technology manufacturing.

“If enacted, this stands to be the biggest job-killing bill in the history of this country,” said Sean McGarvey, president of North America’s Building Trades Unions, in a statement. “Simply put, it is the equivalent of terminating more than 1,000 Keystone XL pipeline projects.”

The Senate legislation is moving toward a “worst case outcome for solar and wind,” Morgan Stanley analyst Andrew Percoco told clients in a Sunday note.

Shares of NextEra Energy, the largest renewable developer in the U.S., fell 2%. Solar stocks Array Technologies fell 8%, Enphase lost nearly 2% and Nextracker tumbled 5%.

Trump’s former advisor Elon Musk slammed the Senate legislation over the weekend.

“The latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country,” The Tesla CEO posted on X. “Utterly insane and destructive. It gives handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future.”

Catch up on the latest energy news from CNBC Pro:

Continue Reading

Environment

Nissan is in crisis mode as job cuts begin and suppliers are caught in the crosshairs

Published

on

By

Nissan is in crisis mode as job cuts begin and suppliers are caught in the crosshairs

Is Nissan raising the red flag? Nissan is cutting about 15% of its workforce and is now asking suppliers for more time to make payments.

Nissan starts job cuts, asks supplier to delay payments

As part of its recovery plan, Nissan announced in May that it plans to cut 20,000 jobs, or around 15% of its global workforce. It’s also closing several factories to free up cash and reduce costs.

Nissan said it will begin talks with employees at its Sunderland plant in the UK this week about voluntary retirement opportunities. The company is aiming to lay off around 250 workers.

The Sunderland plant is the largest employer in the city with around 6,000 workers and is critical piece to Nissan’s comeback. Nissan will build its next-gen electric vehicles at the facility, including the new LEAF, Juke, and Qashqai.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

According to several emails and company documents (via Reuters), Nissan is also working with its suppliers to for more time to make payments.

Nissan-delays-supplier-payments
The new Nissan LEAF (Source: Nissan)

“They could choose to be paid immediately or opt for a later payment,” Nissan said. The company explained in a statement to Reuters that it had incentivized some of its suppliers in Europe and the UK to accept more flexible payment terms, at no extra cost.

The emails show that the move would free up cash for the first quarter (April to June), similar to its request before the end of the financial year.

Nissan-delays-supplier-payments
Nissan N7 electric sedan (Source: Dongfeng Nissan)

One employee said in an email to co-workers that Nissan was asking suppliers “again” to delay payments. The emails, viewed by Reuters, were exchanged between Nissan workers in Europe and the United Kingdom.

Nissan is taking immediate action as part of its recovery plan, aiming to turn things around, the company said in a statement.

Nissan-Micra-EV
The new Nissan Micra EV (Source: Nissan)

“While we are taking these actions, we aim for sufficient liquidity to weather the costs of the turnaround actions and redeem bond maturities,” the company said.

Nissan didn’t comment on the internal discussions, but the emails did reveal it gave suppliers two options. They could either delay payments at a higher interest rate, or HSBC would make the payment, and Nissan would repay the bank with interest.

Nissan-delays-supplier-payments
Nissan’s upcoming lineup for the US, including the new LEAF EV and “Adventure Focused” SUV (Source: Nissan)

The company had 2.2 trillion yen ($15.2 billion) in cash and equivalents at the end of March, but it has around 700 billion yen ($4.9 billion) in debt that’s due later this year.

As part of Re:Nissan, the Japanese automaker’s recovery plan, Nissan looks to cut costs by 250 billion yen. By fiscal year 2026, it plans to return to profitability.

Electrek’s Take

With an aging vehicle lineup and a wave of new low-cost rivals from China, like BYD, Nissan is quickly falling behind.

Nissan is launching several new electric and hybrid vehicles over the next few years, including the next-gen LEAF, which is expected to help boost sales.

In China, the world’s largest EV market, Nissan’s first dedicated electric sedan, the N7, is off to a hot start with over 20,000 orders in 50 days.

The N7 will play a role in Nissan’s recovery efforts as it plans to export it to overseas markets. It will be one of nine new energy vehicles, including EVs and PHEVs, that Nissan plans to launch in China.

Can Nissan turn things around? Or will it continue falling behind the pack? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Trending