Trucking companies are suing to poison you with gas instead of saving money
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.
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.
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.
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.
Mark Kay’s iconic Pink Cadillac awards are driving into the future for 2025. The company’s first-ever electric Pink Cadillac OPTIQ made its debut during the Mary Kay annual Seminar in Charlotte this weekend, symbolizing a “recharged vision” for the future of the popular brand.
Pioneers in monetizing friendships female empowerment and entrepreneurship, the Pink Cadillac is considered one the most coveted symbols of achievement for Mary Kay sales reps, signifying not just great sales (GM Authority reported that it took ~$102,000 in annual sales to qualify back in 2001), but also leadership, a history of mentoring others, and a sustained reputation of excellence among their peers.
The women you see behind the wheel of the Pink Cadillac are the real deal, in other words, and the big Caddy really does mean something to people in the know.
The iconic pink Cadillac was born in 1968 when Mary Kay Ash purchased a Cadillac Coupe De Ville from a Dallas dealership and promptly had it painted to match the pale pink Mary Kay lip and eye palette. General Motors later named the color Mary Kay Pink Pearl, and the shade is exclusive to Mary Kay.
MARY KAY
Now, the Pink Cadillac is going to stand for environmental sustainability, too, enabling Mary Kay’s top performers to set yet another positive example for anyone aspiring to their success.
“For decades, the Mary Kay pink Cadillac has symbolized accomplishment, aspiration, and the power of recognition,” said Ryan Rogers, Chief Executive Officer of Mary Kay. “With the introduction of the all-electric OPTIQ, we’re honoring that iconic legacy while driving into a transformative future—one grounded in our commitment to sustainability and dedication to inspiring and celebrating the achievements of our independent sales force for generations to come.”
Mary Kay announced its new Pink Cadillac with this video, below.
Same Legacy, New Energy
“The legacy continues with the new, all-electric (and still very pink) Cadillac Otiq [sic],” reads the official Mary Kay copy on YouTube. “The Optiq remains instantly recognizable with the pink pearl exterior, while modernizing with sleek, cutting-edge features. In addition, this vehicle showcases our commitment and dedication to sustainability by reducing our carbon footprint while continuing to inspire.”
Speaking of inspiration, I can’t hardly hear the words “Pink Cadillac” without thinking of the song. But, since “Bruce Springsteen” has become something of a trigger word for the MAGA snowflakes in the audience, I’ll post a different, but similarly great song about rose-tinted GM flagships from Dope Lemon. You can let me know what you think of it in the comments.
As ever, the Cadillac is not a “gift,” per se – but typically takes the form of a two year lease paid for by Mary Kay. No word yet on what the exact shape and form the OPTIQ deal will take.
Electrek’s Take
Whatever you might think of MLMs or businesses like Amway, Avon, or Mary Kay, they play a big part in the social dramas of hundreds (if not thousands) of neighborhoods and online communities. The people at the top are influential, and the people “below” them genuinely try to emulate them and follow their lead.
Thanks to Mary Kay, that might soon mean a decision to buy an electric vehicle – and that result would be a win for everyone.
SOURCE | IMAGES: Mary Kay.
If you’re considering going solar, it’s always a good idea to get quotes from a few installers. 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. It has 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 Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
RBW, a British handcrafted electric car manufacturer, brought its cute little Roadster out to Santa Monica and invited us up for a drive.
RBW has built cars in the UK for a few years now, but is about to set up US manufacturing in Virginia. Along with that comes a version of its Roadster modified for the US market, and we got a sneak peek with a short drive in Santa Monica.
The RBW Roadster is a small, hand-built, retro-style EV, meant as a modern take on British classics. But it’s not an actual classic itself – it’s a newly-built vehicle, with a new body, modern safety features, and even some electronics, like CarPlay and Android Auto (but not much else – there’s no huge, cockpit-defining screen, just a 9″ one, with retro gauges in front of the driver. But it does have a backup camera!).
Our drive was short, just a quick trip up and down the most trafficky part of Pacific Coast Highway in Santa Monica, without much chance to really stretch the vehicle’s legs. So we can’t verify range or tell you how it handles on the limits, but we can tell you about the basic controls and feel of the vehicle.
On a mostly smooth road, the car offered a comfortable ride dynamic. We didn’t get a sense of chassis noise because the top was down (which I surmised was an intentional effort by the company – I’ve used the same trick when showing off my car before).
The steering is tight and has a good weight to it, and the retro-style steering wheel felt great in my hands.
Of particular interest to me, as a long-time EV driver, is how the throttle pedal is tuned. Lots of EVs add some intentional delay or smoothing to throttle inputs, which ends up making the pedal feel mushy and indirect, reducing the control you have over the vehicle.
For reference, the cars I drive most often are the Tesla Roadster and Model 3, which both have excellent direct pedal feel.
And I’m happy to report that the RBW Roadster’s throttle pedal feels very similar to the cars I love to drive. The car feels quick, and responds exactly to what I want it to do, when I want it to do it. But it’s not excessively “punchy” like some of the more absurdly-powered EVs can be (like the Tesla Model S Plaid or the Macan Turbo S).
It does not, however, have off-throttle regenerative braking, aka one-pedal driving. Pressing the brake pedal engages regen, but letting off the throttle lets you simply coast. I personally prefer one-pedal driving, but one consideration RBW had is that since the car does not have traction control, regenerative braking on the rear axle (where the motor is) could potentially present a safety issue on slippery roads. So, fair enough I guess, but I still do prefer one pedal.
Speaking of pedals, the brake pedal was placed quite far from the accelerator. This is a plus and a minus – a minus because it’s quite different from most vehicles these days, where the pedals are placed closer, for ease of reaching them with your right foot. A plus because higher separation might reduce the chance of “crossing the pedals” and accidentally pressing both with the same foot in an emergency situation, and because it enables left-foot braking, which is generally better for performance driving… in the hands of a trained driver, anyway.
That said, this isn’t exactly a performance car. It’s fun, it’s responsive, but it’s not powerful. The version we tested had a 0-60 time of only around 9 seconds, so it didn’t give you the “throw your head back” feeling that so many EVs on the road these days do. It’s responsive, but not fast.
RBW says the American version will have more motor power than the UK version, but it’s still trying to figure out exactly how to tune it. This should bring 0-60 times down by about a second. But we can’t help but think that it would be nice with even a little more power than that, which we think should be possible given the car’s 50kWh battery and ~2,900lb weight, specs that are similar to my similarly-sized Tesla Roadster (as you can see below – along with the GT version of the RBW, on the right).
Here’s an issue: all the specs we were given seem extremely fluid. While talking to the company, I got several different numbers for any given specification. It seems to me like the company is still figuring out exactly what changes it will make for its US models.
This is somewhat to be expected of a small, hand-built manufacturer, especially since buyers can ask for certain modifications or personalizations (seat height, for example, which is important in a small car like this). But it does make it tough to write an article about it.
Nevertheless, the car drives well, and RBW seems to have gotten a lot right about the dynamics of the vehicle. It executes well on its goal – a fun, small British-style roadster, a great weekend car for those who have the means.
As for the means, the RBW Roadster will start in the $140-150k range, so it’s not cheap. But if you’re looking for something like this, it’s just about the only game in town, and it’s a good execution of the feel of a nimble roadster for weekend cruising.
RBW is currently taking $1,000 reservations for 2026 builds, and you can have a look at configurations (paint, roof, interior, wheels) over on its website.
The 30% federal solar tax credit is ending this year. If you’ve ever considered going solar, now’s the time to act. 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. It has 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 Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Canadian startup Beachman has just unveiled its latest electric two-wheeler, the ’64, a vintage-styled electric motorcycle that looks like it rolled straight out of the 1960s. With throwback café racer design and a respectable top speed of 45 mph (72 km/h), it’s a slick little ride with a curious twist: it calls itself an e-bike.
It’s not just a casual reference, but it’s baked into the name. The full model name on Beachman’s website is the ’64 E-Bike.
While I’d generally be inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt, since many motorcyclists refer to electric motorcycles as “e-bikes” and the term has a broad definition in colloquial usage, the company is obviously casting more in the “electric bicycle” end of the spectrum. They even say on their website that it is “rideable as either a Class II E-Bike or a Registered Moped (in most states).”
Despite lacking pedals entirely – and clearly designed more like a lightweight electric motorcycle – the Beachman ’64 comes with a selectable “E-Bike Mode” that limits it to 20 mph (32 km/h). The implication? That riders can use this obvious motorcycle in bike lanes like a Class 2 e-bike. Legally speaking, that’s a stretch, to put it mildly. In fact, I’m not currently aware of any state where that’s explicitly legal, though it could probably pass in many states due to the current state of enforcement we usually see.
According to Beachman, the ’64 has three ride modes:
- E-Bike Mode: 20 mph (32 km/h) top speed, which the company says is “perfect for bike lanes.”
- Moped Mode: 30 mph (48 km/h) top speed, which does match legal definitions for mopeds in some jurisdictions, even without pedals.
- Off-Road Mode: 45 mph (72 km/h) top speed, no pretense – just a motorcycle.
In practice, I don’t think it’s a stretch of the imagination to assume that most riders will likely keep it in Off-Road Mode, where the bike delivers its full 3,000W performance and offers the most fun. And specced with decently large batteries, it could actually do some modest commuting, even at higher speeds. The ’64 comes with a removable 2.88 kWh battery (or optional 3.6 kWh upgrade), and range is estimated at 55–70 miles, depending on configuration. It charges to 80% in three hours and even features regenerative braking.
The company leans heavily on its “timeless design” messaging, and to their credit, the ’64 nails the aesthetic. It looks great. The frame, tank, and seat all channel classic motorcycle vibes while skipping the modern digital overload – no apps or touchscreens here. Just a clean, simple throttle and some retro charm.
But for all the cool factor, the classification confusion raises eyebrows. Calling a 45 mph, pedal-less motorcycle an “e-bike” in any meaningful legal sense is a misfire. Some states allow low-speed mopeds in bike lanes, but others draw the line at motorized vehicles without pedals. The ’64 might get away with it in limited cases, but most jurisdictions will (rightfully) require it to be registered and insured as a motor vehicle. And it’s unclear if explaining to the officer, “But I had it in 20 mph mode…” will help much on the side of the road.
Still, Beachman is aiming at a particular rider who wants motorcycle style and speed without all the baggage. With a starting price of $4,800, the ’64 could be an appealing step-up for e-bike riders looking to graduate into something faster without committing to a full-sized gas bike.
Just don’t expect to blend in on the bike path.
Electrek’s Take
Look: The bike looks fantastic and probably rides well, but come on, it’s a 230 lb (105 kg) motorcycle.
Let’s stop calling every throttle-only EV an e-bike just because it’s got two wheels, a battery, and a button that neuters it to 20 mph. This has gotten silly. You built a great-looking bike. But it’s a bike in the way a motorcycle rider refers to his “bike.” It’s not a bicycle, and it’s not a bike lane vehicle any more than a Sur Ron is. At least not if you respect your fellow two-wheel riders around you.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike