By Valley Ag Voice Staff
Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird announced the state’s entrance into a lawsuit against Robert Bonta, Attorney General of California, and Steven Cliff, executive officer of the California Air Resources Board, over California’s mandate requiring zero-emissions trucks by 2042.
Along with the state of Iowa — Nebraska, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming have all entered the lawsuit. The Arizona State Legislature and the Nebraska Trucking Association are also plaintiffs.
In a press conference, Bird explained that California’s mandate to only allow trucks without carbon emissions to import and export goods inside the state poses an economic detriment.
“These electric trucks take longer to charge, drive shorter distances, and will be few and far between because trucking companies can’t afford them. It’s our supply chain’s worst nightmare because if you got it, a truck brought it in,” Bird said.
According to the lawsuit, California’s Advanced Clean Fleets violate the Constitution and threaten National economic security. Governor Gavin Newsom signed an executive order in 2020 to make zero-emission vehicles the only ones sold in California by 2035. Additionally, semis and trucks traveling on California highways must be zero-emission freight carriers by 2045.
The lawsuit, filed in May, explained that the new mandate would burden American families and businesses already dealing with high inflation, the lawsuit explained.
“Today, internal-combustion technology powers more than 95 percent of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. The alternative, battery-electric trucks, are unpopular among truck owners and operators,” the lawsuit stated. “Battery-electric trucks are less efficient than current technology and create delays and additional costs that neither truckers nor end-consumers want to pay.”
The states requested that the court prevent the implementation of the ACF regulation and requested an injunction to prevent California from enforcing or implementing the rule.
