A New Jersey Assembly committee Dec. 12 unanimously backed a two-year delay in the implementation of the state’s Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) regulations that would mandate escalating electric truck sales. 

The Assembly Transportation and Independent Authorities Committee voted 13-0 to advance the bill, A4967, which would require that the rules adopted by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection start “no earlier” than Jan. 1, 2027, rather than Jan. 1, 2025. Trucking executives, dealers and business groups had argued that the state has neither the demand nor the infrastructure to comply with the program. 

The bill was one of two approved the same day that highlighted the growing importance of state actions in combating climate change as the transition to the second Trump administration casts a high level of uncertainty over federal initiatives to cut carbon emissions, many of which the president-elect opposes. 

The two bills show legislators pushing in two directions on the climate change debate: While the Assembly committee voted to slow the ACT rules, which Gov. Phil Murphy (D) has aggressively promoted, the Senate Environment and Energy Committee voted 3-2 along party lines to advance S3545, the “Climate Superfund Act,” which seeks to impose a “liability on certain fossil fuel companies for certain damages caused by climate change.” 

Both bills are far from becoming law: A4967 has not moved on the Senate side, and S3545 has yet to advance in the General Assembly. The bipartisan support for delaying the ACT rules, however, suggests that bill could advance. 

Assemblyman Clinton Calabrese (D), chair of the Transportation committee and one of the bill’s sponsors, opened the hearing by reiterating his “steadfast support” for the ACT regulations. But he added that “this bill seeks to address some of the significant challenges that have arisen during this implementation period.” 

Assemblyman Christian Barranco (R) said, “Electrification of the transportation sector is not a political problem, it is an engineering dilemma. 

“We have a very, very difficult problem being able to serve this with the [electricity] generation that we have in place.” 

But environmental groups and other ACT backers said the state has already made great strides and would not have trouble meeting the program’s sales targets. They urged legislators not to slow that progress and disrupt the certainty manufacturers and fleets need to make investments. 

“Based on recent estimates, manufacturers in New Jersey have, in fact, already met their compliance for next year,” with 1,000 battery electric trucks already on the road, said Karla Sosa, New York-New Jersey project manager for the Environmental Defense Fund. “To delay ACT would be a decisive blow to New Jersey’s ability to get clean trucks that we desperately need on the road.” 

Grid, Price Concerns

New Jersey in December 2021 became the third state to adopt rules based on California’s ACT regulations, which require manufacturers of vehicles weighing more than 8,500 pounds to sell an increasing number of electric trucks after 2025. 

The New Jersey rules will require that by 2035, electric vehicles account for 55% of class 2b and 3 trucks, 75% of class 4 to 8 trucks and 40% of truck tractor sales. Vendors would have to comply with a system of credits and deficits based on the proportion of electric trucks that manufacturers sell in the state compared to the number of diesel vehicles they sell. (See NJ Adopts EV Truck Sales Mandate.) 

The committee’s vote comes after the California Air Resources Board (CARB), facing pushback from truckers, voted to adopt amendments to its ACT rules, giving truck-makers more flexibility in reaching the goals. (See Calif. Revises Clean Truck Rules to Ease Compliance.) 

Representatives of the New Jersey trucking sector ― some of whom backed the idea of electric trucks — argued at the hearing that the state is far from ready to make the major transition to electric trucks. The DEP said in October there were 143 electric class 4 to 8 trucks registered in the state, and nearly 5,000 Class 2b and 3 trucks. 

Helder Rebelo, director of fleet maintenance and safety for Newark-based Daybreak Express and president of the New Jersey Motor Truck Association (NJMTA), said the industry’s “very small profit margins” make it very difficult for trucking companies to pay for an electric truck that is about three times as expensive as a $150,000 to $180,000 diesel vehicle. 

“To afford that truck, we are just going to have to pass it on to the consumer,” he said. He added that the grid around his employer’s depot “cannot handle” the heavy charge needed to fuel an electric truck, and company discussions with Public Service Electric and Gas leave it unclear when the necessary upgrade might happen. 

The association said supporters of the bill included South Brunswick-based Hermann Services, one of the foremost electric truck adopters in the state, which has one electric Class 8 truck and 15 on order. The company believes that the state’s infrastructure should be better developed before the rules take effect, the association said. 

Because of these and other factors, demand is way below the level required in the ACT sales mandates, said Joe Cambria, owner of truck dealership Cambria Truck Center of Edison. “Customers do not want to purchase these trucks,” and under the ACT regulations, “our manufacturers will not allow us to order any diesel trucks unless we provide zero-emission credits.” 

“We are hopeful, if delayed, some of these items can be addressed” to make electric trucks more “commercially viable,” he said. 

If not, the rules could create a competitive disadvantage for New Jersey for dealers, said Laura Perrotta, president of the New Jersey Coalition of Automotive Retailers. 

“You can go to Pennsylvania starting Jan. 1, 2025, and buy any truck you want,” she said. “In the state of New Jersey, unfortunately, the manufacturers are going to restrict allocation of diesel trucks” to those dealers that sell enough electric trucks. 

Business Uncertainty

But two EV manufacturers — Rivian Automotive and Tesla — urged the committee not to advance the bill. 

Zachary Kahn, senior policy manager with Tesla, said the company has planned for two years around the law and is ready to sell its Class 8 truck, which can do 500 miles and can be recharged in 20 to 30 minutes. 

Tom Van Heeke, senior policy adviser at Rivian, said any delay would “create regulatory uncertainty for our industry.” 

“Delaying implementation would actually make it more difficult for manufacturers to meet the requirements because it eliminates the gradual ramp up that’s built into the rule,” he said. “We’re building a business, and we’ve been counting on this regulation for several years.” 

Responsible Parties

At the Senate Environment and Energy Committee, legislators supporting the Climate Superfund Act said the evidence of the need for the bill is growing. 

The bill would require the state treasurer to compile an assessment of the damage to the state from climate change and determine the “responsible parties” for the greenhouse gas emissions. The legislation would create a DEP program to “secure compensatory payment from responsible parties” and disperse the funds in a grant program for “climate change adaption and resilience projects.” 

Sen. Bob Smith (D), the committee’s chair and one of the bill’s sponsors, listed extreme weather events, such as Superstorm Sandy and Hurricane Ida. “The people who brought you these damages should be responsible for paying for it.” 

Sen. John F. McKeon (D), the other sponsor, put the cost to the state of recovering from Sandy at $7.2 billion and said the bill is “a cost recovery tool.” 

“This is about who pays for the damage that’s unequivocally directed to climate change, period,” he said. “And here in New Jersey, either the taxpayer pays or the polluter pays.” 

Alex Daniel, counsel for the New Jersey Civil Justice Institute, which represents the business sector, spoke against the bill, arguing it raised constitutional concerns. 

“The simple fact is, for the last 100 years, our national government [and] state governments have actively permitted and encouraged petroleum extraction and refining as part of a national energy policy,” he said. “That national energy policy has resulted in petroleum products being at the very core of our energy industry. 

“The risk posed by retroactive litigation [and] liability is simple: There are settled expectations that people have that the due process protects them from disproportionate liability, particularly where you have an issue like greenhouse gases that aren’t simply an American problem.” 

Ed Waters, senior director of government affairs for the Chemistry Council of New Jersey, said the bill fails to “directly address the causes of carbon emissions and consumption.” 

“It goes unfairly after the companies that were refining, but the actual emissions are generated by the use of fossil fuels,” he said. Moreover, he said, “there was no law against them refining the fuels,” and the law would punish them for something they did legally.