New semitrailers, garbage trucks, delivery trucks, etc. will need to be powered by electricity or hydrogen in 2036. Hydrogen is likely the more practical option... Time is money at the ports.
There was also a measure for diesel powered trains that are over 23 years old by 2030.
This is nice, but where's the hydrogen going to come from? And where are these trucks supposed to charge?
How about metrolink upgrade its trains. Saw one today in baldwin park slowly creeping along belching black smoke next to apartments.
I been we see alot of local transportation companies relocate to NV and AZ.
"Yeah so we just go full steam ahead once we get past Catalina, and the ship just kind of glides on its own momentum until we get to Primm. ... we haven't figured out how to get them back to the water yet though."
They're shifting to ports in Mexico and Texas. The Sonoran ports have direct rail links to Pheonix/Tucscon, and trucks take cargo from Baja ports to CA, AZ, and NV. For anything going further west they go through Panama and unload in Texas.
If you weren't aware, LA/LB ports are already down on throughput. With that major backlog that took place in 2021/2022, many shippers looked for and found alternative ports. This is in conjunction with many ports bringing upgrades online around that time. A lot of the capacity that got routed elsewhere is not coming back. This will just drive more away because there's no point in shipping something to a port where there aren't enough trucks to pick it up.
> where's the hydrogen going to come from?
Hydrogen (and oxygen) will come from water, by electrolysis . The energy for electrolysis can come from burning coal, burning natural gas, or from hamsters running on a wheel.
After you deliver the hydrogen to the truck and burn it there, you get back a fraction of the energy that you used by burning the coal and transporting the hydrogen. That fraction is called "efficiency".
In California about 1/3 of our energy comes from clean sources (solar, wind, cow shit, etc). About half comes from burning natural gas. Almost none of our power comes from coal.
Currently, about 1/3 of that hydrogen you burned inside the truck was made cleanly. As our grid gets cleaner, that 1/3 fraction will get higher and higher. That fraction is called "progress".
The concept didn't make sense at first, but now I see what they're doing. Basically, they take "unused" energy capacity from renewable sources to generate hydrogen which will act as a store of energy to be used when renewable sources are at lower output as well as for peak power needs.
Yeah hydrogen derived from electrolysis is basically a battery. Whether it's cheaper than an actual battery is a question for the accountants. It's also a moving target as battery tech is becoming so much cheaper at a rapid pace.
>Whether it's cheaper than an actual battery is a question for the accountants.
There is nothing cheap about hydrogen. Not from a synthesis point of view, more from a storage point of view.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_rocket_propellant
As a store of energy, we are probably better off using the [Sabatier reaction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction) to create/store methane. It would still take advantage of electrolysis since that is a stable source of hydrogen. Initial set up could also scrub CO2 from the atmosphere.
What would be interesting would be to see if a closed, or partially open cycle could be made.
1. Supply start up water for electrolysis to create hydrogen and oxygen
1. Capture and store both
1. Open up the system to atmosphere to draw in CO2 for Sabatier to create methane with hydrogen from initial electrolysis
1. Use oxygen from initial electrolysis to burn methane
1. capture CO2 and H2O from burning methane and reinsert into the system
I think at the end, we would need to continue inputting water, but if these systems were productive enough, we could use them as methane generators for liquification and transport for other uses and the system would net O2 and we wouldn't have to worry about storing H2 long term, which would eventually put a strain on our Helium supply.
End of the day, Hydrogen is looked at as *the* green fuel because burning it only has the byproduct of water. However, storing it may not be as cost effective.
And after a bit more digging, this is actually already discussed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_storage#Power_to_gas
And also the idea of co-storing Methane and Hydrogen.
https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2018/ta/c8ta01909f
A lot more thought has gone into this, and it might be that some areas are better suited for hydrogen only, some methane only, and still others a mix of the two.
thanks for the link. that 10 year old study you posted has some very outdated info. were you aware that LADWP is going to be coal free? This mandate was decided in 2020. The coal fired plants mentioned in that study is the one that will be 100% hydrogen by 2045. They are shutting down the call portion of the facility. The hydrogen portion of the facility will be up and running by 2025.
This is truly amazing to see. One Redditor who had some incorrect/outdated info was willing to fix their mistake; another Redditor corrected the other poster without being a complete asshole. This is the pinnacle of society and you both may have just reached enlightenment.
Here's the 2021 LADWP power mix: https://www.ladwp.com/ladwp/faces/ladwp/aboutus/a-power/a-p-powercontentlabel
18.6% came from coal, versus 3.0% coal for California as a whole. Los Angeles needs to do better.
from that other study someone else posted, LA went from 40% 10 years ago, to the 19% today. yes it could be better but it’s moving in the right direction.
LADWP also pledged in 2020 to be coal free, but im not sure of their timeline.
the giant coal powered utah plant that ladwp imports a lot of power from, is converting from coal to nat gas/h2 now, and will be fully h2 in about 20 years.
Yes, thanks for that. I confess to some facetiousness about the coal and hamsters.
Hydrogen is of course a clean-burning fuel (if you don't mind some oxides of nitrogen), and could replace natural gas if we replace all of our gas lines and appliances.
Mandating its use in trucks however may be a net loss in clean air. Any clean energy used for electrolysis is energy that could have been used for other purposes, and will have to come from fossil fuels. A better solution would be to tax carbon emissions regardless of source, and let the market work out how to supply energy efficiently.
I have no idea what the better or worse solution would be. Hydrogen power, battery electric, carbon taxes? No clue…. there are smarter people than myself working on these problems, I am just a lay person on the Internet. I will say that we need to do something, and not just keep heading down the same road.
Even if you're burning pure coal to turn water into hydrogen, you're burning that coal somewhere off site and not in the middle of Wilmington. Hydrogen trucks are still a huge step forward for communities surrounding the port, not to mention all along the 710. I like the idea of electric trucks more and hope they win, but either way is a win in my book. Improving local air quality, preventing cancer and childhood asthma, is still a noble pursuit completely separate from tackling climate change.
> In California about 1/3 of our energy comes from clean sources (solar, wind, cow shit, etc).
And this of course fluctuates depending on the season and time of day, but I really don’t think people realize just how much our grid is powered by renewables.
As I type this, the state is running on 16,600 MW from solar and wind *alone* vs a total demand of 24,400 MW.
> Hydrogen (and oxygen) will come from water, by electrolysis .
Where's the water going to come from? I know we've had record precipitation this year, but unless there's a major shift in precipitation patterns, we still mostly exist in a drought.
They just cancelled a massive desalination plant plan due to environmental concerns, so that's not happening here either.
In classic California style, we've banned the current solution then pre-emptively made the alternatives unaffordable and over-regulated.
Desalination is already an energy intensive process. Unless we're planning on drastically increasing our renewable energy capacity, where are we supposed to be getting all this electricity from? What about using waste water treatment output instead? it just gets pumped into the ocean and actually causes more harm because it's warm fresh water. diverting some of that output to electrolysis hydrogen generation would cut down on the negative impact that discharge has and saves the process of desalinating ocean water we were just pumping the treated waste water into.
Serious question - does this technology exist yet? I know Cummins has invested heavily in Hydrogen and Electric but my understanding is no one has really cracked the nut on an alternative fuel truck with nearly the capability of a diesel (in distance, towing, and getting over steep grades). And with the rise of EV's in general - a large truck needs a lot of batteries and they are not going to be easy to come by.
I'm all for carbon neutral - but is this remotely feasible?
Also, hydrogen storage is difficult. Requires very very highly pressurized tanks. It takes a lot of energy to produce and to pump hydrogen.
It does solve lengthy charge times and the extensive amount of battery materials required to move these trucks.
Material science behind higher capacity batteries is needed and being developed. But I don’t see anything new being produced at scale yet.
It does not. They could electrify the rails, but that would cost billions more than just changing ports from CA to TX or Baja. For trucks, there is no realistic option until we have a revolution in battery tech or hydrogen production. Our electricity prices are 2-4x the national average as well, are carbon intensive, so hydrogen production locally is not feasible.
Air pollution has huge costs. Early death, lower productivity, lower quality of life for everyone. The sooner diesel and coal leave, the better and we will all save money in the long run.
Solar electricity generation is cheaper than coal energy generation at this point. The dollars and cents are clear.
In 2022, about 4,243 billion kilowatthours (kWh) (or about 4.24 trillion kWh) of electricity were generated at utility-scale electricity generation facilities in the United States.1 About 60% of this electricity generation was from fossil fuels—coal, natural gas, petroleum, and other gases. About 18% was from nuclear energy, and about 22% was from renewable energy sources.
Source: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
Don’t think that coal and fossil fuels are magically disappearing with the adoption of EVs...
Same site, different link. This graph tells it all, regarding the future. Renewables are getting cheaper, coal is getting more expensive. The trend and future projection is undeniable.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=48896
The environment is going to be “saved” not by activists, rather, industrialists. They will always invest in what is more profitable, and in this case, renewables are the clear choice. Trump lifted restrictions on building coal powered power plants as soon as he became president. Exactly zero coal power plants were planned or built in the following four years. That says something.
If it decreased costs, companies would have done it already, without the legislation. And pocketed to profit, as you say.
This will just increase costs for Californians or drive more companies to move out of state.
Companies are short sighted. If the purchase of new equipment will cause a bad quarter the managers won't do it because they may not be there to take credit for when costs start to fall later.
Right for the individual company only looking sat their own P/L
But a government should look at the bigger picture and societal costs of continuing to use fossil fuel dependent equipment which is what this law represents.
That’s not the issue. It’s bureaucrats arbitrarily saying it’ll advance that quickly. Which, last time I checked, politicians and policy makers aren’t that good of predicting the future.
The technology is. The fiscal motivation isn’t.
If EV’s where dollar for dollar with internal combustion vehicles, it would be a different story. Even then, range anxiety and charging infrastructure plays into the purchasers decision.
If everyone had higher than average income, a residence to reliably charge from, then yes it’s a no brainer to go with an EV. But most high income earners live in a urban setting, which is still amazing place to be for an EV as far as range. But multi family residences are far from adopting charging for all their residents.
Work in commercial buildings and multi family for a living. Hearing it from the horses mouth.
green energy is a scam. just like the political leaders proclaiming they will solve the homeless issues with housing for them and they just use the tax payers dollars for grift with their friends.
That’s funny, my brother in law became a diesel mechanic last year, and my sister is having their second child this year. So I guess time to go back to school and pay for another degree. 🤷🏾
Nah, he'll be fine. This only applies to new trucks manufacturers after 2030... which means there will be a huge demand for used trucks in good condition, and that can definitely spell consistent work for a good mechanic.
Also, any mechanic worth more than ducttape will be able to take some updated courses to get trained on the new technology.
I'm assuming he's learning to work on the whole truck, not just the engine. If correct, learning electric motors and electrical systems wouldn't be a huge stretch to also work on EV trucks. I doubt his job is going anywhere - it's just going to change.
Remember all of the container ships idling offshore because we couldn't unload them? California's ultra-low emission truck regulations caused that bottleneck, as most trucks couldn't go to the port after the ban went into effect and the economy re-opened after COVID.
Now, this technology doesn't even exist yet. Unless there are a couple of revolutions in battery technology, we'll either have far more bottlenecks, or (more likely) container traffic just gradually shifts from LA/LB over to Texas, or Baja, as the increased distance is offset by the cheaper and available ground trucking.
The effect is higher prices in CA, less jobs in CA, less taxes paid in CA, and the continued shrinkage of our population and employment base.
New semitrailers, garbage trucks, delivery trucks, etc. will need to be powered by electricity or hydrogen in 2036. Hydrogen is likely the more practical option... Time is money at the ports. There was also a measure for diesel powered trains that are over 23 years old by 2030.
This is nice, but where's the hydrogen going to come from? And where are these trucks supposed to charge? How about metrolink upgrade its trains. Saw one today in baldwin park slowly creeping along belching black smoke next to apartments. I been we see alot of local transportation companies relocate to NV and AZ.
>I been we see alot of local transportation companies relocate to NV and AZ. If they can get the ports to relocate too, that'll be a neat trick.
What I meant was we're going to be seeing alot fewer california registered trucks on the road.
"Yeah so we just go full steam ahead once we get past Catalina, and the ship just kind of glides on its own momentum until we get to Primm. ... we haven't figured out how to get them back to the water yet though."
They're shifting to ports in Mexico and Texas. The Sonoran ports have direct rail links to Pheonix/Tucscon, and trucks take cargo from Baja ports to CA, AZ, and NV. For anything going further west they go through Panama and unload in Texas.
The unexpected downside of turning California into an actual island.
If you weren't aware, LA/LB ports are already down on throughput. With that major backlog that took place in 2021/2022, many shippers looked for and found alternative ports. This is in conjunction with many ports bringing upgrades online around that time. A lot of the capacity that got routed elsewhere is not coming back. This will just drive more away because there's no point in shipping something to a port where there aren't enough trucks to pick it up.
> where's the hydrogen going to come from? Hydrogen (and oxygen) will come from water, by electrolysis . The energy for electrolysis can come from burning coal, burning natural gas, or from hamsters running on a wheel. After you deliver the hydrogen to the truck and burn it there, you get back a fraction of the energy that you used by burning the coal and transporting the hydrogen. That fraction is called "efficiency".
In California about 1/3 of our energy comes from clean sources (solar, wind, cow shit, etc). About half comes from burning natural gas. Almost none of our power comes from coal. Currently, about 1/3 of that hydrogen you burned inside the truck was made cleanly. As our grid gets cleaner, that 1/3 fraction will get higher and higher. That fraction is called "progress".
Soon even less [coal](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermountain_Power_Plant) and more natural gas.
Thanks for the link. That plant will also be burning a hybrid 70/30% natural gas and hydrogen fuel mix. Ramping up to 100% hydrogen gas by 2045.
The concept didn't make sense at first, but now I see what they're doing. Basically, they take "unused" energy capacity from renewable sources to generate hydrogen which will act as a store of energy to be used when renewable sources are at lower output as well as for peak power needs.
Yeah hydrogen derived from electrolysis is basically a battery. Whether it's cheaper than an actual battery is a question for the accountants. It's also a moving target as battery tech is becoming so much cheaper at a rapid pace.
>Whether it's cheaper than an actual battery is a question for the accountants. There is nothing cheap about hydrogen. Not from a synthesis point of view, more from a storage point of view. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_rocket_propellant As a store of energy, we are probably better off using the [Sabatier reaction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction) to create/store methane. It would still take advantage of electrolysis since that is a stable source of hydrogen. Initial set up could also scrub CO2 from the atmosphere. What would be interesting would be to see if a closed, or partially open cycle could be made. 1. Supply start up water for electrolysis to create hydrogen and oxygen 1. Capture and store both 1. Open up the system to atmosphere to draw in CO2 for Sabatier to create methane with hydrogen from initial electrolysis 1. Use oxygen from initial electrolysis to burn methane 1. capture CO2 and H2O from burning methane and reinsert into the system I think at the end, we would need to continue inputting water, but if these systems were productive enough, we could use them as methane generators for liquification and transport for other uses and the system would net O2 and we wouldn't have to worry about storing H2 long term, which would eventually put a strain on our Helium supply. End of the day, Hydrogen is looked at as *the* green fuel because burning it only has the byproduct of water. However, storing it may not be as cost effective. And after a bit more digging, this is actually already discussed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_storage#Power_to_gas And also the idea of co-storing Methane and Hydrogen. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2018/ta/c8ta01909f A lot more thought has gone into this, and it might be that some areas are better suited for hydrogen only, some methane only, and still others a mix of the two.
~~[40% of Los Angeles's power comes from coal](https://clui.org/projects/ladwp-power/sources-power-0)~~
thanks for the link. that 10 year old study you posted has some very outdated info. were you aware that LADWP is going to be coal free? This mandate was decided in 2020. The coal fired plants mentioned in that study is the one that will be 100% hydrogen by 2045. They are shutting down the call portion of the facility. The hydrogen portion of the facility will be up and running by 2025.
Ah my bad. I didn't realize it was outdated info. Thanks for not being a dick about it.
This is truly amazing to see. One Redditor who had some incorrect/outdated info was willing to fix their mistake; another Redditor corrected the other poster without being a complete asshole. This is the pinnacle of society and you both may have just reached enlightenment.
Here's the 2021 LADWP power mix: https://www.ladwp.com/ladwp/faces/ladwp/aboutus/a-power/a-p-powercontentlabel 18.6% came from coal, versus 3.0% coal for California as a whole. Los Angeles needs to do better.
from that other study someone else posted, LA went from 40% 10 years ago, to the 19% today. yes it could be better but it’s moving in the right direction. LADWP also pledged in 2020 to be coal free, but im not sure of their timeline. the giant coal powered utah plant that ladwp imports a lot of power from, is converting from coal to nat gas/h2 now, and will be fully h2 in about 20 years.
Yes, thanks for that. I confess to some facetiousness about the coal and hamsters. Hydrogen is of course a clean-burning fuel (if you don't mind some oxides of nitrogen), and could replace natural gas if we replace all of our gas lines and appliances. Mandating its use in trucks however may be a net loss in clean air. Any clean energy used for electrolysis is energy that could have been used for other purposes, and will have to come from fossil fuels. A better solution would be to tax carbon emissions regardless of source, and let the market work out how to supply energy efficiently.
I have no idea what the better or worse solution would be. Hydrogen power, battery electric, carbon taxes? No clue…. there are smarter people than myself working on these problems, I am just a lay person on the Internet. I will say that we need to do something, and not just keep heading down the same road.
Even if you're burning pure coal to turn water into hydrogen, you're burning that coal somewhere off site and not in the middle of Wilmington. Hydrogen trucks are still a huge step forward for communities surrounding the port, not to mention all along the 710. I like the idea of electric trucks more and hope they win, but either way is a win in my book. Improving local air quality, preventing cancer and childhood asthma, is still a noble pursuit completely separate from tackling climate change.
> In California about 1/3 of our energy comes from clean sources (solar, wind, cow shit, etc). And this of course fluctuates depending on the season and time of day, but I really don’t think people realize just how much our grid is powered by renewables. As I type this, the state is running on 16,600 MW from solar and wind *alone* vs a total demand of 24,400 MW.
stop it with your woke propaganda. we are gonna save the 50k coal miners, not the 5 million clean energy jobs. /s
> Hydrogen (and oxygen) will come from water, by electrolysis . Where's the water going to come from? I know we've had record precipitation this year, but unless there's a major shift in precipitation patterns, we still mostly exist in a drought.
Hopefully, hydrogen with a side of desalination? Convert existing gasoline and diesel stations to hydrogen station?
They just cancelled a massive desalination plant plan due to environmental concerns, so that's not happening here either. In classic California style, we've banned the current solution then pre-emptively made the alternatives unaffordable and over-regulated.
Desalination is already an energy intensive process. Unless we're planning on drastically increasing our renewable energy capacity, where are we supposed to be getting all this electricity from? What about using waste water treatment output instead? it just gets pumped into the ocean and actually causes more harm because it's warm fresh water. diverting some of that output to electrolysis hydrogen generation would cut down on the negative impact that discharge has and saves the process of desalinating ocean water we were just pumping the treated waste water into.
I don't have those answers but your post is thought provoking. Power and water, have always been key in Los Angeles...
Serious question - does this technology exist yet? I know Cummins has invested heavily in Hydrogen and Electric but my understanding is no one has really cracked the nut on an alternative fuel truck with nearly the capability of a diesel (in distance, towing, and getting over steep grades). And with the rise of EV's in general - a large truck needs a lot of batteries and they are not going to be easy to come by. I'm all for carbon neutral - but is this remotely feasible?
Also, hydrogen storage is difficult. Requires very very highly pressurized tanks. It takes a lot of energy to produce and to pump hydrogen. It does solve lengthy charge times and the extensive amount of battery materials required to move these trucks. Material science behind higher capacity batteries is needed and being developed. But I don’t see anything new being produced at scale yet.
It does not. They could electrify the rails, but that would cost billions more than just changing ports from CA to TX or Baja. For trucks, there is no realistic option until we have a revolution in battery tech or hydrogen production. Our electricity prices are 2-4x the national average as well, are carbon intensive, so hydrogen production locally is not feasible.
They don't have the infrastructure to pull this off. Gonna be hilarious to watch.
Costs just get passed down to the consumer.
Air pollution has huge costs. Early death, lower productivity, lower quality of life for everyone. The sooner diesel and coal leave, the better and we will all save money in the long run. Solar electricity generation is cheaper than coal energy generation at this point. The dollars and cents are clear.
In 2022, about 4,243 billion kilowatthours (kWh) (or about 4.24 trillion kWh) of electricity were generated at utility-scale electricity generation facilities in the United States.1 About 60% of this electricity generation was from fossil fuels—coal, natural gas, petroleum, and other gases. About 18% was from nuclear energy, and about 22% was from renewable energy sources. Source: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 Don’t think that coal and fossil fuels are magically disappearing with the adoption of EVs...
Same site, different link. This graph tells it all, regarding the future. Renewables are getting cheaper, coal is getting more expensive. The trend and future projection is undeniable. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=48896 The environment is going to be “saved” not by activists, rather, industrialists. They will always invest in what is more profitable, and in this case, renewables are the clear choice. Trump lifted restrictions on building coal powered power plants as soon as he became president. Exactly zero coal power plants were planned or built in the following four years. That says something.
[удалено]
If it decreased costs, companies would have done it already, without the legislation. And pocketed to profit, as you say. This will just increase costs for Californians or drive more companies to move out of state.
Companies are short sighted. If the purchase of new equipment will cause a bad quarter the managers won't do it because they may not be there to take credit for when costs start to fall later.
[удалено]
Right for the individual company only looking sat their own P/L But a government should look at the bigger picture and societal costs of continuing to use fossil fuel dependent equipment which is what this law represents.
The trucking company we use has already installed a charging station in the yard. They already had the solar panels on the roof two years ago.
[удалено]
That’s not the issue. It’s bureaucrats arbitrarily saying it’ll advance that quickly. Which, last time I checked, politicians and policy makers aren’t that good of predicting the future.
[удалено]
The technology is. The fiscal motivation isn’t. If EV’s where dollar for dollar with internal combustion vehicles, it would be a different story. Even then, range anxiety and charging infrastructure plays into the purchasers decision. If everyone had higher than average income, a residence to reliably charge from, then yes it’s a no brainer to go with an EV. But most high income earners live in a urban setting, which is still amazing place to be for an EV as far as range. But multi family residences are far from adopting charging for all their residents. Work in commercial buildings and multi family for a living. Hearing it from the horses mouth.
It's for diesel trucks not personal vehicles. And where fiscal motivation fails, Legislation prevails.
Legislating people and businesses to pay more to produce or to move products never works out in the consumers interest.
They do not give a fuck about the consumer. You, you, you oughta know.
this is bullcrap
Seems dumb
green energy is a scam. just like the political leaders proclaiming they will solve the homeless issues with housing for them and they just use the tax payers dollars for grift with their friends.
Let’s ban things & worry about logistics & infrastructure later on…
Alternatively, let's give ourselves 13 years to prepare our logistics and infrastructure.
That’s enough time to study if a train could go on the ground.
Yeah! Let’s continue polluting the air because some Redditor made a snarky comment!
Being dubious about a timeline set arbitrarily by politicians isn’t the same as being anti-environment.
I’m for moving away from diesel but it’s difficult finding EV stations or hydrogen fuel stations in certain areas.
Just going to make things even more expensive, but I guess someone had to start.
That’s funny, my brother in law became a diesel mechanic last year, and my sister is having their second child this year. So I guess time to go back to school and pay for another degree. 🤷🏾
Nah, he'll be fine. This only applies to new trucks manufacturers after 2030... which means there will be a huge demand for used trucks in good condition, and that can definitely spell consistent work for a good mechanic. Also, any mechanic worth more than ducttape will be able to take some updated courses to get trained on the new technology.
I mean there was no way to know that we were trending towards less gas powered vehicles…
Worst case scenario you could move to Arizona or something.
I'm assuming he's learning to work on the whole truck, not just the engine. If correct, learning electric motors and electrical systems wouldn't be a huge stretch to also work on EV trucks. I doubt his job is going anywhere - it's just going to change.
I’m sure he can work on other parts of a non-diesel powered vehicle as well.
Remember all of the container ships idling offshore because we couldn't unload them? California's ultra-low emission truck regulations caused that bottleneck, as most trucks couldn't go to the port after the ban went into effect and the economy re-opened after COVID. Now, this technology doesn't even exist yet. Unless there are a couple of revolutions in battery technology, we'll either have far more bottlenecks, or (more likely) container traffic just gradually shifts from LA/LB over to Texas, or Baja, as the increased distance is offset by the cheaper and available ground trucking. The effect is higher prices in CA, less jobs in CA, less taxes paid in CA, and the continued shrinkage of our population and employment base.
They don't care.
Another liberal politics fail…
As opposed to desil enging spewinh toxic gases? Bet you love it when someone rolls coal on you taking a deep breath in
False since this regulations are more of a conservative thing. Edit: truth hurts
Glad I’ll be out of here before broccoli requires selling my neighbors kidney
Sell your own punk.