Who really pays to phase out diesel?
If the United Nations passed a resolution requiring California residents, and only California residents, to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars per year in fees in order to show leadership to the rest of the world on an issue of importance, we would hope Californians’ elected representatives would raise an objection to that.
After all, the cost of “leadership” shouldn’t be borne by the people of one state, especially when the cost hits low- and middle-income families hardest.
Yet that is exactly what’s happening, except the dictate isn’t coming from the United Nations. It’s coming from California’s own state government.
California prides itself on its leadership on the issue of climate change, but perhaps officials should spend less time bragging and more time adding up what their decisions are actually costing California households.
The unanimous vote by the California Air Resources Board to impose a forced phase-out of diesel trucks is the latest example.
“Ten years from now, when we look back to this day … we can say that California has changed the world,” said Gideon Kracov, a Los Angeles-based environmental attorney who sits on the air resources board.
The price of changing the world now includes a ban on the sale of new diesel trucks in California starting in 2036 and a requirement for large trucking companies to convert their fleets to electric models by 2042.
During a seven-hour meeting ahead of the board’s vote, officials of city and county governments spoke out against CARB’s zero-emissions deadlines, calling them “impossible.”
The cost of “leadership” will put new pressure on already stressed city and county budgets. Local governments will have to replace fleets of trucks used for every government service from garbage pick-up to street repair. Charging stations will add additional costs. Who will pay for it all? Taxpayers, of course.
CARB’s mandated conversion to zero-emissions trucks will also raise the price of commercial transportation, with UPS and Amazon just two examples of companies that will incur significant additional expenses to operate in California.
Even the air board staff had to acknowledge that California’s charging infrastructure is inadequate to support all-electric truck fleets statewide. Significant upgrades will be needed, posing challenges for utility companies. Who will pay for it?
The cost of upgrading charging infrastructure on the utility side will be borne by all ratepayers. Under a new rate structure mandated by state law, customers of investor-owned utilities including Southern California Edison will pay a higher fixed charge on their monthly bills, a charge that will include the cost of infrastructure upgrades. The law requires income-based tiers for the fixed charges, in an effort to lessen the burden on lower- and middle-income households.
Another way to lessen the burden on lower- and middle-income households is to stop pretending that Californians can afford this accelerated transition to all-electric transportation.
Southern California Edison CEO Steven Powell told our editorial board recently that California by itself cannot affect the global climate, but said the state’s leadership will have an impact.
Californians deserve transparency and accountability for the cost of the measures the state is taking to provide that leadership, but state lawmakers have delegated too much authority to unelected regulators. Elected officials must do more to oversee agency decisions that will have significant consequences for consumers and taxpayers.