Governor Phil Murphy’s decision to follow California's lead in mandating electric truck adoption in New Jersey is drawing significant criticism, especially for the negative effects it may have on the state's economy and infrastructure. By prioritizing electric trucks and pushing for the retirement of internal combustion engine vehicles, Murphy risks slowing down EV truck sales rather than boosting them.
One major issue with the mandate is that New Jersey's infrastructure isn't yet ready to support the surge in electric truck charging needs. With insufficient charging stations and power distribution networks, fleets that switch to electric vehicles may face logistical challenges that could hinder productivity and increase operational costs. This lack of infrastructure could slow down the adoption of EV trucks, as businesses may hesitate to invest in electric vehicles without a reliable charging network.
Another concern is the cost associated with the transition. Electric trucks are significantly more expensive (Much higher acquisition price but lower TCO total cost of ownership) than their internal combustion counterparts, making it a tough sell for small to medium-sized businesses that depend on these vehicles for their operations. The cost burden of purchasing electric trucks and retrofitting facilities to support charging could lead to fewer electric truck sales, stifling the growth Murphy’s policy seeks to encourage.
Additionally, following California’s regulations doesn't account for the unique needs of New Jersey's economy. The state's truck fleets play a crucial role in interstate commerce, and the limited range of electric trucks poses challenges for long-haul routes. Businesses may see delays in operations and higher costs due to more frequent charging stops and longer Neighboring States, not handcuffed by California’s restrictions could take much of this business from New Jersey which could cause resistance to adopting electric vehicles.
Murphy’s push for electric trucks may also place undue pressure on businesses to retire internal combustion engines (ICEs) before a viable alternative is in place. By pushing for a ratio (this “ratio” seems to be a moving target) of electric trucks to ICE vehicles without addressing the economic or logistical barriers, the mandate could lead to slow adoption and frustrate businesses that rely on reliable and cost-effective transportation.
In conclusion, while the intention to reduce emissions and promote sustainable transportation is commendable, Governor Murphy's electric truck mandate—modeled after California's regulations—could backfire. The lack of charging infrastructure (or programs to address this issue and not a drop in the bucket but actually absorbing the incremental costs for make-ready stations) , high costs, and misalignment with New Jersey's specific needs are likely to result in slower adoption rates and resistance from businesses that are unable to meet the mandate's demands. The policy could unintentionally delay progress in New Jersey's shift toward cleaner transportation.
Comments