Comment Log Display

To Whom it May Concern:

The County of Nevada shares climate resiliency goals with the
California Air Resources Board (CARB) and other State partners. The
County appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the ACF
draft regulatory language (March 23rd iteration) for public fleets
as proposed by CARB staff. 

We are concerned that the regulation will not be fully funded, may
negatively impact our already limited road maintenance funding, and
does not include sufficient environmental exemptions for
construction, funding and public utility mandates for zero emission
vehicle (ZEV)/ zero emission bus (ZEB) infrastructure.  

While the latest iteration of the ACF regulation reflects some of
the exemptions and extensions that have been requested, we remain
concerned with the following issues and respectfully request
further amendments.

Timelines and Public Funding. The proposed regulations continue to
impose aggressive timelines for public fleets to comply and do not
consider existing local agency budget constraints and funding
methods for capital projects.  

Many local governments budget every two years, and many have a
five-year capital budget cycle that cannot be easily repurposed at
the scale this proposed regulation would require. Mandating
compliance to start January 1, 2024, or even January 1, 2027 for
rural agencies such as ours, for a proposed regulation that would
require significant and immediate investment and allocation from
local agency budgets for the preconstruction, site preparation, and
coordination with energy providers is simply unattainable.

For example, Nevada County, as a rural small community and in
partnership with the Nevada County Transportation Commission, is
currently in the process of hiring a consultant to develop an
alternative fuel plan. This means that we are still in the planning
stage for electrifying our fleet and will likely not be ready by
2027 to purchase ZEV's for many of our departments. In talking to
our rural community partners, we are ahead of most on this front. 


In addition, we are in year three of working through design, PG&E
coordination, environmental and CEQA to put in charging stations
for ZEBs that have been ordered but are two years out from being
received.  The supply chain is not prepared for the proposed
regulations either.  

And yet another example, there are no electric road equipment
suppliers that have products to meet our basic minimum needs (e.g.,
grading, snow plowing, etc.).  Even if we ordered a traditional
grader, the supply chain is at least a year out.

Electrifying service yards to support an electrified fleet is a
much greater undertaking than a simple electricity panel upgrade or
some quick trenching in the parking lot. Upgrading infrastructure,
purchasing vehicles, training workforce, and complying with
mandated reports is not something local agencies can easily comply
with. Inflation and other cost increases have already stretched
budgets to their limits.  

The proposed regulation also ignores existing market realities and
the time needed to develop and ramp up an infrastructural system
that can support an electrified fleet of essential vehicles. If
required to comply with the proposed regulation as drafted, the
projected infrastructure and fleet costs will add substantial rate
increases across multiple public works and utility service
departments. There is no current funding for these increased costs.
It will take at least a year to put together a funding plan and
then could take another year or more to place new taxes on the
ballot or hold Proposition 218 protest proceedings. If voters
reject such tax and fee increases, local agencies will be left with
no resources to afford the immediate up-front costs necessary to
comply with the regulation.

While savings may eventually manifest from retiring or repurposing
assets oriented to internal combustion engines (ICE), they will
have no effect on the upfront capital expenses. For these reasons,
we believe that local governments need an extension of at least
four years from regulation adoption and we encourage the State of
California to develop a substantial grant program to support local
governments in complying without imposing an undue burden upon
their ratepayers and taxpayers already struggling to make ends meet
at this time of high inflation.  

Exemptions.  Local agency vehicles essential to the health and
safety of residents should be fully exempt from the regulation.
While some of these vehicles are captured under the current
emergency vehicle exemption, it should be expanded.

In addition to emergency vehicles currently defined in the
California Vehicle Code, the following local agency vehicles must
be operable 24 hours per day, 365 days per week. Any interruption
in their regular use could jeopardize the health and safety of the
communities they serve. Given the most likely current or future ZEV
options will depend upon a consistently accessible source of
electricity, the risk of disruption whether due to an earthquake,
public safety power shutoff, rolling brownout, wildfire, flood, or
other natural disaster is too great to risk the operability of
these vehicles and health and safety of Californians:

•	Valve trucks, welding trucks, and other vehicles essential to the
repair and maintenance of water, wastewater, and other utilities.
These are particularly critical during and following the very
events that could interrupt the ability of ZEVs to operate.
•	Vehicles used by open space, regional park, and other agencies to
spot wildfires, mitigate wildfires, rescue lost or injured hikers,
and prevent poaching of animals.
•	Vehicles used by mosquito abatement and vector control agencies
to prevent and disrupt the proliferation and uncontrolled spread of
dangerous known and unknown vectors.
•	Vehicles used for grading of gravel and dirt roads. Thirty-nine
percent of County-maintained roads in Nevada County are dirt or
gravel, so grading equipment should be exempt from the requirements
for this essential service.

In addition, we are requesting a Small Agency/Department automatic
exemption based on fiscal hardship. We also request you expand the
existing delayed implementation for small vehicle fleets in
non-designated (non-low population) counties to include agencies
that purchase fewer than two vehicles in a calendar year. 

Otherwise, the current "rounding-up" rule would apply the
regulation to 100% of vehicles purchased by agencies purchasing
just one vehicle in the initial three-year implementation period
even though that period is intended to only require 50% of vehicles
comply. Agencies purchasing just one vehicle in a calendar year are
the smallest agencies in the state that are the least able to
comply with the reporting mandates and costs associated with the
regulation. Moreover, in purchasing just one vehicle, an agency has
no means to mitigate the added cost of ZEV additions as an agency
purchasing multiple vehicles can by strategically purchasing 50%
ICE vehicles for the vehicle models that may be least affordable as
ZEVs.

Price Caps. We request that CARB impose price caps to ensure the
market positively responds with vehicles at competitive rates.
Local governments strive to be good stewards of the taxpayer's
dollars, but without price caps, complying with the proposed
regulations may force a purchase of ZEVs that are put to market at
an artificially inflated rate. With the inclusion of a percentage
price cap, manufacturers will be unable to potentially manipulate
the market with unwarranted unit costs.

Inventories. We request CARB provide a list of available
manufacturers that have market-ready vehicles in the medium- to
heavy-duty class sizes, 2B- 8. Availability of model/body types of
multiple weight classes (and functions) are not confirmed by fleets
but, rather, by manufacturers informing CARB that models will be
available.   

Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to provide written
responses to the proposed ACF Regulations.  
 
Sincerely,
 
Ed Scofield, Chair 
Board of Supervisors