Lawmakers, dealers and automakers urge pause or review of ZEV sales mandates

Representative Merrady spoke to the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy in favor of House Bill 3,535, asking lawmakers to delay or review Massachusetts' ZEV sales mandates. "The gradual transition to 0 emission vehicles or ZEVs is a noble ... but the reality is that a mandate of 35% for model year '26 and moving to 100% by model year '35 is simply not realistic here in the Commonwealth," Merrady testified.

The testimony reflected several recurring concerns: low current ZEV market share in the Commonwealth (witnesses said roughly 8% of new sales are ZEV today), insufficient public and depot charging, and limited availability and reliability for medium- and heavy‑duty vehicles. Bob Ogasky, representing dealers, said the dealer community supports electrification but needs flexibility: "Our dealers are very committed to getting to electrification in this industry. We have spent millions of dollars, on infrastructure at our dealerships... Unfortunately, car, there is no flexibilities right now." Wayne Weichel of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation told the committee the current sales mandate timeline forces automakers into difficult choices and could reduce consumer choice: "To comply with these mandates, automakers are left with a series of bad options. They can sell more EVs... or they can reduce the number of gas vehicles delivered to the state... or they can go buy credits from Tesla or other EV only manufacturers."

Municipal utilities and public service providers raised related concerns for heavy‑duty vehicles and emergency response fleets. Jim Lyden, senior legislative and regulatory coordinator for the Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company, said recent federal and state rule delays and exemptions (he cited MassDEP's one‑year delay for some heavy duty rules and exemptions for municipal snowplows and sweepers) reflect limits in vehicle readiness and charging for critical services. He said fully replacing work trucks without reliable charging could delay storm response and increase public‑safety risk.

Proponents of a pause framed their ask as a request for "prudence and transparency"—time for additional data, supply‑chain adjustments and infrastructure investment—rather than opposition to electrification. Opponents who testified elsewhere in the hearing supported continued timelines while urging state support for infrastructure and incentives. No formal policy decision was taken at the hearing; the committee closed the session by voice vote.

What the committee heard was a mix of requests for temporary relief from the current ACC2/advanced clean trucks enforcement schedule, practical descriptions of market and infrastructure gaps, and calls for a data‑driven review before stricter milestones take effect.