Truck dealers tell Vermont committee Advanced Clean Trucks rules are premature, cite costs and charging gaps

Truck dealers, fleet operators and industry representatives told the Vermont House Transportation Committee on March 20, 2025, that the state's adoption of California-style Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) and related low- and zero-emission vehicle rules is moving faster than vehicle and charging technology, increasing costs and risking service disruptions.

The witnesses — including dealers who sell both light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles and operators of local trucking firms — urged lawmakers to pause or delay the rules to allow more time for infrastructure, battery range and vehicle applications to mature. "I believe the mandate is counterproductive," said Mark Alderman, principal owner and dealer operator of Alderman Chevrolet GMC and Alderman's Toyota in Rutland.

The dealers described multiple, interlocking problems that they say will affect customers and state revenue: limited vehicle availability for compliance states, much higher purchase and installation costs for heavy-duty electric tractors and depot chargers, substantially shorter operating ranges for current heavy-duty battery vehicles, and large additional dealer expenses while unsold inventory accumulates.

"The cost of one of these trucks, just one tractor, is $560,000," said Brent Dragon, a dealer with Charley Boys Freightliner Western Star. Dragon told the committee that his dealership is installing three three‑phase chargers at a cost of roughly $600,000 to meet manufacturer requirements. "It's gonna take a lot of infrastructure to get this up and running before these trucks can actually be able to be used," he said.

Matt Preston, a Peterbilt dealer who said his group operates 30 dealerships in 10 states, said dealers are carrying heavy floor‑plan interest because new electric models are not moving. "This year, we're gonna spend upwards of $2,000,000 in floor plan interest on trucks because we had to change our business model and build a lot of trucks at the end of 2024 that we're sitting on," Preston said. He added that the heavier battery packs reduce payload by an estimated 5,000–7,000 pounds, and that charging a heavy truck to 80% can take three to six hours depending on charger power.

Dealers and fleet operators described operational limits for current battery electric heavy trucks: typical long‑haul tractors travel several hundred miles per day on diesel, while several witnesses said current BEV tractors are limited to about 200 miles of range and require multi‑hour charges. David Malloy of Bellavance Trucking told the committee that charging times and limited charge locations do not align with federal hours‑of‑service rules: "If you can only go 200 miles and you gotta stop for a couple hours to charge, the driver's book has already started." Malloy said the company could not absorb the roughly $700,000 incremental cost for just two electric tractors and that freight rates do not support the increase.

Witnesses also described market distortions from compliance rules. Dealers said ACT-type truck rules require vehicles to be registered in the compliance state to count for manufacturer or dealer credits; that incentivizes some buyers to register vehicles out of state or delay purchases. "If you own a propane company or a heating oil company... you can avoid the regulation only by registering the vehicle within a different state," Matt Coda, lobbyist for the Vermont Vehicle and Automotive Distributors Association (VEDA), told the committee.

Industry representatives urged targeted approaches rather than an across‑the‑board mandate. "If you want to really make a quick impact, incentivize people to retire old equipment and replace that with newer, cleaner technology," said one witness. Several dealers recommended focusing electric adoption on specific use cases where it is already practical — for example transit buses, yard trucks and short‑haul municipal vehicles — while postponing mandates for long‑range and heavy‑payload applications.

Multiple witnesses asked the Legislature or agencies to pause enforcement or revisit the rules. Bill Smith, representing the Vermont Truck and Bus Association, told the committee: "Vermont does have the power to delay these rules so that we do not significantly harm this industry in the state. We are asking you to do that." Matt Coda asked the committee to consider taking possession of H65, described in testimony as a bill that would repeal the California‑style EV mandates, or otherwise to press for a legislative review.

Committee members asked detailed questions about technology, charger power and timelines. Witnesses acknowledged rapid technological improvements but said that current heavy‑duty BEV performance, charger availability and costs create gaps that present businesses cannot absorb without help. Several witnesses said manufacturers are offering limited electric models and that dealer credit or deficit rules make it difficult to sell needed diesel vehicles until EV orders are completed.

No formal action or vote took place during the hearing; the committee convened the session as fact‑finding and to hear testimony from sellers and fleet operators about implementation challenges. The witnesses requested further consultation with state officials and, in some cases, a pause in enforcement until infrastructure, vehicle applications and financing options are more developed.

Why this matters: the Advanced Clean Trucks and related low‑ and zero‑emission rules are intended to reduce tailpipe emissions and greenhouse gases. Witnesses said those long‑term goals are important but argued that an immediate, blanket enforcement schedule for heavy‑duty trucks risks higher costs for small businesses, reduced in‑state registrations and gaps in freight service while charging and vehicle capabilities catch up.