Senator urges delay of heavy‑duty zero‑emission truck rules, lawmakers and industry press for infrastructure pause

Senator Mike Moore told the Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight that his bill, S.2185, seeks to delay the implementation of the heavy‑duty omnibus and Advanced Clean Truck (ACT) rule until July 1, 2027, to allow Massachusetts time to build charging and grid infrastructure and to avoid what he called “adverse impacts” on dealers, municipalities and businesses. “Senate 21 85 would delay the implementation of the heavy duty omnibus and advanced clean truck act until 07/01/2027,” Moore said in his testimony.

Moore said the bill also would require that Commonwealth purchases and leases become electric for medium‑ and heavy‑duty vehicles beginning July 1, 2025, to help lead by example while giving fleets more time to adapt. He argued the state must balance emissions goals with the realities of vehicle availability, charging infrastructure, grid capacity and cost: “Electric medium heavy duty vehicles ... are 2 to 3 times more expensive than their clean diesel or other clean technology counterparts,” Moore told the committee.

The nut graf: supporters of slowing the ACT and related rules told the committee they fear an immediate enforcement timeline would strain public‑ and private‑sector fleets and could slow adoption of zero‑emission trucks if vehicles, chargers, and grid upgrades are not in place.

Industry representatives said current truck and infrastructure supply gaps justify the delay. Paul Kounoski, executive vice president and general counsel for the Massachusetts State Law and Building Association representing franchise dealers, testified that dealers are willing to work toward emissions reductions but need time to plan for charging, training and vehicle availability. Kevin Weeks of the Transportation Association of Massachusetts, which represents trucking firms, said electrification technology and infrastructure “simply will not work” at scale today for many heavy‑duty uses and supported HB 3406 and SB 2185 as a pragmatic step.

Advocates for emissions reductions and electrification did not testify at length in opposition at this hearing, but Moore acknowledged broad support for the long‑term goal of zero emissions and said the delay is intended to protect near‑term access to needed vehicles while the market and the grid mature. He called the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection’s decision to delay aspects of the rules for model years 2025 and 2026 “a recognition of the difficulty” faced by fleet owners.

Key details from testimony: Moore and witnesses cited limited vehicle model availability for certain vocational and heavy‑duty trucks, cost differentials (testimony referenced trucks costing roughly two to three times as much as diesel counterparts), grid capacity concerns, and the Commonwealth’s rebate program for medium‑ and heavy‑duty electric vehicles. Industry witnesses emphasized operational examples — snowplows, certain utility vehicles and other duty‑specific trucks — where electric options are not yet practical, and raised questions about charging resilience during outages.

No formal vote or committee direction was recorded during the hearing on S.2185 or the related House bills; sponsors asked for favorable committee reports. Committee members asked clarifying questions about cost, grid readiness and how a phased approach would affect municipal and state purchasing.

Ending: The committee heard detailed testimony supporting a temporary, targeted delay in heavy‑duty rules, balanced against continued state purchases of electric vehicles in some categories. Sponsors asked the committee to report bills favorably so further drafting and negotiation can proceed; no formal action was taken at the hearing.