Chapter 173-423 WAC, Clean Vehicles Program Rulemaking Formal Comment Period

Submitted By

816 Results

Search Type

Sort:

Sort Results By

Comment From: Rod Sebers

7/02/25 @ 2:54 PM

Please do not adopt the rules you are considering. The people of Washington need relief from the constant tax increases from all parts of government. This includes your rules that will cost us dearly. Let the FREE market work without your interventio...↓

No attachments

Comment From: David Speikers

7/02/25 @ 2:54 PM

Why do you want to keep following a State that has been riddled with poor policies. We already have the highest increase in gas and fuel prices since the election. Now you want to increase the cost of goods and services by increasing transportation c...↓

No attachments

Comment From: SUSAN JORDAN

7/02/25 @ 2:46 PM

Washington state is destroyed thanks to the local and federal elected officials. Looking to move!! You have fleeced the entire population and you'll not be subject to any of your legislation.

No attachments

Comment From: MICHAEL WEST

7/02/25 @ 2:44 PM

We are copying CA. on all things environmental and have shown no improvement in the environment only higher costs. People are leaving CA in droves causing political and budgetary problems for the state. We don't want that to happen to WA although man...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Cagdas Dirik

7/02/25 @ 2:44 PM

This is a gross overreach by WA government. You cannot dictate who will buy which car, who will use which means of transportation. Zero-emission mandates are unconstitutional. Moreover they do not work. There are many economic studies which prove tha...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Greg Boyd

7/02/25 @ 2:44 PM

Why does Washington continue to follow CA failed emission, tax and burdensome laws? Washington state needs to decouple from CA before it's too late. Increased taxes are killing the WA population and will force thousands to flee the state. There is...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Shea Craver

7/02/25 @ 2:43 PM

Stop the insanity. You have been taxing us to death. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. More and more businesses are leaving WA. Why? Your gouging of WA residents is the answer. What happens when they leave? The "deficit" of revenue falls on the rest of us. WE ARE NO...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Michael Gomez

7/02/25 @ 2:41 PM

I oppose and disagree; Washingtonians are already struggling to make ends meet! I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed updates to Chapter 173-423 of the Washington Administrative Code regarding the Clean Vehicles Program.

While I full...↓y support efforts to reduce emissions and protect our environment, I believe the current rulemaking goes too far, too fast—without adequately considering the economic and practical impacts on Washington residents, especially those in rural and low-income communities.

1. Burden on Consumers:
Mandating a transition to zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) imposes significant upfront costs on consumers. Electric vehicles remain significantly more expensive than internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles, and not all Washingtonians can afford or justify such purchases. The rule could limit affordable vehicle options for working families.

2. Infrastructure Challenges:
Our current EV infrastructure—charging stations, grid capacity, and access in remote areas—is not yet sufficient to support widespread ZEV adoption. Forcing this transition prematurely risks stranding consumers without reliable transportation.

3. Technological and Market Readiness:
Mandating a specific technology path (i.e., battery electric vehicles) risks stifling innovation and ignoring other potentially viable emissions-reducing technologies like hybrid vehicles, hydrogen fuel cells, or cleaner synthetic fuels. A technology-neutral approach would better serve long-term environmental goals.

4. Impact on Small Businesses and the Used Vehicle Market:
Small auto dealerships, especially those dealing in used vehicles, will be disproportionately harmed. These businesses often lack the capital and access to inventory needed to comply with rapidly changing regulatory requirements. This will also limit affordable used vehicle options for lower-income buyers.

5. Coordination with Federal Policy:
It would be more effective and less disruptive to align with evolving federal standards and incentives, rather than pushing forward state-specific rules that may create confusion and duplication. Let the market evolve with federal support rather than through top-down mandates.

I respectfully urge the Washington Department of Ecology to reconsider this rulemaking or at least delay implementation until technology, infrastructure, and affordability concerns can be addressed. We all want a cleaner future—but we need a more balanced and inclusive approach to get there.

No attachments

Comment From: SEDGIE GINN

7/02/25 @ 2:18 PM

This is completely wrong! Just like with the trucks & ports lockout BS ... killing small andnlarge businesses, overpricing, and making it just like what these twits left in california.. do NOT duplicate what you just left!!! Dumbasses

No attachments

Comment From: Kaj Pedersen

7/02/25 @ 2:14 PM

A Hidden Regulatory Threat to Our Economy

Washington families are already burdened by some of the highest fuel prices in the country—driven by the Climate Commitment Act and repeated increases in the state gas tax. And now, you want to add another c...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Tom LeClercq

7/02/25 @ 2:07 PM

I am absolutely opposed to this. This doesn't represent common sense and doesn't represent the needs of my friends or family. Please do not support this regulation in it's current form or any other amended form.

No attachments

Comment From: Kristi Snow

7/02/25 @ 2:07 PM

Do something for the people of Washington for once!!!! We already pay too much in this state for literally everything. You are the reason so many people including myself and my family are fleeing from this state. Your Democrat policies have ruined ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: David Gaston

7/02/25 @ 2:02 PM

I oppose chapter 173-424. The consequences outway any unproven benefits.

No attachments

Comment From: mary skouras

7/02/25 @ 2:01 PM

I strongly opposed any law geared towards climate change. All of these laws have made it harder on
families financially and limited industry resulting in less jobs available. For every one carbon
footprint you aim to reduce, China creates 10 more. La...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Russ Rudolph

7/02/25 @ 2:01 PM

Government of government by government and for the government! Heck with people!

No attachments

Comment From: Building Industry Association ... (Ashli Penner)

7/02/25 @ 2:00 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Julie Bourgoin

7/02/25 @ 1:58 PM

Don't be like California! Washingtonians want less taxes and less expensive access to basic family needs without copycat ideas from Cali.

No attachments

Comment From: kenneth Hairston

7/02/25 @ 1:55 PM

The failure of these boards is that the vehicles that you attempt to regulate are used in 80% or more of the state in farm and industrial service. Yet you propose regulations that hurt those services, raise consumer prices, and do little to nothing ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Matthew Holm

7/02/25 @ 1:55 PM

Please do not follow in the foot steps of California and other states. Our state is already in trouble with ridicules regulations that are costing many of the current Washingtonian's, like myself, more money in rising fuel prices, which directly rela...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Sheryl Armstrong

7/02/25 @ 1:54 PM

Washington is out of control. Taxes upon taxes and then hidden taxes. We are not California!! This is enough. I am not in favor of this "Chapter 173-423 WAC, Clean Vehicles Program ."
It's time to stand up to this back breaking money grab.

No attachments

Comment From: Sands McKinley

7/02/25 @ 1:53 PM

Washington should not follow California over the cliff by repeating or outdoing CA's excessive far-left climate policies. The cost of living is already too high for most Washingtonians and prices at the pump are nuts. Stop the insanity and let's go b...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Elisa Gross

7/02/25 @ 1:50 PM

Please do not take on California's example of anything, look at California as an example of what not to do. The more you hike up the prices, especially an essential like fuel/gas, it is a hardship on our economy & working families. Our big cities are...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Ada-Lin Waste Systems Inc. (Marc Torre)

7/02/25 @ 1:43 PM

Ms. Harris,

Thank you for the opportunity to share our concerns about the state's mandatory rapid implementation of heavy-duty clean vehicles.

To be clear, we support the broader goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and are already taking man...↓y steps as a company and industry to make loads more efficient and trips fewer. Our concerns about electric vehicles are with an implementation timeline made unrealistic by the current lack of truck supply, extremely underbuilt infrastructure barely in its infancy, and the cost consumers will have to shoulder to overcome those severely limiting factors.

Solid waste collection vehicles, whether hauling garbage, recycling, or organics, typically carry 10-ton loads. Adding significant battery weight and reducing the overall physical capacity to carry the batteries to power the truck reduces hauling capacity by as much as a quarter by some estimates. That's before factoring in the increased drain on the battery from climate controls for driver comfort and the cargo weight that lessens vehicle range.

We serve 13,000 square miles over six counties with extreme seasonal climate conditions, including two of the state's largest legislative districts by geography. In rural counties, like Adams, Lincoln, and Whitman – where some routes exceed 300 miles across three counties and the distance between driveways is measured in miles instead of feet – size and space matters.

And that's if you can even get a truck and charge one. Current times between order and delivery for electric trucks is years. Once trucks arrive, finding a way to charge them on route is nearly impossible meaning they will have to return to a central hub each time it requires a charge.

Increasing demand on an already burdened electrical grid is also concerning. Unlike other clean fuel alternatives, there is no redundancy to keep our fleet charged and ready to collect waste as an essential public health service should suggested brownouts become a reality to accommodate demand.

Less payload and shorter operating capacity puts more trucks on the road to do the same route. More trucks and more trips erode local roads and household budgets. In economically burdened communities, the cost of road maintenance and affordability of solid waste services are real issues.

We are concerned about the ever-increasing burden on household budget at a time when the recently completed legislative session placed significantly more burden on top of the already rising pressures on consumer goods. The cost of an electric-powered garbage truck is about half again as much as a diesel-powered truck, which will drive up collection rates.

None of the current limiting factors is insurmountable as businesses in our state have proven time and again with some of the biggest technology solutions. They just require time for technology and infrastructure to catch up with affordable solutions.

EVs make sense for many current light-duty uses where charging stations are more accessible, movements are predominantly a short in-town distances, and loads are limited to passenger trips. Implementation for larger format vehicles must take a much more intentional, methodical, and measured approach when public health and safety is at play.

Washington state has been a technology leader on many fronts due to appropriate research, development, and implementation timeline. We are asking that the state once again lead with a sensible, realistic approach to implementing emerging technology.

Sincerely,
Marc Torre
President
Ada-Lin Waste Systems Inc.

No attachments

Comment From: Andy Leitner

7/02/25 @ 1:42 PM

We are NOT California. Stop the madness.
The climate "science" is bought and paid for.
You are hurting working people. Wa State has become so far left politically. Follow Federal standards and laws.

No attachments

Comment From: David DeFord

7/02/25 @ 1:42 PM

You god damned liberals should just go live in California if you think California's ideas are anything other than the total shit that has made California impossible to live in. The CARB is the worst set of rules ever dreamed up by the dumbest libtar...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Torre Refuse & Recycling Spoka... (Marc Torre)

7/02/25 @ 1:41 PM

Ms. Harris,

Thank you for the opportunity to share our concerns about the state's mandatory rapid implementation of heavy-duty clean vehicles.

To be clear, we support the broader goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and are already taking man...↓y steps as a company and industry to make loads more efficient and trips fewer. Our concerns about electric vehicles are with an implementation timeline made unrealistic by the current lack of truck supply, extremely underbuilt infrastructure barely in its infancy, and the cost consumers will have to shoulder to overcome those severely limiting factors.

Solid waste collection vehicles, whether hauling garbage, recycling, or organics, typically carry 10-ton loads. Adding significant battery weight and reducing the overall physical capacity to carry the batteries to power the truck reduces hauling capacity by as much as a quarter by some estimates. That's before factoring in the increased drain on the battery from climate controls for driver comfort and the cargo weight that lessens vehicle range.

We serve 13,000 square miles over six counties with extreme seasonal climate conditions, including two of the state's largest legislative districts by geography. In some areas in rural Spokane County, where two routes exceed 200 miles and make only 20 and 9 stops – making the distance between driveways quite literally measured in tens of miles instead of feet – size and space matters.

And that's if you can even get a truck and charge one. Current times between order and delivery for electric trucks is years. Once trucks arrive, finding a way to charge them on route is nearly impossible meaning they will have to return to a central hub each time it requires a charge.

Increasing demand on an already burdened electrical grid is also concerning. Unlike other clean fuel alternatives, there is no redundancy to keep our fleet charged and ready to collect waste as an essential public health service should suggested brownouts become a reality to accommodate demand.

Less payload and shorter operating capacity puts more trucks on the road to do the same route. More trucks and more trips erode local roads and household budgets. In economically burdened communities, the cost of road maintenance and affordability of solid waste services are real issues.

We are concerned about the ever-increasing burden on household budget at a time when the recently completed legislative session placed significantly more burden on top of the already rising pressures on consumer goods. The cost of an electric-powered garbage truck is about half again as much as a diesel-powered truck, which will drive up collection rates.

None of the current limiting factors is insurmountable as businesses in our state have proven time and again with some of the biggest technology solutions. They just require time for technology and infrastructure to catch up with affordable solutions.

EVs make sense for many current light-duty uses where charging stations are more accessible, movements are predominantly a short in-town distances, and loads are limited to passenger trips. Implementation for larger format vehicles must take a much more intentional, methodical, and measured approach when public health and safety is at play.

Washington state has been a technology leader on many fronts due to appropriate research, development, and implementation timeline. We are asking that the state once again lead with a sensible, realistic approach to implementing emerging technology.

Sincerely,
Marc Torre
President
Torre Refuse & Recycling Spokane County

No attachments

Comment From: Amber Timmerman

7/02/25 @ 1:40 PM

Please separate Washington state from another state's rule making processes. This is fundamentally an issue of state's rights, and Washington citizens deserve to have a representative voice in our own state regulations.

No attachments

Comment From: Torre Refuse & Recycling Steve... (Marc Torre)

7/02/25 @ 1:39 PM

Ms. Harris,

Thank you for the opportunity to share our concerns about the state's mandatory rapid implementation of heavy-duty clean vehicles.

To be clear, we support the broader goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and are already taking man...↓y steps as a company and industry to make loads more efficient and trips fewer. Our concerns about electric vehicles are with an implementation timeline made unrealistic by the current lack of truck supply, extremely underbuilt infrastructure barely in its infancy, and the cost consumers will have to shoulder to overcome those severely limiting factors.

Solid waste collection vehicles, whether hauling garbage, recycling, or organics, typically carry 10-ton loads. Adding significant battery weight and reducing the overall physical capacity to carry the batteries to power the truck reduces hauling capacity by as much as a quarter by some estimates. That's before factoring in the increased drain on the battery from climate controls for driver comfort and the cargo weight that lessens vehicle range.

We serve 13,000 square miles over six counties with extreme seasonal climate conditions, including two of the state's largest legislative districts by geography. In rural counties, like Stevens County – where several daily routes exceed 200 miles over mountainous terrain that draws down the battery much faster than flat areas and the distance between driveways is measured in miles instead of feet – size and space matters.

And that's if you can even get a truck and charge one. Current times between order and delivery for electric trucks is years. Once trucks arrive, finding a way to charge them on route is nearly impossible meaning they will have to return to a central hub each time it requires a charge.

Increasing demand on an already burdened electrical grid is also concerning. Unlike other clean fuel alternatives, there is no redundancy to keep our fleet charged and ready to collect waste as an essential public health service should suggested brownouts become a reality to accommodate demand.

Less payload and shorter operating capacity puts more trucks on the road to do the same route. More trucks and more trips erode local roads and household budgets. In economically burdened communities, the cost of road maintenance and affordability of solid waste services are real issues.

We are concerned about the ever-increasing burden on household budget at a time when the recently completed legislative session placed significantly more burden on top of the already rising pressures on consumer goods. The cost of an electric-powered garbage truck is about half again as much as a diesel-powered truck, which will drive up collection rates.

None of the current limiting factors is insurmountable as businesses in our state have proven time and again with some of the biggest technology solutions. They just require time for technology and infrastructure to catch up with affordable solutions.

EVs make sense for many current light-duty uses where charging stations are more accessible, movements are predominantly a short in-town distances, and loads are limited to passenger trips. Implementation for larger format vehicles must take a much more intentional, methodical, and measured approach when public health and safety is at play.

Washington state has been a technology leader on many fronts due to appropriate research, development, and implementation timeline. We are asking that the state once again lead with a sensible, realistic approach to implementing emerging technology.

Sincerely,
Marc Torre
President
Torre Refuse & Recycling Stevens County

No attachments

Comment From: Marilyn Strange

7/02/25 @ 1:37 PM

Quit tying Washington's trucking emissions standards to California's rules.

No attachments

Comment From: Timothy Parker

7/02/25 @ 1:34 PM

We live Washington, not California. Let California keep their rules& leave ours alone.We don't need to follow theirs & get into the same shape that they are in. California has big budget deficit & we don't need that in our state.

No attachments

Comment From: Les Poole

7/02/25 @ 1:32 PM

Stop with your communist plan to destroy America.

No attachments

Comment From: DAVID MATHEWS

7/02/25 @ 1:29 PM

It is getting harder as time goes on, to survive in Seattle in retirement. Rising property tax, sales tax, gas tax, and the overall rise in cost of goods all contribute to the difficulty in making ends meet. Continuing to link to California is a mist...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Teresa Dechand

7/02/25 @ 1:28 PM

Please do not pass Chapter 173-423 WAC, we don't need another gas or emission tax. Our fuel prices are too high due to the current taxes. The electric trucks don't work in our area. The roads are too steep, the winters too cold. The emission part of ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: April Kendall

7/02/25 @ 1:28 PM

While I appreciate the idea of clean air in Washington, implementing it may not be financially feasible for residents. We are already facing higher gas and food prices. Enforcing stricter regulations on our trucking fleets will lead to further increa...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Jessica Clavadetscher

7/02/25 @ 1:28 PM

I strongly opposed any law geared towards climate change. All of these laws have made it harder on families financially and limited industry resulting in less jobs available. For every one carbon footprint you aim to reduce, China creates 10 more. La...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Michael Brinkley

7/02/25 @ 1:27 PM

Enough already! Please decouple take what California does out of the equation. These standards exceed the norm and are helping to ruin Washington as a stable business and commercial development partner. I have lived here for almost 21 years, moving f...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Kelly Craven

7/02/25 @ 1:26 PM

Please do not do this. We are not California. Governor Newsom just signed a law there, rolling back their unrealistic environmental impact surveys for homebuilding. California has gone too far and now so will Washington. You are hurting the taxpayers...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Arnold Houg

7/02/25 @ 1:24 PM

Please don't follow California emissions rules on trucking industry here. We ( taxpayers) can't handle anymore price increases tied to your rules. Our fuel prices are high already. Your rules are going to hurt us more than help us !!!!

No attachments

Comment From: Herald Fodge

7/02/25 @ 1:23 PM

California's Clean Vehicles program is very restricting and unnecessary. This will greatly increase the cost of doing business in Washington as well as handicapping our trucking industry which is already not able to function up to our needs. The Sta...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Russell F Inman Jr

7/02/25 @ 1:22 PM

Uncouple from more taxes and more rules that confuse me and friends.

No attachments

Comment From: Kristy Wallen

7/02/25 @ 1:21 PM

We do not need more bureaucracy in this state that adds costs to the already high cost of living and creates undue complexity within our state government. We see how inefficient, bloated and expensive living in this state becomes the more you make re...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Daniel Chavre

7/02/25 @ 1:20 PM

You are using 21st century technology to do to the citiziens what the socialist/commies did to them in the last century.

No attachments

Comment From: Viola Rosengren

7/02/25 @ 1:18 PM

We live in beautiful Washington not in California. Please govern us with more attention to the actual science that shows that all the rules and regulations and taxes related to ecology are not really improving our environment. Please consider the p...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Sharon Orvis

7/02/25 @ 1:17 PM

I have become so ashamed of this state. I am 69 years old and continue to work full-time because I have no choice. You are taxing me out of my retirement period. This state has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. They need to get ahold of them...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Greg Trujillo

7/02/25 @ 1:15 PM

At every corner we are expected to absorb every single tax, no matter what it's called, as if we have unlmited resources. Why? The climate change hoax has been exposed for what it really is: decreed theft. Are you trying to run WA into the ground jus...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Cheryl Janke

7/02/25 @ 1:15 PM

Dear legislators,
Please decouple our Washington policies and regulations from California's failing ones. Washington is a beautiful state and it would be horrible to see it go down the road California has fallen into. We implore you to be independen...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Cheryl Ritzman

7/02/25 @ 1:14 PM

Please see my attached comment on Chapter 173-423 WAC, Clean Vehicles Program

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Patrick Mahoney

7/02/25 @ 1:12 PM

I am at my breaking point. One more increase in my tax obligations or increase in costs due to regulations will cost me my ability to stay in my home. I am retired and own what I thought would be my last home. Unfortunately I have been researching ot...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Tom Curran

7/02/25 @ 1:11 PM

Decouple Washington State from California's radical emissions mandates and pursue smarter, homegrown policies that ease cost-of-living challenges Washington families are facing!

No attachments

Comment From: Jeff Sieck

7/02/25 @ 1:10 PM

Washington should decouple from California's radical emissions mandates and pursue smarter, homegrown policies that ease cost-of-living challenges Washington families are facing!

No attachments

Comment From: Richard Cole

7/02/25 @ 1:08 PM

Please stop this madness. Look at the State of the State of California. You are driving Washington in the same direction. Enough of these regulations that are made up..and enough of these insane taxes including property taxes.
This state use to be a ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: John Smistad

7/02/25 @ 1:07 PM

Do you understand that soon, TOO soon, there will be no tax base left here to rape?

No attachments

Comment From: John Gera

7/02/25 @ 1:05 PM

Washington should decouple from California's radical emissions mandates and pursue smarter, homegrown policies that ease cost-of-living challenges Washington families are facing!

No attachments

Comment From: Mark Frey

7/02/25 @ 12:59 PM

Please de-couple Washington's emission policies from California's emission rules going forward. This is not California and Washington residents are experiencing higher costs of gas and transportation /shipping that are rapidly becoming unaffordable....↓

No attachments

Comment From: Dennis Brand

7/02/25 @ 12:54 PM

Please stop this crazy emmisson control you think will make us healthier. It will not make any real and noticeable difference for our population. It is a complete money grab by this administration. Stop the madness and our state will be better off.

No attachments

Comment From: AJ Anonymous

7/02/25 @ 12:48 PM

Washington is not California. Decouple from California's radical emissions policies and pursue smarter homegrown policies that ease cost of living challenges Washington families face. Please stop penalizing Washington families for the bad policies. P...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Northstar Woodworks Inc. (frank chambers)

7/02/25 @ 12:36 PM

We ship almost all of our products and receive almost all of our supplies by trucks. If you adopt the awful California policies, it will definitely impact our bottom line and make it harder for us to do business in this state. In doing so it also m...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Climate Solutions (James Hove)

7/02/25 @ 12:31 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Norman Dick

7/02/25 @ 12:29 PM

We need the strictest possible rules in place for making diesel and gasoline as ecologically
clean as possible. We are greatly harming the planet and ourselves through unchecked carbon
dioxide and other pollutants causing climate change and general...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Bob Droll

7/02/25 @ 12:29 PM

Please don't follow California into the economic abyss. Please don't pass this amendment as it will not result in any measurable benefit but it will certainly add yet another cost increase to the middle class cost of living. Please stop increasing co...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Fritzie Wolfe

7/02/25 @ 12:25 PM

I do not agree with following California guidelines. We are our own state and should be governed by Washingtonians. Our ststes people need to listen to and follow the people, not the elite.

No attachments

Comment From: SYDNEY WISSEL

7/02/25 @ 12:17 PM

Please do not implement more policies that raise the cost of living in our state. So many of us are struggling to "make ends meet" due to so many expensive policies.

No attachments

Comment From: Andrew Eades Ornamental Iron (Andrew Eades)

7/02/25 @ 12:12 PM

Please uncouple us from the disastrous eco policies of California . The democrats have wrecked California as a place for families and businesses to thrive and are doing the same in the state of Washington.We do not want the gas tax
and the stringent ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: donald martin

7/02/25 @ 12:05 PM

Decouple from California climate standards. Make WA State more affordable

No attachments

Comment From: Washington Public Utility Dist... (Nicolas Garcia)

7/02/25 @ 11:18 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Combined Carriers Co. dba Mach... (susan whealdon)

7/02/25 @ 10:44 AM

I am for being good stewards of our environment, however, I am also a proponent for efficient and proper planning. This planning to get us to zero emissions has been poor and improper for medium to heavy duty use from the very beginning. It is impo...↓ssible to reach a goal such as what California has been laying upon us for the last 2-3 decades without having the industry it effects the most to have a say at the table. The trucks that rolled out with the DEF system are still to this day costly to this industry by at least 3 times in purchase and after market care. They do not last as long and are not as reliable as the generation of engines(combustion) before that. Now, we and the manufacturers of heavy duty trucks have been and will likely be at the mercy of whatever CA ARB, CARB and bureaucrats decide will get us to zero emissions without any common sense or planning to get us there. Programs are worked out to give government grants and incentives for companies and people to use for such equipment and of course they take it to mostly find out for the long term or for their immediate needs it does not work......but these states and the people leading the charge can say that they have many companies already applying zero emissions, but failing to show the other side of the coin that this system does not yet fully meet their needs.
Until we have the infrastructure to support this type of broad changing system it will continue to fail and fall short of it's intended plan. Why in the world would the makers of medium and heavy duty trucks in WA be held to holding off on making diesel engine trucks until a certain number of ZEVs are manufactured and purchased....this a complete grid lock to the making of trucks and the people who have to purchase in the same manner.
We must have a plan and infrastructure for this to ever be successful! So, far truck stops or rest areas would be the place for OTR drivers to charge these ZEVs and to the best of my knowledge they don't have charging stations for heavy or medium duty vehicles at any of these facilities. Too costly and takes entirely too much energy to charge. Get a plan for that and get it place then work on the trucks being zero emissions. The gap is too wide to be sustainable.

No attachments

Comment From: Aaron Reed

7/02/25 @ 10:04 AM

Fuck all of you your regulations are bullshit and don't do a fucking thing but line your pockets all of you who support this are guilty of treason and should be tried as such and with the help of President Trump that will happen and I for one will be...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Big Truck Enterprises LLC (Russell Hergert)

7/02/25 @ 9:58 AM

These rules have directly affected me and my operations. As an owner operator/small fleet owner since 1983, I have had to make financial decisions based on what the clean trucks program has dictated. I was willing to be an early adopter of EV technol...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Pam Fisher

7/02/25 @ 9:10 AM

Please don't burden diesel trucks any more than they already are. And when has adopting a CA green energy/any other policy or law been a good thing?

No attachments

Comment From: Chris Ray

7/02/25 @ 8:00 AM

How completely out of touch does one have to be to see that every single policy coming out of WA is a burden on every single one of us who is not a top earner in this state?

Eliminating diesel trucks isn't going to solve one single thing. Why don't...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Brian Greenhalgh

7/02/25 @ 6:56 AM

Please stop with this complete waste of time and resources. There is no realistic replacement to diesel trucks currently. I live in Tacoma near the Port and see how devastating this move to eliminate diesel trucks will be for our economy. This is cle...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Anonymous Anonymous

7/02/25 @ 1:46 AM

How about you government cubicle monsters quit destroying our economy and businesses with your clean scam grift.

How about going after those road tax exempt school buses puking so much black smoke that we gag at intersections waiting behind them. ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Suzanne Phillips

7/02/25 @ 12:27 AM

No. This "clean truck" proposal is unnecessary. And it will require shippers to replace their normal diesel trucks with heavier, more expensive trucks which will raise the price of every product shipped within WA to merchants and consequently raise t...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Pablo R

7/01/25 @ 11:45 PM

Subject: Comment on Proposed Amendments to Chapter 173-423 WAC, Clean Vehicles Program

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed amendments to Chapter 173-423 WAC, which would require manufacturers to increa...↓se the percentage of new zero-emission trucks sold in Washington State.

While I strongly support efforts to improve air quality and address climate change, I urge the Department to reconsider the mandate for more zero-emission trucks, as the overall environmental benefits may not be as significant as intended. There are several critical factors that should be carefully considered:

1. Life-Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The production of batteries for electric trucks is highly carbon-intensive, often generating more greenhouse gases than the manufacturing of conventional diesel trucks. Research indicates that battery manufacturing can account for up to 60% of the total embedded emissions in an electric vehicle. When the full life cycle is considered—including mining, manufacturing, and eventual disposal—the net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is far less than commonly assumed.

2. Electricity Generation Mix
The environmental impact of zero-emission vehicles depends heavily on the source of electricity used for charging. In Washington and across the U.S., a significant portion of electricity is still generated from fossil fuels such as natural gas. Charging electric trucks with fossil-fuel-based electricity undermines the intended climate benefits and can, in some cases, result in higher emissions than modern, efficient diesel engines.

3. Infrastructure and Practicality
The rapid transition to zero-emission trucks presents significant challenges, including high upfront costs, limited range, and a lack of charging infrastructure. These obstacles may inadvertently extend the use of older, higher-emitting vehicles, as operators struggle to comply with the new requirements.

4. Alternative Solutions
There are alternative fuels—such as renewable diesel and biomethane—that can offer immediate and substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions without the need for new infrastructure or technology. A technology-neutral approach that encourages the adoption of all low-carbon solutions would be more effective and practical in achieving Washington's climate goals.

In summary, while the intention behind these amendments is commendable, I believe that mandating more zero-emission trucks may not deliver the desired environmental outcomes, especially when considering the full life cycle of the vehicles and the current state of our energy grid. I urge the Department to consider a more balanced, flexible approach that recognizes the complexities of vehicle emissions and supports a wider range of clean technologies.

Thank you for considering my perspective.
Sincerely,
Pablo

No attachments

Comment From: Elis Taylor

7/01/25 @ 11:13 PM

Banning the sale of diesel vehicles in Washington state, while often proposed with environmental goals in mind, overlooks several critical factors that make such a policy impractical and potentially counterproductive. Below is a reasoned argument aga...↓inst this ban, focusing on economic, practical, and environmental considerations.

1. **Economic Impacts on Key Industries**
Washington's economy heavily relies on industries like agriculture, logging, and maritime transport, which depend on diesel-powered vehicles and equipment. Diesel trucks, tractors, and heavy machinery are essential for farmers in regions like the Yakima Valley and for the state's significant timber industry. A ban on diesel vehicle sales would disrupt these sectors by limiting access to reliable, high-torque vehicles that alternatives like electric or hybrid models currently cannot match in performance or cost-effectiveness. For example, electric heavy-duty trucks often have higher upfront costs and limited range, which is impractical for long-haul transport or rural operations where charging infrastructure is sparse. This could raise costs for businesses, increase consumer prices, and threaten jobs in these industries.

2. **Infrastructure Limitations**
Washington's charging infrastructure is not yet equipped to support a rapid transition away from diesel vehicles. As of 2025, while urban areas like Seattle and Tacoma have seen some expansion in electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, rural areas—where diesel vehicles are most critical—lack sufficient coverage. For instance, a 2024 report from the Washington State Department of Transportation noted that only about 1,200 public EV charging stations exist statewide, with significant gaps in eastern Washington. Forcing a shift to electric alternatives without adequate infrastructure would leave farmers, truckers, and rural residents stranded, undermining the feasibility of a diesel ban.

3. **Environmental Trade-offs**
While diesel vehicles emit higher levels of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter than gasoline or electric vehicles, modern diesel engines have made significant strides in reducing emissions. Technologies like selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and diesel particulate filters (DPFs) have cut NOx emissions by up to 90% and particulates by 95% compared to older models, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Banning diesel vehicle sales could push consumers toward gasoline vehicles, which, while cleaner in some respects, have their own environmental drawbacks, including higher CO2 emissions per gallon of fuel. Additionally, the production of electric vehicle batteries involves significant environmental costs, including mining for lithium and cobalt, which can offset the emissions savings over a vehicle's lifecycle, especially in a state with relatively clean electricity like Washington's hydropower-heavy grid.

4. **Consumer Choice and Affordability**
A diesel vehicle ban would restrict consumer choice, particularly for those who rely on diesel's fuel efficiency and durability for work or lifestyle needs. Diesel vehicles often have better fuel economy than gasoline counterparts, saving money over time for high-mileage drivers like truckers or rural residents. Forcing these consumers into electric or gasoline alternatives could impose financial burdens, as EVs remain more expensive upfront (with average prices for electric trucks exceeding $70,000 compared to $50,000 for diesel equivalents, based on 2024 market data). Subsidies and incentives may not fully bridge this gap, especially for small businesses or lower-income households.

5. **Alternative Solutions Are More Effective**
Rather than a blanket ban, targeted policies could achieve environmental goals without the economic and practical downsides. Incentives for retrofitting older diesel vehicles with cleaner technologies, expanding EV charging infrastructure, and promoting hybrid or renewable diesel fuels (which can reduce emissions by up to 50% compared to traditional diesel, per the U.S. Department of Energy) would balance environmental progress with economic realities. Washington's existing Clean Fuel Standard already encourages low-carbon fuel adoption, and doubling down on such measures would be less disruptive than an outright ban.

In conclusion, banning diesel vehicle sales in Washington state ignores the state's economic reliance on diesel-powered industries, the limitations of current EV infrastructure, and the environmental trade-offs of alternative fuels. A more balanced approach—leveraging cleaner diesel technologies, expanding infrastructure, and incentivizing low-carbon fuels—would better serve the state's environmental goals while preserving economic stability and consumer choice.

No attachments

Comment From: Jamie Keiser

7/01/25 @ 11:10 PM

I am highly opposed to the proposed amendments regarding this Clean Vehicles Program. Diesel trucks are needed in our community and zero emission medium and heavy duty trucks are not the solution to climate change/clean air. I own a diesel truck an...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Whitney Raab

7/01/25 @ 10:51 PM

Diesel engines are cleaner than ever. Meanwhile the components to batteries and the technology causes far more pollution. Quit the virtue signaling and creating unaffordable cost of living in Washington. You are hurting everyone, especially the less ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Derek Benedict

7/01/25 @ 10:13 PM

Dear Ms. Nikki Harris,

Most people want to dial-down & eradicate toxic pollution in our state, and I THANK YOU for the opportunity to comment in support of the updates to the Clean Truck Rules!

State leadership on clean transportation has never be...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Anonymous Anonymous

7/01/25 @ 9:42 PM

This is more unnecessary government overreach. Let the free market and the people decide for themselves what products they want to buy. This will only drive up the costs of shipping goods unnecessarily. It will be another boondoggle that ends up co...↓

No attachments

Comment From: SignMasters (Myrna Rak Rak)

7/01/25 @ 9:33 PM

Not interested in banning gasoline vehicles, trucks that deliver goods.

No attachments

Comment From: Kenneth Zirinsky

7/01/25 @ 8:41 PM

Dear Officials of the Washington State Department of Ecology,

I am writing in strong support of the proposed amendments to Washington's Clean Vehicles Program Rules (Chapter 173-423 WAC), which incorporate recent updates to the Advanced Clean Trucks...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Jonathan Haynie

7/01/25 @ 8:10 PM

Stop making this state so damn expensive to live in

No attachments

Comment From: Tim Walters

7/01/25 @ 7:53 PM

Get government out of our lives! You are taking all of the joy out of living in WA. How do you possible think this is a good idea? The cost of living in this state is already out of control and you want to exacerbate it with this? Have some COMMO...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Michael Spring

7/01/25 @ 7:39 PM

ENOUGH! The planet is approaching a glacial minimum. You can't tax and ban your way out of it. Quit trying to turn our state into California.

No attachments

Comment From: Tina Vidrine

7/01/25 @ 7:30 PM

With the largest tax bill getting passed in Washington making semi trucks EV is ridiculous. Furthermore no company is gonna buy them they cost too much. It is only the west Coast requiring it. This will make products more expensive in this State. Peo...↓

No attachments

Comment From: George Prudden

7/01/25 @ 7:07 PM

The technology for zero-emission large vehicle engines is not ready. Not only does the technology not exist, but charging facilities with a realistic turnaround time don't exist.
Please do not pass a regulation requiring the use of non-existent tech...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Marion Hughes

7/01/25 @ 6:03 PM

I totally oppose the effective removal of internal combustion engine trucks. Electric powered trucks are not an option during the proposed phase because they are too expensive, heavy, and unreliable. The fire danger alone of the huge amount of batter...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Dan Adams

7/01/25 @ 5:56 PM

It is beyond asinine that Ecology is considering this change. Diesel trucks are vital to delivering everything that modern society requires, especially highly perishable fruits and vegetables picked out of state. There is no practical vehicle other...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Shawn Anderson

7/01/25 @ 5:52 PM

Are you crazy?? This is criminal overreach once again from WA ST government! Do you have ANY idea how this will affect regular people? STOP with this madness!

No attachments

Comment From: Ian Hathaway

7/01/25 @ 5:40 PM

No.

No attachments

Comment From: Daniel Hodun

7/01/25 @ 5:26 PM

What the heck are you guys smoking down there? Just another added cost for what benefit? To signal to activists that we are doing something that is going to hit everyone's pocket book? Why not ban diesel buses while we are at it!

Newer diesels are ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: James Iuliano

7/01/25 @ 5:15 PM

The entire regulation is bullshit. The whole notion of "human-caused climate change" is communist bullshit and anyone who doesn't have their head up their ass knows it. CARB is being shut down by the federal government. "Easing regulations" is a n...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Cowlitz Cnty Public Utility Di... (Steve Taylor)

7/01/25 @ 5:02 PM

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule changes to WAC 173-423, Clean Vehicles Program. Public Utility District No. 1 of Cowlitz County (Cowlitz PUD) provides clean, affordable and reliable electricity to approximately 54,000 r...↓esidential, commercial and industrial customers across Cowlitz County. The Advanced Clean Trucks and Heavy-Duty Low NOx regulations have a direct impact on Cowlitz PUD's ability to maintain reliable service throughout the year, across rugged topography, and during typical severe weather events experienced in the Pacific Northwest. The current rule, along with the proposed amendments, will increase the cost and difficulty of procuring the essential vehicles and field equipment that is necessary to maintain a safe and reliable electric grid. It is not clear whether safe, viable, and commercially-available zero-emission utility line vehicle alternatives exist at this time that could achieve compliance with the standard that is being implemented. Alternative administrative methods to achieve compliance will serve to restrict the supply of essential utility vehicles and equipment and drive up the price of the remaining available supply.

Recent federal actions taken by Congress and the Trump Administration rescinded the EPA's Clean Air Act waivers that supported California's ACT rule, upon which Washington's rule is founded. Out of a concern for caution, Cowlitz PUD urges the Department to refrain from further action on this rulemaking until the future of California Air Resources Board's rules are determined by federal courts, or the Washington State Legislature amends the statute to ensure WA State's Clean Vehicles Program is in compliance with federal law.

Notwithstanding the previous request, any future program rule should provide an exemption that allows for the exclusion of utility vehicle types that engage in the emergency repair of transmission lines and/or in the restoration of electricity service following power outages. The U.S. Department of Energy's "Guidance on Emergency Repair and Restoration Vehicle Exclusions" (attached) is an appropriate reference for the inclusion of a similar provision within the Clean Vehicle Program rule.

Thank you for your consideration.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Rand Riness

7/01/25 @ 4:51 PM

These rules make no sense and will not improve the environment. Batteries are not sufficient for energy storage for trucks and the electrical grid is not positioned to support higher demand. "Green" energy sources are intermittent at best and fail to...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Arne C.

7/01/25 @ 4:50 PM

It's the California Air Resources Board, not the Washington Air Resources Board. It's extremely anti-democratic and contemptuous of state voters to import another state's regulatory regime.

No attachments

Comment From: Daniel Renfrow

7/01/25 @ 4:50 PM

This will have terrible unintended consequences of raising transport prices which will further burden WA residents with higher prices and reduce competition. I also would like to know how air quality is objectively measured and show that this will ha...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Heidi Redfield

7/01/25 @ 4:46 PM

I am opposed to these amendments. This will not create anything but hardships for the people who live and work in Washington. It will not clean the air. It will not clean the rivers. It will not clean the land. It WILL cause EVERYTHING to be more exp...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Charlotte Turpin

7/01/25 @ 4:35 PM

This is not ok! Stop useless fee, taxes and obvious overreach. We do not want this nor did we vote for this.

No attachments

Comment From: Linnea Comstock

7/01/25 @ 4:32 PM

Do not require elimination of diesel fueled trucks. If you do ban diesel, you are contributing to high cost of living that we are already dealing with in Washington State.

No attachments

Comment From: Jeff Pack

7/01/25 @ 4:23 PM

you folks push for these stupid laws, yet actually achieve nothing but higher prices and inflation

No attachments

[ Previous Page / Next Page ]