When Oregon’s Environmental Quality Commission approved the Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) rule in 2021, many people celebrated the move as an important step toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving air quality. 

Emissions from diesel trucks make up a significant chunk of national and statewide greenhouse gas emissions, and exposure to diesel particulate matter is known to increase the risk of significant health problems, including heart attack and cancer. Oregon’s ACT regulations aim to increase the number of zero-emission trucks on the road by requiring a percentage of new, heavy-duty trucks to be electric, hopefully reducing diesel pollution.

Now, a bill in the Oregon Legislature threatens to delay the ACT rule’s implementation, encouraged by truck manufacturers who say they’re unprepared to meet the regulatory requirements. If passed, the bill to delay the rule could have serious consequences for the effort to reduce carbon emissions from the trucking industry—not just in Oregon, but across the United States. 

The ACT rule, which went into effect January 1, requires manufacturers of medium and heavy-duty vehicles (anything that weighs more than 8,500 pounds) to sell a certain number of zero-emission vehicles every year. Zero-emission trucks are usually powered by an electric battery, but hydrogen-powered electric vehicles are emerging in the market, too. 

The number of zero-emission vehicles manufacturers are required to sell varies by truck type and increases annually, but the rule doesn’t ban gas or diesel-powered trucks entirely. This year, the rule requires manufacturers to ensure between 7 to 11 percent of their vehicle sales are zero-emission, depending on the class of vehicle. 

The rule only applies to businesses and manufacturers selling new trucks. In other words, vehicle owners and fleets aren’t required to purchase any electric trucks, though manufacturers say they can’t meet the requirement without willing buyers. 

The same rule, first adopted in California in 2021, has been approved in 11 states, with the goal that consistency between states would encourage friendlier market conditions and simplicity for manufacturers. But when the time arrived to make the required changes, truck manufacturers pushed back. Before long, people who work in other areas of the trucking industry were also calling for a delay. 

In Oregon, this pushback has manifested in House Bill 3119, introduced by Republican Representatives Shelly Boshart Davis of Linn County and Ed Diehl, who represents portions of Linn and Marion counties. Boshart’s family owns a trucking business.

The bill, which would prohibit the DEQ from implementing and enforcing the ACT regulations until 2027, has found support from a bipartisan group of legislators. Its cosponsors include Republicans Christine Drazan, Mark Owens, and E. Werner Reschke, and Democrats Ken Helm, Emerson Levy, and John Lively. 

The bill has also found support from hundreds of Oregonians, who submitted testimony to the Legislature urging the delay. But advocates for the ACT rule say many opponents are misinformed about the regulation and its impacts. They point directly to truck manufacturers as the origins of that misinformation, and say it could have serious repercussions, especially as the federal government rolls back climate and clean air protections. 

Brett Morgan, transportation policy director at Climate Solutions, told the Mercury the urgency of the climate crisis—especially with President Trump back in office—means Oregon “doesn’t have the luxury of time to go backward.”

“This late in the game, climate delay is climate denial,” Morgan said. “Ensuring the ACT program keeps us moving forward on reducing climate and diesel pollution will improve the lives of all Oregonians.” 

The ACT rule and its opponents 

Boshart Davis said she has been concerned about the ACT rule for several months. She first called on the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission to delay the rule in November, saying there has been a “lack of technological advancements and infrastructure necessary to support the transition” to electric trucks. 

“Without a delay of the ACT, Oregon-located dealerships, trucking companies and small businesses will face significant losses,” Boshart Davis wrote in a letter to the commission. 

Boshart Davis co-owns the Tangent-based trucking company her father founded in the early 1980s, and has drawn on her personal experience to push back on the rule. At a hearing for HB 3119 on January 30, she said diesel trucks are much cleaner now than they were when her father began working in the industry 40 years ago. 

Despite advances in diesel engine technology, however, data show Oregon cities are still inundated with toxic pollution from diesel exhaust and fine particulate matter. Heavy-duty vehicles also contribute a disproportionately high amount of greenhouse gas emissions, including black carbon, which contributes more rapidly to global warming. 

At the January 30 legislative hearing, Boshart Davis said truck drivers are limited by a lack of charging stations equipped for their vehicles and the amount of time it takes to fully charge an electric truck. She also said these kinds of trucks are too expensive for mass rollout. 

“We have a chance to delay rules that require Oregon businesses to sell products that don't exist without support and that people don't want,” Boshart Davis said. “If they did, these mandates wouldn't be needed.” 

DEQ officials and environmental advocates acknowledge Oregon’s public charging infrastructure has limits. The state only has one public, large-scale charging facility for medium and heavy-duty vehicles, located on Swan Island in Portland. But they maintain the program is feasible and crucial for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

Morgan pointed out many truck owners don’t need public charging stations. He said the majority of compliant vehicles in the next few years will be lighter-duty vans and trucks, which can be recharged overnight using standard electric vehicle infrastructure. 

According to DEQ data, many truck manufacturers have already begun selling a significant number of zero-emission vehicles in Oregon, mostly in the non-tractor truck categories. 

Oregon DEQ Transportation Strategy Section Manager Rachel Sakata said the number of vehicles sold shows that the industry is “zero-emission vehicle ready.”  Still, she added, “manufacturers have a number of different pathways to comply with the rules.” 

At the January 30 hearing, Sakata and DEQ Director Leah Feldon outlined how the state is helping manufacturers with the transition.

Sakata pointed out the three-year “grace period” manufacturers have to make up shortfalls in any year. The Oregon Environmental Quality Commission increased the deficit makeup period to three years in November, when the department made other adjustments to the ACT rule to “provide additional compliance flexibilities” for manufacturers. 

In November, the commission also agreed to delay the Low NOx Omnibus rule, which requires new gas and diesel-powered truck engines to meet stricter standards for pollutants. That rule will now be effective starting in 2026.  

Proponents of HB 3119 have said that while there may be a market for medium-duty electric trucks, some classes of trucks come with their own challenges. Feldon said she understands class seven and eight tractors, which include garbage, dump, and cement trucks, will be “the most challenging to transition.” 

Oregon can’t change its regulations for this class of trucks alone, as the Clean Air Act requires each state to align exactly with California’s standards. But Feldon said DEQ officials “can and will use our voice to pursue strategies to address the challenges facing this particular sector.” 

Morgan said class seven and eight tractor trailers only make up a small amount—about 10 percent—of total truck sales in Oregon. 

“Those pushing for a delay of these existing regulations are basing their arguments on a false crisis, focusing arguments on the heaviest-duty trucks,” Morgan wrote in public testimony to the Legislature. 

What manufacturers think 

In early January, Willamette Week reported that Portland truck manufacturer Daimler would stop selling large diesel trucks in Oregon, due to fears about being out of compliance with the ACT rule. The company said it would resume sales shortly after, and admitted to a “misunderstanding” of the DEQ’s rule. But Daimler representatives have been supportive of HB 3119, and the company’s initial announcement perpetuated the narrative that the ACT rule will have harmful downstream effects that the DEQ didn’t consider. 

At the January 30 hearing, a representative from Daimler Trucks North America said although his team is onboard with electric trucks, the market simply isn’t ready. 

“If Oregon was ready for more electric trucks, we’re ready,” Sean Waters, vice president of product integrity at Daimler, said. “But the demand isn’t there today.” 

Those who oppose the delay say trucking manufacturers have sown disinformation and anxiety among the public to gain support for loosening regulations. 

Dave Cooke, senior vehicles analyst with the Union of Concerned Scientists, wrote in an October article that "manufacturers are wreaking havoc on state truck sales by putting the burden for compliance exclusively on the backs of dealers and ignoring the many flexibilities in the regulation aimed to reduce compliance burdens.” 

Cooke wrote the rationale for proposed ACT rule delays in Oregon and elsewhere is “largely based on industry disinformation, with manufacturers choosing to gin up anxiety among truck dealers to wage a war on the regulations by proxy.”  

Regardless of manufacturers’ intent, much of the public testimony submitted to the Legislature presents a different picture of the ACT rule than what the DEQ describes. Many comments refer to a “diesel ban,” which is not part of the ACT rule. 

In a newsletter to her constituents, Boshart Davis encouraged “working Oregonians” to speak out against the rule. She said people of all stripes will be impacted by the rule, from truck drivers to people who “enjoy an RV lifestyle,” or recognize the “necessity of diesel vehicles like tow trucks and cement mixers.” Boshart Davis also implied the rule is an “unnecessary regulation” increasing the cost of living for people living in Oregon. 

Not all truck manufacturers are on board with the bill. 

“Delaying, pausing, or suspending the regulation in Oregon is unnecessary and will harm, not help, truck manufacturers like us,” Tom Van Heeke, senior policy advisory at electric vehicle manufacturer Rivian, said at the January 30 hearing. “Suspending the regulation now would upend several years of planning across the industry, creating confusion and threatening to chill investments up and down the value chain.” 

Noelani Derrickson, a member of Tesla’s policy team, also spoke out against the bill. Tesla is building a factory in Nevada to manufacture its electric semitrucks, and expects to manufacture 50,000 per year in the upcoming years. 

“The ACT rule is a regulation on the manufacturers of trucks. Not the fleets, not the dealers, not the truck drivers,” Derrickson said. “It aims to motivate these mostly-massive corporations to design and offer decarbonized vehicles that fleets want.” 

Derrickson added she thinks the proposed delay is a “red herring.” 

“We expect the same entities to come back in two years asking for further delay or to repeal ACT,” she said. 

More than a delay 

Other advocates for the ACT rule agree with Derrickson’s assessment. In his written testimony to the Legislature, Morgan said delaying the ACT to 2027 is “a trojan horse for ending the program altogether.” 

Because similar proposals to delay ACT rules are under consideration in other states, advocates for the regulation are concerned delaying or ending the ACT program in Oregon would create a domino effect across the country. Others have raised concerns about the impact a delay could have on populations exposed to diesel pollution. 

Carrie Nyssen, senior director of advocacy for the American Lung Association in Oregon, said the ACT rule is “an important tool for reducing toxic trucking pollution.” 

“Rolling back successful air quality truck standards is harmful to the lung health of Oregonians,” Nyssen said, noting residents who live closest to major trucking routes face more significant burdens of pollution, as do people of color and people with lower incomes. 

HB 3119 is currently in the House Committee on Climate, Energy, and Environment. According to Representative John Lively, chair of the committee and a bill co-sponsor, next steps haven’t been determined. The Joint Committee on Transportation has also heard about the bill—in fact, it was the first topic the committee discussed this legislative session, during an informational hearing on January 21.  

Morgan said he’s concerned the policy will make its way into the legislative session’s multibillion dollar transportation package, which many transportation advocates hope will include more funding for safe, climate-friendly modes of transportation. 

“If this is the signal being sent day one, it makes me really concerned about what could be next,” he said. “My concern is that the legislature is sending the message that air quality and climate protections could be on the chopping block.”