Today, the Western Propane Gas Association (WPGA) sent a package to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) that included a petition signed by nearly 800 individuals who have significant concerns about a proposed regulation that could cost local communities, small businesses, nonprofits, and government agencies up to $27 billion.

The proposed regulation would eliminate internal combustion (ICE) forklifts across California by 2043, costing California forklift owners and operators up to $27 billion. The almost 800 individuals who have signed this petition are expressing their concerns to an unelected board about the rule being costly, infeasible, and flawed. While some costs and impacts can be anticipated, there are unintended consequences that have not been accounted for that would have a rippling economic effect across the state.

“This rule would increase costs to local communities, food banks and nonprofits, small businesses, state agencies, and local governments, throughout California, as the state faces a large budget deficit,” said Colin Sueyres, President & CEO of the Western Propane Gas Association. “It is unfortunate that CARB has heard these concerns but dismissed them. Considering the regulatory authority of the Board and the scope of this rule, we have asked that they seriously consider how their decision will have real-word negative impacts across the state. Sadly, they seem unwilling to consider the ramifications. The petition signed by hundreds of Californians demonstrates that businesses from a range of industries throughout the state are very concerned about the impacts of CARB’s proposed rule. Unfortunately, to date CARB has not modified the rule so that it will be workable and we are nearing the point where the consequences will be irreversible.”

May has been proclaimed by Governor Newsom as Small Business Month, stating “...For our economy to maintain its strength, we must ensure that all Californians - no matter who they are or where they come from - can pursue their dreams to start, manage, and grow resilient businesses in the Golden State…”. The small businesses that will be hit hard if this rule passes are not being recognized or considered during CARB’s rule-making process, which is counter to commitments made by the administration.

Concerns with CARB’s proposed zero-emission forklift rule:

  • Infrastructure does not currently exist and will be costly
    • Charging stations costs will exceed $6.3 billion to implement.
    • Costs do not factor in the cost of building power supply upgrades, or infrastructure upgrades for the generation, transmission and delivery of electricity.
  • Replacement technology is cost prohibitive
    • In total, $10 billion will be spent on ICE forklift replacements.
    • Duplicative fleets or significant downtime in operations will be needed as battery electric forklifts require time to charge and cool and cannot run for 24-hour business operations like ICE forklifts.
    • Battery replacement costs and maintenance costs amount to over $2.8 billion between 2026 and 2038.
  • CARB’S analysis is flawed and inaccurate
    • CARB vastly underestimated the number of forklifts that will be impacted by the rule. CARB estimates 95,000 forklifts will be affected when in reality 220,000 (more than half of all forklifts in California) will be impacted.
  • The proposed rule does not meet one of CARB’s primary objectives
    • The proposed rule does not establish a fair and level playing field among fleet operators, forklift manufacturers, forklift dealers, and forklift rental agencies, which is one of CARB’s stated objectives.

Earlier this year, WPGA released an economic impact report detailing the costs and implications outlined above, which was shared with CARB, policymakers, and the Newsom Administration, while also suggesting an equitable alternative pathway to compliance. However, there have not been any developments to indicate that CARB is considering changes to the harmful rule, which is set to be voted upon on June 27, 2024.

Visit westernpga.org/forklift to read the economic impact report and the alternative pathway to compliance.