SALEM — Opponents of Oregon’s electric truck mandate want lawmakers to delay the rule by two years, which supporters claim is a “trojan horse” meant to dismantle the regulation.

“We expect the same entities to come back in two years asking for a further delay or a repeal,” said Noelani Derrickson, senior policy adviser for the Tesla electric vehicle company.

At the beginning of 2025, the state Department of Environmental Quality’s “advanced clean trucks” rule went into effect, requiring a rising portion of truck sales to consist of electric vehicles.

Over the next decade, the percentage of electric truck sales mandated by the rule will rise to 40-75%, depending on the class of vehicle.

Critics claim it’s too early for Oregon to impose such a mandate, since electric trucks are still too expensive and don’t have enough charging stations available throughout the state.

“It’s not your neighbor’s Tesla, who just needs an extension cord to get up and going,” said Jordan Papé, president of the Papé Group, which sells trucks and machinery.

Papé and other critics of the regulation are advocating for House Bill 3119, a proposal to postpone the rule’s implementation until January 2027, which is being reviewed by the House Climate, Energy and Environment Committee.

While the electric truck mandate’s supporters argue the rule provides manufacturers with a grace period and flexibility, allowing them to trade and purchase credits to comply with sales targets, critics say such provisions don’t offer much long-term relief.

If manufacturers fall behind on their electric truck sales in the program’s early years, it only ends up compounding the problem later on — much like a homeowner who skips two years of mortgage payments but is expected to make up for them in the third year, Papé said.

“We’re asking our entire Class 8 trucking industry to make that same bet,” he said, referring to the big category of heavy-duty trucks.

Critics say there’s only one public charging station that can accommodate such large trucks near Portland, Ore., even though the vehicles have a far shorter range than their diesel counterparts and would need to be charged every 150-200 miles.

Meanwhile, the mandate is likely to convince trucking companies to avoid buying new vehicles, effectively thwarting the adoption of modern diesel engines with greatly reduced emissions, said Sean Waters, vice president of regulatory affairs at Daimler North America, a truck manufacturer.

“Let’s not let perfect be the enemy of good,” he said.

Proponents of the electric truck mandate argue that HB 3119 will only lead to more holdups of the rule and will upend the regulatory certainty that manufacturers rely on.

The bill is a “trojan horse” that will send a “confusing market signal” to the industry, indicating they “cannot trust the rules of the road” because they’re prone to change or delay, said Brett Morgan, Oregon transportation director of the Climate Solutions nonprofit, which supports reduced emissions.

After the mandate is fully implemented in 10 years, 60% of the new heavy trucks sold will still have diesel engines, he said.

Meanwhile, fleets of lighter-duty vans and trucks — which will be subject to the stricter 75% electric vehicle sales mandate — will rely on private company charging stations rather than those available to the public, Morgan said.

“There’s a misnomer about the amount of charging available,” he said.

Postponing the rule would undermine the validity and pricing of credits that manufacturers have already been earning for selling electric trucks, said Tom Van Heeke, senior policy advisor at Rivian Automotive, an electric vehicle manufacturer.

Suspending the mandate would also chill investments and disrupt compliance plans among manufacturers, he said. “With a delay, Oregon will sacrifice the early momentum it has and risks losing EV sales and related investments.”