legislation testimony

TAM Letter – Our concerns regarding aggressive ACT mandates

/in , , /by

The following letter was sent to Massachusetts Governor Maura Healy. Our letter details TAM member concerns about the aggressive mandates under the Advanced Clean Truck (ACT) rule that will be implemented on Jan. 1, 2025.

The letter to the governor is available as a PDF download.

Dear Governor Healey:

On behalf of the Massachusetts trucking industry, which employs slightly over 128,000 residents across more than 33,000 businesses, delivers 93 percent of all goods transported in the state and serves as the backbone of the state’s economy, and the Massachusetts State Automobile Dealers Association (MSADA) which represents approximately 20 percent of Massachusetts’s retail economy and employs over 25,000 individuals, we are writing to express our concerns regarding the aggressive mandates set to be implemented as of January 1, 2025, under the Advanced Clean Truck (ACT) rule.

In accordance with Mass. Gen. Laws Chapter 111, §142K, Massachusetts adopted the emissions standards established by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Specifically, CARB approved the ACT rule in June 2020, which Massachusetts adopted in 2021. The ACT rule requires that manufacturers sell an increasing number of zero-emission medium- and heavy-duty vehicles (MHDs), greater than 8,500 pounds GVWR, from 2024 to 2035. In addition to adopting the ACT rule, Massachusetts has also adopted the heavy-duty omnibus rule (HDO), which aims to substantially reduce toxic air pollutants from heavyduty vehicles. Massachusetts is only one of three states implementing both the ACT and HDO at the same time effective January 1, 2025.

The Transportation Association of Massachusetts (TAM) and MSADA support the implementation of technology and practices that will reduce and, eventually, eliminate emissions from the transportation sector. Unfortunately, technology and infrastructure improvements have not kept pace with the ACT/HDO rules. This means that unless we delay implementation of the ACT/HDO rules, the shared goal of significantly reducing emissions by our industries, government, and advocates will fail – largely due to major logistical and technological roadblocks outside of our control. In addition, based on the unfolding California experience, small business dealerships for medium- and heavy-duty trucks will be significantly harmed by the rule as they will be unable to comply with the required sales mandate – again, due to issues beyond their control. This will have a ripple effect on state and local government, private industries of all kinds, and, most importantly, residents of the Commonwealth.

To this end, please consider the following:

  • Lack of Charging Infrastructure: The lack of available charging infrastructure for electric vehicles is well known for passenger vehicles, as are concerns about long-distance battery viability. For trucks, these concerns are even more pronounced, as the vehicles are heavier and travel longer distances much more frequently. Moreover, truck drivers are federally mandated to take rest breaks, meaning charging infrastructure must be convenient, reliable, and accessible for all. Regrettably, Massachusetts, as well as other states, has not made enough progress on building out a network of public or private charging stations for commercial vehicles. The lack of infrastructure means that it can take up to ten hours to charge a long-haul electric truck versus fifteen minutes to fuel a comparable diesel truck. This is a primary disincentive for trucking companies that may otherwise be interested in purchasing electric vehicles, thus creating a near impossibility for dealers to comply with the sales requirements of the ACT. No one will purchase a medium- or heavy-duty truck if they cannot reliably charge the same.
  • Cost and Lack of Equipment Availability: Today, the average cost of a new, clean-diesel commercial truck is between $180,000 and $200,000. Compare that to the cost of a batteryelectric truck, which is nearly $500,000. In addition to the significant differential in cost, it currently takes an average of eighteen months from the time an electric truck is ordered to the time it can be delivered to the customer. The purchase of these vehicles is more in line with a long-term project rather than a vehicle transaction. Unfortunately for our dealers, the lack of available ACT/HDO compliant engines, combined with a lack of charging infrastructure, provides another significant disincentive for fleets to purchase battery-electric trucks at this time. Simply put, many entities, if they can afford to purchase a compliant vehicle, cannot purchase a truck that is not available for purchase. Please note that this does not just affect private fleets; state agencies, like the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT), and municipalities face the same impediment to buying these needed mediumand heavy-duty trucks.
  • Loss of Sales Tax Revenue: As the deadline for complying with the ACT / HDO rules approaches, the sales of new trucks will subsequently decline, and Massachusetts will see a substantial drop in sales tax collections from the sale of new trucks. Given Massachusetts’ current tax revenue fluctuations, this is not a desirable outcome. For example, many new dump trucks sell from $275,000 to $300,000. If a private fleet owner can even find a truck to purchase, the aforementioned purchase creates approximately $17,000-$19,000 in sales tax on one new truck depending on where that truck gets registered. This does not include related registration fees if the truck is registered in the Commonwealth. However, given the lack of compliant medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and a lack of infrastructure to support the same, fleet owners will simply hold onto their older, dirtier trucks for longer, meaning the Commonwealth will forego new sales tax revenue.

Again, TAM and MSADA support the reduction in emissions from the transportation sector. The need to move the upcoming deadline for ACT/HDO rules in Massachusetts is simply a situation where technology and infrastructure have not advanced as fast as everyone expected when these rules were originally adopted. A delay is not a retreat from attaining a zero emissions solution; it reflects reality. No responsible fleet manager – public or private – will buy an electric medium- or heavy-duty truck when there is no infrastructure to support the same, not enough personnel to fix the technology laden motor vehicle, or the cost is significantly more than a diesel-powered truck, even with incentives. As the Commonwealth continues to move forward to implement the standards required under ACT and HDO, a series of actions need to advance as well.

If we do not take a coordinated approach – or if zero-emission mandates are pushed too aggressively, too soon, on a poorly thought-out plan – there will be significant implications to our supply chain which will lead to increased costs and higher inflation. Further, unless dealers can meet the zeroemission sales mandate, they are limited in the ability to sell new clean diesel-powered vehicles due to the manufacturers’ zero emissions targets established under the ACT. Finally, given the potential for a loss of jobs and state revenue as in-state dealers look at their out-of-state options as has occurred in California, the Commonwealth’s adherence to this too soon deadline will probably have a more deleterious impact than ever intended. In fact, California, which began implementing these same rules earlier this year, has seen a significant reduction in new Class 8 vehicle registrations for every type of vehicle – electric or otherwise – at a rate that far exceeds the already declining national average. Without options for purchasing, supporting, or maintaining electric and other compliant medium- and heavy-duty trucks, Massachusetts’ upcoming deadline will have the same, counter intuitive impact of keeping older, dirtier diesel vehicles on the road.

Accordingly, we respectfully request that there be a delay in enforcement of the ACT/HDO rules in Massachusetts until 2027, when the CARB emissions standards align with those established by the United State Environmental Protection Agency. Until such time as the vehicle technology and the infrastructure to support these two rules are available, we risk harming multiple industries throughout the Commonwealth while stagnating forward progress on further reducing emissions from medium- and heavy-duty trucks. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues with you and your staff at your convenience so that we can help Massachusetts become as green as possible now and in the long term.

Sincerely,

Robert F. O’Koniewski, Esq.
Executive Vice President and General Counsel
Massachusetts State Automobile Dealers Association, Inc.

Kevin Weeks
Executive Director
Transportation Association of Massachusetts

5g graphic

TAM joins organizations regarding NextNav FCC petition

/in , /by

More than 70 organizations, including the Transportation Association of Massachusetts, responded to the Federal Communications Commission’s Public Notice regarding NextNav’s petition for rulemaking to reorganize the 902-928 MHz band (“Lower 900 MHz Band or Band”) and establish a 5G terrestrial-based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (“PNT”) network (“NextNav Petition”).

The signers oppose the NextNav Petition because it is likely to cause significant and adverse disruption to the hundreds of millions of Part 15 devices currently using the band.

Read the full letter sent to the Secretary of the FCC on Sept. 5.

legislation testimony

TAM Testimony – In Support, EVICC and Infrastructure Requirements

/in , /by

The following testimony was sent to the Massachusetts Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy chairs. Our testimony supports Section 118 of Senate Bill 2829, Relative to the EVICC and Medium- and Heavy-Duty Infrastructure.

With the still-emerging state of technology surrounding alternative-powered trucking and the lack of suitable infrastructure, we must address both sides of this issue comprehensively.

The testimony supporting Section 118 of Senate Bill 2829 is available as a PDF download.

Dear Chair Barrett, Chair Roy and Members of the Conference Committee:

On behalf of the Transportation Association of Massachusetts (TAM), I am writing in strong support of Section 118 of Senate Bill 2829, relative to the Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Coordinating Council and the consideration of medium- and heavy-duty trucking needs. With the still emerging state of technology surrounding alternative-powered trucking and the lack of suitable infrastructure, it is imperative we begin to fully address both sides of this issue. Section 118 of SB2829 begins to bring our infrastructure needs into clearer focus, but with particular attention to a segment of the transportation industry that is often overlooked.

As you know, the Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Coordinating Council (EVICC) was established pursuant to Section 81 of Chapter 179 of the Acts of 2022 to develop strategies resulting in an equitable, interconnected, accessible and reliable electric vehicle (EV) charging network in Massachusetts. EVICC is required to report on these strategies to the legislature through a formal assessment submitted every two years, starting in August 2023. Each assessment must contain but is not limited to the review of the present condition of, and future needs for, road and highway electrification; the estimates of the number and type of electric vehicle charging stations in public and private locations; among the variety of considerations relative to electric vehicle charging. The next assessment is due in August 2025.

As trucking in Massachusetts deliver 93% of all goods in the Commonwealth, a greater focus is needed on the coordination of meeting the often-shifting standards being put on the industry with respect to medium and heavy-duty trucking. As currently configured, the EVICC is largely focused on the electrification of the automobile market. While there is passing reference to medium- and heavy-duty (MHD) trucks, medium and heavy-duty trucking is not even a specifically identified focus nor its users identified as a stakeholder for outreach and input in its enabling act. Section 118 of SB2829 begins to remedy this lack of attention – which is essential if the Commonwealth wants to make reasonable progress on this matter.

To that end, under Section 118 of Senate Bill 2829, the EVICC would be specifically required to consider the realities associated with the implementation of policies necessary to bring zero emissions, MHD trucks to the Commonwealth. Specifically, the EVICC would be required to provide estimates of the number of zero-emission MHD truck charging stations required to meet the commonwealth’s emissions limits and sublimits pursuant to said chapter 21N and provide a discussion of costs, permitting processes and estimated timelines for installing charging stations for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles.

Why is this language important? National Grid in its report, “The Road to Transportation Decarbonization: Understanding Grid Impacts of Electric Fleets”, notes “[f]leet operators may also use larger electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) than in public, work, or residential charging applications. This means that, even if overall charging times were shorter, the amount of electricity demand at any given point in time could be higher. These individual fleet sites could quickly become megawatt-scale loads. MHDVs (medium & heavy-duty vehicles) will also likely require more energy (kWh) per charging session, due to larger battery sizes and greater VMT. The scale of MHDV charging needs means that MHDVs will represent a significant portion of the overall electricity demand from electric vehicles … the scale and scope of full fleet electrification pose new challenges for utilities and system operators.” (See: Page 6, emphasis added).

Accordingly, the language of Section 118 of Senate Bill 2829 will simply increase the amount of attention needed to ensure we have properly identified the increased needs for electric infrastructure that the trucking industry will require to convert its fleet to electric vehicles. Given the competing yet related concerns between vehicle technology and infrastructure, this language simply ensures that the EVCC specifically works to ensure the transition for MHD truck users is both realistic and attainable. In short, Section 118 of Senate Bill 2829 focuses attention on a problem that exists today and, if not recognized specifically, could set back emission reduction efforts in the future.

I appreciate your consideration of this important matter and respectfully request that you include Section 118 of Senate Bill 2829 in the final conference committee report. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to let me know.

Sincerely,

Kevin Weeks
Executive Director
Transportation Association of Massachusetts

legislation testimony

TAM Testimony – In Support, Training Tomorrow’s Trucking Workforce

/in , /by

The following testimony was sent to the Massachusetts House Committee on Ways and Means and Joint Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies chairs. Our testimony supports Amendment 41, Relative to Training Tomorrow’s Trucking Workforce.

The Commonwealth must strengthen its pipeline to develop a new workforce for the trucking industry. TAM supports Massachusetts Amendment 41, Relative to Training Tomorrow’s Trucking Workforce.

The testimony supporting Amendment 41 is provided below but is also available as a PDF download.

Dear Chair Michlewitz and Chair Parisella:

On behalf of the Transportation Association of Massachusetts (TAM), I am writing in strong support for adopting Amendment #41, Relative to Training Tomorrow’s Trucking Workforce, to House Bill 4789, the House economic development legislation. With the trucking industry experiencing one of its greatest workforce challenges in recent years, it is essential that the Commonwealth strengthen its pipeline for developing a new workforce for this vital industry.

Complementary to the House economic development bill’s strong focus on workforce, Amendment #41 seeks to bring a new generation of qualified workers into the trucking profession by directing the Massachusetts Board of Higher Education to create a grant program, subject to appropriation, that would support training and education programs that address the workforce shortages in the commercial trucking industry. The applicable areas of the trucking workforce targeted would include truck drivers, mechanics, technicians, and ancillary support personnel. The grant program would be used to train students, create new jobs, retrain and upgrade existing jobs, and retrain existing workers to implement new technologies and to help meet the workforce needs of the trucking industry within the Commonwealth.

Amendment #41 is an important initiative for growing the trucking industry in Massachusetts. The creation of this program will allow for the training of students and transitioning career professionals — creating new jobs while improving the retainage and upgrading of existing jobs to help meet the growing workforce needs of the trucking industry. As reported by the American Trucking Associations (ATA), “there is no single cause of the driver shortage, but some of the primary factors include: high average age of current drivers, which leads to a high number of retirements; women making up only 7% of all drivers, well below their representation in the total workforce; the pandemic caused some drivers to leave the industry, [and] truck driver training schools trained far fewer drivers than normal in 2020. At current trends, the shortage could surpass 160,000 in 2030. This forecast is based on driver demographic trends, including gender and age, as well as expected freight growth. )See the report from the American Trucking Associations, Truck Driver Shortage Analysis Update 2021.)

Truck drivers and other trucking personnel play a crucial role in the current economy. 93% of all goods transported into and within the Commonwealth have been on a truck. Every item on the shelves of Massachusetts retailers are filled with products transported by the trucking industry. With interest in the profession dwindling, there is a clear need to encourage this career path. The revitalization of the profession is important for more than just the trucking companies, but the Commonwealth as a whole. This initiative will create a mechanism for a wide variety of organizations and employers to train and hire trucking professionals to fill the Commonwealth’s workforce shortage.

I appreciate your consideration of this important matter and respectfully request that you adopt Amendment #41 as part of House Bill 4789. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to let me know.

Sincerely,

Kevin Weeks
Executive Director
Transportation Association of Massachusetts

legislation testimony

TAM Testimony – Add Rolling Stock Initiative to House Bill 4722

/in , /by

The following testimony was sent to the Massachusetts Speaker of the House and chair of the House Committee on Ways and Means. Our testimony supports House Bill 4722, An Act Relative to Strengthening Massachusetts Economic Leadership. Still, we respectfully ask legislators to add the Rolling Stock Initiative to the bill’s language.

Adding the Rolling Stock Initiative will generate additional tax revenue, improve public safety, and create a cleaner environment while creating numerous jobs with competitive salaries.

The testimony supporting House Bill 4722 is provided below, but it is also available as a PDF download. The PDF download includes attachments with Fact Sheets, graphics and the Rolling Stock Initiative language.

Dear Speaker Mariano and Chair Michlewitz,

On behalf of the over 250 member companies of the Transportation Association of Massachusetts (TAM), I am writing in strong support of House Bill 4722, An Act Relative to Strengthening Massachusetts Economic Leadership. The passage of this legislation – which will support so many industries throughout the Commonwealth – is essential. With that in mind, the trucking industry is also a vital link for supporting these same industries throughout the Commonwealth. With many thanks for your previous support, I respectfully request that you again include the rolling stock initiative, which will lead to additional tax revenue, greater public safety, a cleaner environment while creating numerous jobs with competitive salaries, to this legislation.

As you may know, TAM has been the voice of the trucking industry in Massachusetts since 1919. One of the oldest transportation associations in the United States, we represent a wide variety of companies ranging from small, family-owned trucking companies with a single truck to large national trucking companies with thousands of trucks. The trucking industry within the Commonwealth is responsible for transporting over 90% of all goods and products found in our homes and workplaces. In addition to being a key facilitator for the growth of other industries, the trucking industry is a significant creator of jobs within the Commonwealth. As a recent study by the Dukakis Center for Urban Research & Policy at Northeastern University stated “[t]he overall trucking industry (including private and for-hire tucking) represent about one in 12 jobs or about 300,000 jobs in Massachusetts in 2017. And, trucking companies meet all Massachusetts freight movement needs.” (“The Importance of the Trucking Industry to the Massachusetts Economy”, Pritchard, R. & Scott, A., p.3 (May 2018)). In terms of employment demographics, the trucking industry is quickly diversifying as companies seek drivers to meet the growing need for trucking. (“Truck Driver Shortage Analysis 2019”, Costello & Karickhoff, American Trucking Associations, July 2019)(“ In 2018, 40.4% of [truck] drivers were minorities, which has jumped 13.8 percentage points from 26.6% in 2001.).

The rolling stock initiative, which has been passed by the Massachusetts House of Representatives as part of other economic development proposals in the past three sessions, is important to maintaining the trucking industry’s presence in the Commonwealth. Notwithstanding the significant impact of the COVID pandemic, rising fuel costs and a depleted workforce, the commercial trucking industry within the Commonwealth has been experiencing a decline as many trucking companies have moved to other states or simply closed down. Part of the reason that trucking companies have left the state is due to the Commonwealth’s tax policies. In particular, the Massachusetts Department of Revenue (DOR) collects sales and use tax for rolling stock purchased in other states which have an exemption in place for rolling stock. (i.e. tractors and trailers used in interstate commerce). As a result, any company with a nexus within the Commonwealth is being charged sales and use tax by the DOR even though the rolling stock was purchased in other states. Accordingly, various truck companies, who may be domiciled in Massachusetts or have repair facilities in Massachusetts, are now seeking to locate them outside of the state to reduce the nexus necessary to collect such tax.

Exempting the sale and use of rolling stock from taxation will bring Massachusetts in line with a majority of other states (37) within which an exemption from sales and use tax for rolling stock already exists. In fact, every surrounding New England state, except Vermont which applies a de minimus fee, has a rolling stock exemption in place. That said, amending Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 64H (i.e. sales tax) and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 64I (i.e. use tax) to specifically exempt rolling stock from the sales and use tax brings much more than simple tax relief to the trucking industry. According to the aforementioned study conducted by the Dukakis Center for Urban Research & Policy, the elimination of the sales and use tax on rolling stock will, following national trends, create “2,768 more employees and 2,076 more power units … operating and generating an additional $15.9 million in tax revenue per year; while not estimable, … the impact on private fleets may be just as large.” (“The Importance of the Trucking Industry to the Massachusetts Economy”, Pritchard, R. & Scott, A., p.14 (May 2018)).

The need for eliminating the taxation of rolling stock cannot be overstated. First, this initiative will create a more attractive environment for trucking companies to remain in the Commonwealth. Trucking companies rely on constantly maintaining and upgrading their equipment. This means purchasing new rolling stock on a regular basis. If trucking companies know that their out-of-state purchases will incur an in-state tax, the companies will work to continue to reduce their nexus to the taxing state. As it stands, Massachusetts trucking companies are already at a competitive disadvantage when competing against carriers located in the neighboring states.

Second, but just as important, this initiative will have a significant positive impact on public safety and the environment. Exempting the sale and use of rolling stock from taxation will encourage the purchase of new equipment with the latest technology available as well incentivize companies to operate their newer trucks in the Commonwealth. This directly increases public safety and creates additional environmental benefits. In terms of public safety, new trucks include lane-departure, crash collision and speed regulator technology that significantly improve road safety. In terms of environmental benefits, newer trucks have more efficient engines and exhaust systems. This leads to greater fuel efficiency and reduces emissions of NOx and particulate matter to further support the Commonwealth’s fuel efficiency and clean air efforts. Given the Commonwealth’s recent interest in reducing emissions from the transportation sector, the rolling stock initiative makes even more sense.

Third, by keeping trucking companies in the Commonwealth, the good jobs and competitive salaries that these companies offer will remain within the state. According to the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, Massachusetts is in the top ten for annual mean wage for heavy and tractor-trailer drivers within the country. (See http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes533032.htm). If more trucking companies find Massachusetts tax policy less favorable than neighboring states, it is likely the decrease in Massachusetts trucking companies will become even more significant.

Fourth, if the Commonwealth discourages trucking companies from domiciling in the state, transportation expenses will rise — further impacting the high cost of living already experienced in the Commonwealth. The costs associated with transporting goods are fairly straightforward. (See https://truckingresearch.org/2022/08/10/an-analysis-of-the-operational-costs-of-trucking-2022-update/) (“Total marginal cost of trucking grew by 12.7 percent in 2021 to $1.855 per mile, the highest on record. Leading contributors to this increase were fuel (35.4% higher than in 2020), repair and maintenance (18.2% higher than in 2020), and driver wages (10.8% higher than in 2020”). If the Commonwealth’s tax policies continue to cause trucking companies to domicile elsewhere, the additional fuel, tolls and vehicle maintenance, among other costs, will be borne by Massachusetts residents and businesses that already rely on the industry for over 90% of their goods. If the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated one thing about the trucking industry, it is that it remains essential to residents and businesses alike.

This initiative is a matter of common sense. Given that neighboring states such as New York, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Vermont (partial) exempt rolling stock from sales and use tax, Massachusetts’ current tax policy is causing higher costs for Massachusetts residents and businesses while driving economic opportunity to neighboring states. This initiative, which has been passed by the Massachusetts House of Representatives during the past three sessions, will not exclude trucking companies from the myriad of other taxes and fees the industry pays to the Commonwealth each year. This initiative simply tries to keep Massachusetts on par with the vast majority of states (37) with an exemption already in place.

On behalf of the thousands of men and women in Massachusetts who rely on the good jobs and competitive salaries these Massachusetts companies provide, I encourage you to quickly pass House Bill 4722. In doing so, I again respectfully request that you include language to create an exemption from the Massachusetts sales and use tax as applied to rolling stock for trucks as you have in the past. This measure will produce additional tax revenue in the future while strengthening the trucking industry in Massachusetts in a manner that also improves the environment and public safety. Again, thank you for your past and, hopefully, continued support for this initiative.

I have attached a variety of information about this initiative for your review. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to let me know. I appreciate your consideration of this important matter.

Sincerely,

Kevin Weeks
Executive Director

Please see the downloadable PDF, which includes attachments with Fact Sheets, graphics, and the Rolling Stock Initiative language.

legislation testimony

TAM Testimony – In opposition to Act Relative to a Model Carrier Reporting Requirement (HB 4697)

/in /by

The following testimony was sent to Michael Rodrigues, the Massachusetts Senate Committee on Ways and Means chair. Our testimony opposes House Bill 4697, an act relative to a model carrier reporting requirement. The legislation presents significant compliance problems that will essentially obviate the ability of motor carriers to legally ship alcohol into the Commonwealth.

The testimony opposing House Bill 4697, An Act Relative to a Model Carrier Reporting Requirement, is also available as a PDF download.

Dear Chair Rodrigues:

On behalf of the Transportation Association of Massachusetts (TAM), I am writing in strong opposition to House Bill 4697, An Act Relative to a Model Carrier Reporting Requirement, as drafted. Notwithstanding potential issues of federal preemption, the legislation presents significant compliance problems that will essentially obviate the ability for motor carriers to legally ship alcohol into the Commonwealth.

As you know, the Commonwealth, through the Alcohol Beverage Control Commission (ABCC), regulates the sale and transportation of alcohol products throughout the state. Under current law and regulations, the ABCC is the sole issuing authority of liquor transportation permits for express or trucking companies, ships, railroads, caterers, and airlines. To further expand the ABCC’s authority, House Bill 4697 would require “every railroad company, express company, common carrier, contract carrier, firm or corporation that brings, carries or transports wines, malt beverages or distilled spirits into the commonwealth” to file a monthly report “of the quantity of wine, malt beverages or distilled spirits” so transported into the Commonwealth. (emphasis added).

As drafted, HB4697 presents significant legal and practical problems. Under 49 U.S. Code § 1450(c)(1), a state or its political subdivision “may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier … with respect to the transportation of property”. In Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transp. Assn., 552 U.S. 364 (2008), the United States Supreme Court reiterated it previous rulings that:

“(1) [s]tate enforcement actions having a connection with, or reference to” carrier “ ‘rates, routes, or services’ are pre-empted; (2) that such pre-emption may occur even if a state law’s effect on rates, routes or services “is only indirect,”; (3) that, in respect to pre-emption, it makes no difference whether a state law is “consistent” or “inconsistent” with federal regulation, and (4) that pre-emption occurs at least where state laws have a “significant impact” related to Congress’ deregulatory and pre-emption-related objectives”.

In Rowe, the United States Supreme Court held that a State of Maine law requiring transporters to “know whether and how much tobacco” was in each package regulated a significant aspect of the motor carrier’s package pick-up and delivery service. In striking down the Maine law, the court found that “Maine law imposes civil liability upon the carrier, not simply for its knowing transport of (unlicensed) tobacco, but for the carrier’s failure sufficiently to examine every package.”.

In a similar manner, HB4697’s proposed requirement for reporting on the “quantity” and “type” of wine, malt beverages or distilled spirits” is a direct impact on a motor carrier’s service which, in turn, will also impact its price. There is little way for a motor carrier to know what the exact quantity of the items in a box – apart from packing a box or container itself – an act would easily impact the motor carrier’s service. Further, a motor carrier cannot report on the brand, type of alcohol shipped, or number of bottles; the motor carrier relies on a shipping label and report from the entity initiating the shipping process. Again, to verify a sender’s shipping label to the exact contents of a package invites a host of legal and practical problems. (On a separate note, HB4697, as written, would also seem to implicate interstate commerce concerns for motor carriers who simply travel through Massachusetts, but have no deliveries within the state. This not only likely violates 49 U.S. Code § 1450(c)(1), but additional constitutional and legal protections governing interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause.)

Simply put, motor carriers cannot open up a package and verify its contents. TAM’s members rely on what the shipper reports as being in a package in broad categories and verifies the weight of the same. To institute a procedure where the motor carrier verifies the contents of a package, for purposes of determining the exact quantity and type of wine, malt beverages or distilled spirits – would literally be opening up Pandora’s box – creating additional legal hurdles, increased costs and logistical nightmares.

Accordingly, as HB4697’s reporting requirement, as currently contemplated, would essentially act as a de facto barrier to any motor carrier from delivering alcohol into the Commonwealth, this legislation should not be advanced from your Committee.

I appreciate your consideration of this matter. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to let me know.

Sincerely,

Kevin Weeks
Executive Director

legislation testimony

TAM Testimony – In support of Act Relative to Strengthening Massachusetts Economic Leadership

/in , /by

The following testimony was sent to the Joint Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies. Our testimony supports House Bill 4459, an act to relative to strengthening Massachusetts economic leadership, which will support many industries throughout the Commonwealth.

The testimony supporting House Bill 4459, An Act Relative to Strengthening Massachusetts Economic Leadership, is also available as a PDF download.

Dear Chair Finegold, Chair Parisella and Members of the Committee:

On behalf of the over 250 member companies of the Transportation Association of Massachusetts (TAM), I am writing in strong support of House Bill 4459, An Act Relative to Strengthening Massachusetts Economic Leadership. The passage of this legislation – which will support so many industries throughout the Commonwealth – is essential. With that in mind, the trucking industry is also a vital link for supporting these same industries throughout the Commonwealth. To that end, I respectfully request that you include the rolling stock initiative, which will lead to additional tax revenue, greater public safety, a cleaner environment while creating numerous jobs with competitive salaries, to this legislation.

As you may know, TAM has been the voice of the trucking industry in Massachusetts since 1919. One of the oldest transportation associations in the United States, we represent a wide variety of companies ranging from small, family-owned trucking companies with a single truck to large national trucking companies with thousands of trucks. The trucking industry within the Commonwealth is responsible for transporting over 90% of all goods and products found in our homes and workplaces. In addition to being a key facilitator for the growth of other industries, the trucking industry is a significant creator of jobs within the Commonwealth. As a recent study by the Dukakis Center for Urban Research & Policy at Northeastern University stated, “[t]he overall trucking industry (including private and for-hire tucking) represent about one in 12 jobs or about 300,000 jobs in Massachusetts in 2017. And, trucking companies meet all Massachusetts freight movement needs.” (“The Importance of the Trucking Industry to the Massachusetts Economy”, Pritchard, R. & Scott, A., p.3 (May 2018)). In terms of employment demographics, the trucking industry is quickly diversifying as companies seek drivers to meet the growing need for trucking. (“Truck Driver Shortage Analysis 2019”, Costello & Karickhoff, American Trucking Associations, July 2019)(“ In 2018, 40.4% of [truck] drivers were minorities, which has jumped 13.8 percentage points from 26.6% in 2001.).

The rolling stock initiative, which has been passed by the Massachusetts House of Representatives as part of other economic development proposals in the past three sessions, is important to maintaining the trucking industry’s presence in the Commonwealth. Notwithstanding the significant impact of the COVID pandemic, rising fuel costs and a depleted workforce, the commercial trucking industry within the Commonwealth has been experiencing a decline as many trucking companies have moved to other states or simply closed down. Part of the reason that trucking companies have left the state is due to the Commonwealth’s tax policies. In particular, the Massachusetts Department of Revenue (DOR) collects sales and use tax for rolling stock purchased in other states which have an exemption in place for rolling stock. (i.e. tractors and trailers used in interstate commerce). As a result, any company with a nexus within the Commonwealth is being charged sales and use tax by the DOR even though the rolling stock was purchased in other states. Accordingly, various truck companies, who may be domiciled in Massachusetts or have repair facilities in Massachusetts, are now seeking to locate them outside of the state to reduce the nexus necessary to collect such tax.

Exempting the sale and use of rolling stock from taxation will bring Massachusetts in line with a majority of other states (37) within which an exemption from sales and use tax for rolling stock already exists. In fact, every surrounding New England state, except Vermont which applies a de minimus fee, has a rolling stock exemption in place. That said, amending Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 64H (i.e. sales tax) and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 64I (i.e. use tax) to specifically exempt rolling stock from the sales and use tax brings much more than simple tax relief to the trucking industry. According to the aforementioned study conducted by the Dukakis Center for Urban Research & Policy, the elimination of the sales and use tax on rolling stock will, following national trends, create “2,768 more employees and 2,076 more power units … operating and generating an additional $15.9 million in tax revenue per year; while not estimable, … the impact on private fleets may be just as large.” (“The Importance of the Trucking Industry to the Massachusetts Economy”, Pritchard, R. & Scott, A., p.14 (May 2018)).

The need for eliminating the taxation of rolling stock cannot be overstated. First, this initiative will create a more attractive environment for trucking companies to remain in the Commonwealth. Trucking companies rely on constantly maintaining and upgrading their equipment. This means purchasing new rolling stock on a regular basis. If trucking companies know that their out-of-state purchases will incur an in-state tax, the companies will work to continue to reduce their nexus to the taxing state. As it stands, Massachusetts trucking companies are already at a competitive disadvantage when competing against carriers located in the neighboring states.

Second, but just as important, this initiative will have a significant positive impact on public safety and the environment. Exempting the sale and use of rolling stock from taxation will encourage the purchase of new equipment with the latest technology available as well incentivize companies to operate their newer trucks in the Commonwealth. This directly increases public safety and creates additional environmental benefits. In terms of public safety, new trucks include lane-departure, crash collision and speed regulator technology that significantly improve road safety. In terms of environmental benefits, newer trucks have more efficient engines and exhaust systems. This leads to greater fuel efficiency and reduces emissions of NOx and particulate matter to further support the Commonwealth’s fuel efficiency and clean air efforts. Given the Commonwealth’s recent interest in reducing emissions from the transportation sector, the rolling stock initiative makes even more sense.

Third, by keeping trucking companies in the Commonwealth, the good jobs and competitive salaries that these companies offer will remain within the state. According to the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, Massachusetts is in the top ten for annual mean wage for heavy and tractor-trailer drivers within the country. (See http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes533032.htm). If more trucking companies find Massachusetts tax policy less favorable than neighboring states, it is likely the decrease in Massachusetts trucking companies will become even more significant.

Fourth, if the Commonwealth discourages trucking companies from domiciling in the state, transportation expenses will rise — further impacting the high cost of living already experienced in the Commonwealth. The costs associated with transporting goods are fairly straightforward. (See https://truckingresearch.org/2022/08/10/an-analysis-of-the-operational-costs-of-trucking-2022-update/) (“Total marginal cost of trucking grew by 12.7 percent in 2021 to $1.855 per mile, the highest on record. Leading contributors to this increase were fuel (35.4% higher than in 2020), repair and maintenance (18.2% higher than in 2020), and driver wages (10.8% higher than in 2020”). If the Commonwealth’s tax policies continue to cause trucking companies to domicile elsewhere, the additional fuel, tolls and vehicle maintenance, among other costs, will be borne by Massachusetts residents and businesses that already rely on the industry for over 90% of their goods. If the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated one thing about the trucking industry, it is that it remains essential to residents and businesses alike.

This initiative is a matter of common sense. Given that neighboring states such as New York, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Vermont (partial) exempt rolling stock from sales and use tax, Massachusetts’ current tax policy is causing higher costs for Massachusetts residents and businesses while driving economic opportunity to neighboring states. This initiative, which has been passed by the Massachusetts House of Representatives during the past three sessions, will not exclude trucking companies from the myriad of other taxes and fees the industry pays to the Commonwealth each year. This initiative simply tries to keep Massachusetts on par with the vast majority of states (37) with an exemption already in place.

On behalf of the thousands of men and women in Massachusetts who rely on the good jobs and competitive salaries these Massachusetts companies provide, I encourage you to quickly pass House Bill 4459. In doing so, I respectfully request that you include language to create an exemption from the Massachusetts sales and use tax as applied to rolling stock for trucks. This measure will produce additional tax revenue in the future while strengthening the trucking industry in Massachusetts in a manner that also improves the environment and public safety.

For your review, I have attached a variety of information about this initiative for your review. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to let me know. I appreciate your consideration of this important matter.

Sincerely,

Kevin Weeks
Executive Director

legislation testimony

TAM Testimony – In support of An Act Relative to Carriers of Property by Motor Vehicle

/in , /by

The following testimony was sent to the State Senate Committee on Ways and Means. Our testimony supports Senate Bill 2209, which addresses a practical problem for larger motor carriers who may choose to ship alcohol within Massachusetts.

The testimony supporting Senate Bill 2209, An Act Relative to Carriers of Property by Motor Vehicle, is also available as a PDF download.

Dear Chair Rodrigues:

On behalf of the Transportation Association of Massachusetts (TAM), I am writing in strong support for Senate Bill 2209, An Act Relative to Carriers of Property by Motor Vehicle. This legislation, which addresses a practical problem for larger motor carriers who may choose to ship alcohol within the state, will ultimately reduce administrative costs for the Commonwealth.

As you may know, a variety of Massachusetts laws govern the shipment of alcohol from a manufacturer directly to the consumer. Under the licensing construct created under the applicable laws, each motor vehicle transporting an alcohol product must have a license from the Commonwealth. Under Senate Bill 2209, a motor carrier would be able to obtain a fleet permit to transport or deliver the products sold at retail by licensees under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 138, §§19B, 19C, or 19F to the ultimate consumers of such products. In addition, any motor carrier so licensed would be required to ensure that parcels transported or delivered are clearly labeled with words that indicate that the package contains alcohol. The signature of a person, age 21 years or older, and proof of valid identification confirming the same will also be required for delivery. Finally, the motor carrier with a fleet license must have documentation reflecting all of these and other requirements are met.

With razor thin margins associated with the delivery of goods, trucking is at its core logistics. Unfortunately, for trucking companies with large fleets today, this means that each tractor and trailer must be able to be used for a wide variety of purposes. Whether transporting lumber, furniture, food or alcohol, a trucking company must be able to redirect its fleet to reflect market conditions and delivery needs at a moment’s notice. The Commonwealth’s licensure system – requiring each and every truck that might possibly haul alcohol be licensed – creates a disincentive for motor carriers to enter the Massachusetts market. As a result, Massachusetts consumers pay higher costs associated with a lack of competition.

Senate Bill 2209 will allow for the more practical issuance of a fleet license that covers a motor carrier’s entire fleet of vehicles. In doing so, Massachusetts will become a more attractive environment for trucking companies to transport alcohol. This legislation will not sacrifice public safety in any manner as all the same rules will still apply. All the safeguards that apply to ensuring that alcohol is only delivered to individuals 21 and older will remain in place. What this legislation will do is increase competition which will ultimately benefit consumers. As well, by issuing fleet licenses, the Commonwealth will be able to reduce licensing costs and associated resources, which may then be put towards enforcement efforts, thereby further safeguarding the general public.

I appreciate your consideration of this important matter and respectfully request that you release this legislation for its full consideration by the Senate. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to let me know.

Sincerely,

Kevin Weeks
Executive Director

legislation testimony

TAM Testimony – Training tomorrow’s trucking workforce

/in , /by

The following testimony was sent to the Joint Committee on Transportation chairs. Our testimony supports House Bill 3371, directing the Massachusetts Board of Higher Education to create a grant program that would support training and education programs that address the workforce shortages in the commercial trucking industry.

The testimony in support of House Bill 3371, An Act Relative to Training Tomorrow’s Trucking Workforce, is also available as a PDF download.

Dear Chair Crighton, Chair Straus and Members of the Committee:

On behalf of the Transportation Association of Massachusetts (TAM), I am writing in strong support for House Bill 3371, An Act Relative to Training Tomorrow’s Trucking Workforce. With the trucking industry experiencing one of its greatest workforce challenges in recent years, it is essential that the Commonwealth strengthen its pipeline for developing a new workforce for this vital industry.

As drafted, House Bill 3371 seeks to bring a new generation of qualified workers into the trucking profession by directing the Massachusetts Board of Higher Education to create a grant program, subject to appropriation, that would support training and education programs that address the workforce shortages in the commercial trucking industry. The applicable areas of the trucking workforce targeted would include truck drivers, mechanics, technicians, and ancillary support personnel. The grant program would be used to train students, create new jobs, retrain and upgrade existing jobs, and retrain existing workers to implement new technologies and to help meet the workforce needs of the trucking industry within the Commonwealth.

House Bill 3371 is an important initiative for growing the trucking industry in Massachusetts. The creation of this program will allow for the training of students and transitioning career professionals — creating new jobs while improving the retainage and upgrading of existing jobs to help meet the growing workforce needs of the trucking industry. As reported by the American Trucking Associations (ATA), “there is no single cause of the driver shortage, but some of the primary factors include: high average age of current drivers, which leads to a high number of retirements; women making up only 7% of all drivers, well below their representation in the total workforce; the pandemic caused some drivers to leave the industry, [and] truck driver training schools trained far fewer drivers than normal in 2020. At current trends, the shortage could surpass 160,000 in 2030. This forecast is based on driver demographic trends, including gender and age, as well as expected freight growth. “Truck Driver Shortage Analysis Update 2021”, American Trucking Associations (October 2021).

Truck drivers play a crucial role in the current economy. 93% of all goods transported into and within the Commonwealth have been on a truck. Every item on the shelves of Massachusetts retailers are filled with products transported by the trucking industry. With interest in the profession dwindling, there is a clear need to encourage this career path. The revitalization of the profession is important for more than just the trucking companies, but the Commonwealth as a whole. This initiative will create a mechanism for a wide variety of organizations and employers to train and hire trucking professionals to fill the Commonwealth’s workforce shortage.

I appreciate your consideration of this important matter and respectfully request that you issue a favorable report to this legislation. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to let me know.

Sincerely,

Kevin Weeks
Executive Director

legislation testimony

TAM Testimony – In support of Acts Relative to Rolling Stock

/in , /by

The following testimony – and detailed documentation on our position – was sent today to Massachusetts Joint Committee on Revenue members. Our testimony strongly supports House Bill 2841, Senate Bill 1178, and Senate Bill 1949, Acts Relative to Rolling Stock. The letter is available as a PDF to be printed.

Dear Chair Cusack, Chair Moran and Members of the Committee:

On behalf of the over 250 member companies of the Transportation Association of Massachusetts (TAM), I am writing in strong support of House Bill 2841 / Senate Bill 1178 / Senate Bill 1949, Acts Relative to Rolling Stock. This initiative, which will lead to greater public safety and a cleaner environment, will also lead to additional tax revenue while creating numerous jobs with competitive salaries. The legislation, which has been passed by the Massachusetts House of Representatives as part of other legislative vehicles in the past three sessions, received a favorable report from this Committee the past two sessions.

As you may know, TAM has been the voice of the trucking industry in Massachusetts since 1919. One of the oldest transportation associations in the United States, we represent a wide variety of companies ranging from small, family-owned trucking companies with a single truck to large national trucking companies with thousands of trucks.  The trucking industry within the Commonwealth is responsible for transporting over 90% of all goods and products found in our homes and workplaces. In addition to being a key facilitator for the growth of other industries, the trucking industry is a significant creator of jobs within the Commonwealth.  As a recent study by the Dukakis Center for Urban Research & Policy at Northeastern University stated “[t]he overall trucking industry (including private and for-hire tucking) represent about one in 12 jobs or about 300,000 jobs in Massachusetts in 2017. And, trucking companies meet all Massachusetts freight movement needs.” (“The Importance of the Trucking Industry to the Massachusetts Economy”, Pritchard, R. & Scott, A., p.3 (May 2018)). In terms of employment demographics, the trucking industry is quickly diversifying as companies seek drivers to meet the growing need for trucking.  (“Truck Driver Shortage Analysis 2019”, Costello & Karickhoff, American Trucking Associations, July 2019)(“ In 2018, 40.4% of [truck] drivers were minorities, which has jumped 13.8 percentage points from 26.6% in 2001.).

Notwithstanding the significant impact of the COVID pandemic, rising fuel costs and a depleted workforce, the commercial trucking industry within the Commonwealth has been experiencing a decline as many trucking companies have moved to other states or simply closed down.  Part of the reason that trucking companies have left the state is due to the Commonwealth’s tax policies. In particular, the Massachusetts Department of Revenue (DOR) collects sales and use tax for rolling stock purchased in other states which have an exemption in place for rolling stock. (i.e. tractors and trailers used in interstate commerce). As a result, any company with a nexus within the Commonwealth is being charged sales and use tax by the DOR even though the rolling stock was purchased in other states.  Accordingly, various truck companies, who may be domiciled in Massachusetts or have repair facilities in Massachusetts, are now seeking to locate them outside of the state to reduce the nexus necessary to collect such tax.

Exempting the sale and use of rolling stock from taxation will bring Massachusetts in line with a majority of other states (37) within which an exemption from sales and use tax for rolling stock already exists. In fact, every surrounding New England state, except Vermont which applies a de minimus fee, has a rolling stock exemption in place. That said, amending Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 64H (i.e. sales tax) and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 64I (i.e. use tax) to specifically exempt rolling stock from the sales and use tax brings much more than simple tax relief to the trucking industry. According to the aforementioned study conducted by the Dukakis Center for Urban Research & Policy, the elimination of the sales and use tax on rolling stock will, following national trends, create “2,768 more employees and 2,076 more power units … operating and generating an additional $15.9 million in tax revenue per year; while not estimable, … the impact on private fleets may be just as large.” (“The Importance of the Trucking Industry to the Massachusetts Economy”, Pritchard, R. & Scott, A., p.14 (May 2018)).

The need for eliminating the taxation of rolling stock cannot be overstated.  First, this initiative will create a more attractive environment for trucking companies to remain in the Commonwealth. Trucking companies rely on constantly maintaining and upgrading their equipment. This means purchasing new rolling stock on a regular basis. If trucking companies know that their out-of-state purchases will incur an in-state tax, the companies will work to continue to reduce their nexus to the taxing state. As it stands, Massachusetts trucking companies are already at a competitive disadvantage when competing against carriers located in the neighboring states.

Second, but just as important, this initiative will have a significant positive impact on public safety and the environment. Exempting the sale and use of rolling stock from taxation will encourage the purchase of new equipment with the latest technology available as well incentivize companies to operate their newer trucks in the Commonwealth. This directly increases public safety and creates additional environmental benefits. In terms of public safety, new trucks include lane-departure, crash collision and speed regulator technology that significantly improve road safety. In terms of environmental benefits, newer trucks have more efficient engines and exhaust systems. This leads to greater fuel efficiency and reduces emissions of NOx and particulate matter to further support the Commonwealth’s fuel efficiency and clean air efforts. Given the Commonwealth’s recent interest in reducing emissions from the transportation sector, the rolling stock initiative makes even more sense.

Third, by keeping trucking companies in the Commonwealth, the good jobs and competitive salaries that these companies offer will remain within the state. According to the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, Massachusetts is in the top ten for annual mean wage for heavy and tractor-trailer drivers within the country.  (See http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes533032.htm). If more trucking companies find Massachusetts tax policy less favorable than neighboring states, it is likely the decrease in Massachusetts trucking companies will become even more significant.

Fourth, if the Commonwealth discourages trucking companies from domiciling in the state, transportation expenses will rise — further impacting the high cost of living already experienced in the Commonwealth.  The costs associated with transporting goods are fairly straightforward. (See https://truckingresearch.org/2022/08/10/an-analysis-of-the-operational-costs-of-trucking-2022-update/) (“Total marginal cost of trucking grew by 12.7 percent in 2021 to $1.855 per mile, the highest on record. Leading contributors to this increase were fuel (35.4% higher than in 2020), repair and maintenance (18.2% higher than in 2020), and driver wages (10.8% higher than in 2020”). If the Commonwealth’s tax policies continue to cause trucking companies to domicile elsewhere, the additional fuel, tolls and vehicle maintenance, among other costs, will be borne by Massachusetts residents and businesses that already rely on the industry for over 90% of their goods. If the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated one thing about the trucking industry, it is that it remains essential to residents and businesses alike.

This initiative is a matter of common sense. Given that neighboring states such as New York, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Vermont (partial) exempt rolling stock from sales and use tax, Massachusetts’ current tax policy is causing higher costs for Massachusetts residents and businesses while driving economic opportunity to neighboring states. This initiative, which has been passed by the Massachusetts House of Representatives during the past three sessions, will not exclude trucking companies from the myriad of other taxes and fees the industry pays to the Commonwealth each year. This initiative simply tries to keep Massachusetts on par with the vast majority of states (37) with an exemption already in place.

On behalf of the thousands of men and women in Massachusetts who rely on the good jobs and competitive salaries these Massachusetts companies provide; I respectfully request that you issue a favorable report to this legislation. Again, including language to create an exemption from the Massachusetts sales and use tax as applied to rolling stock for trucks will produce additional tax revenue in the future while strengthening the trucking industry in Massachusetts in a manner that also improves the environment and public safety.

For your review, I have attached a variety of information about this initiative for your review.  If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to let me know. I appreciate your consideration of this important matter.

Sincerely,

Kevin Weeks
Executive Director