The RV industry may soon be delivered a gut punch, and weirdly it’s not going to be from demand swings. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has amended its regulations and will require the manufacturers of motorhomes with a gross weight of over 8,500 pounds to sell an increasing number of EVs. There’s just one problem: No RV manufacturer currently sells a heavy electric motorhome. In effect, California and five other states may inadvertently ban the sale of new motorhomes in only a few weeks’ time.
This news comes to us from SFGate and paints a dark picture for the battered but recovering RV market. RV sales hit all-time records during the COVID-19 pandemic, then fell off a cliff after people stopped buying RVs for numerous reasons. The RV Industry Association expects America’s RV builders to ship 324,100 units this year, far down from 2021’s all-time record of 600,240 shipments. To illustrate the change in demand, RV sales have plummeted to a level not seen since 2013.
Thankfully, the RVIA says, sales are trending in an upward direction with this year closing out better than 2023 and with next year looking to be an even better year. That might not be the case if California, New York, New Jersey, Washington, Oregon, and Massachusetts move forward on stringent emissions requirements that would push motorhome diesel engines out of the market.
I will be clear right from the bat. You’re going to read a bunch of headlines saying that California may ban the sale of new motorhomes. This is not strictly true. California did not ban motorhomes and motorhome manufacturers do have a path to continue selling ICE vehicles in these six states. However, California’s changes would make selling large motorhomes substantially harder, essentially giving the effect of a ban.
This breaking story was originally reported on by RV Travel early this month, but now thanks to SFGate‘s reporting we know a little more. According to SFGate, CARB has amended its Advanced Clean Truck regulations in late October. You can view the meeting by clicking here, just be aware it’ll take hours of your time to get through the whole thing. The rule will require the manufacturers of trucks and motorhomes with a gross vehicle weight rating of over 8,500 pounds to produce a percentage of zero-emission vehicles.
The new rules kick off in 2025 and the percentage of zero-emission vehicles that must be built by a manufacturer is set to increase gradually until 2035, the year when California hopes to completely phase out the sales of all other internal combustion vehicles. California plans that every truck sold in the state will be zero-emission by a later date.
The Advanced Clean Trucks rule was successfully adopted by CARB in 2020. According to the rule as originally adopted, makers of medium-duty and heavy-duty trucks were required to begin building a small percentage of zero-emission vehicles beginning in 2024 and gradually rising from there. Here’s a chart:
To help you read that a little better, I’ll give you a key. Class 2b-3 is for on-road trucks with a GVWR between 8,501 and 14,000 pounds. Class 4-8 is for on-road trucks with a GVWR greater than or equal to 14,001 pounds. Finally, Class 7-8 covers vehicles with a GVWR greater than or equal to 26,001 pounds.
SFGate says that the bulk of the RVs that would get caught up in this are primarily large Class A motorhomes and Super C motorhomes, the kinds of motorhomes rolling on specialized chassis. Technically, that 8,500-pound threshold would endanger far more RVs than just the biggest ones. Many Mercedes-Benz Sprinter camper vans have gross weight limits above 8,501 pounds. However, Mercedes-Benz should also sell enough EVs to offset selling vans, something the big RV chassis manufacturers currently cannot do.
There presently isn’t a single zero-emission Class A or Super C RV on the market, so if this regulation goes live in 2025, dealers will no longer be able to sell any brand-new Class A or Super C coaches. The market for zero-emission motorhomes is also remarkably tiny with startups like Grounded RV leading the way. As of publishing, no big brand sells a low-emission or zero-emission motorhome, though some are in development.
CARB does offer a path for builders wanting to sell large diesel-powered coaches, from SFGate:
CARB told SFGATE via email that “there is no motorhome ban.” A system of credits allows manufacturers that can’t meet the requirements to buy credits from those that do, giving them “the flexibility needed to sell as many internal combustion engines as is needed to meet market demands,” said spokesperson Lys Mendez. According to the board, manufacturers can also focus ZEV production on other vehicle types where that technology is more viable to meet the requirements.
The Advanced Clean Trucks rule sent shockwaves through the trucking world when it was first adopted, with lobbyists and truckers urging the states to reconsider. Now, the RV industry’s lobbying groups are trying to stop what they think will be an apocalypse.
The impact is already being felt. According to RV Travel, Spartan and Freightliner, two major diesel RV chassis builders, are deciding to pull out of the six states as they do not have a platform that would be legal. Newmar RV, which uses the aforementioned platforms, said on November 4 that it would no longer sell diesel RVs on those non-compliant platforms.
Thankfully, some class A RVs should be able to be sold in California and those other five states. For example, the Ford F53 Class A motorhome chassis (below) uses the 7.3-liter Godzilla gasoline V8 engine and reportedly, Ford has enough credits from selling electric cars and trucks that it can keep producing motorhome chassis for sale in the six states.
Things still get worse from there. You might think this wouldn’t be a big deal because you could just buy an RV from a state that doesn’t follow CARB rules and drive it back home. California says this will not be a workaround because if you buy a new RV that doesn’t comply with the rule, you won’t be able to register it in California.
During the CARB meeting about the rule, Joe Snyder, who represented Freightliner Custom Chassis, told the board:
Some of the vehicles we build are electric school buses, electric walk-in vans. We’re doing our best to meet the regulations. Currently we have no electric solution for Class A RVs and there are no credits, therefore no credits to build class a RV chassis, uh, with ICE engines. Additionally, there’s no infrastructure at camping locations where these future vehicles would be going to.
Please consider the following, the current law may incentivize older RVs to be purchased and thus going backwards on the emissions Act as it sits will stop nearly all sales of new Class A and super cvs. RVs are low mileage, low fuel, and thus low emission vehicles due to the low usage. Not allowing sales of new RVs doesn’t stop consumer demand.
Eliminating RVs from ACT will ensure clean diesel engines are operating in California. Keeping ACT as it is will ensure older vehicles are sold in state for the near future. Eliminating RVs from ACT will also allow enforcement officials to focus on larger fuel users. Additionally, CARB could add a limit of in-state miles and generator hours to prevent emissions of these vehicles.
I welcome the comments of the board on this topic. I’m thankful for the Clean Air programs. I’ve personally told thousands of people all over the US how clean our air is and that I can see the mountains every day and my kids don’t know what a smog day is. Help California RVs go out into our national parks all over the United States with clean diesel RVs, not older polluting RVs.
These rules can clean the air and demo jobs at the same time, or we can go out and be clean together.
Trevor Gasper, Senior Vice President and General Counsel of Thor Industries said:
I’m the Senior Vice President and general counsel of Thor Industries, the world’s largest producer of recreational vehicles. Thor owns a family of RV companies including Airstream, Tiffin, Jaco, Integra, and Thor Motor Coach, all of whom sell motor homes to dealers and consumers in the state of California so that they can better connect with nature in the outdoors as an industry.
We’ve spoken on several occasions about the concerns we have with the A CT and the amendments discussed today. Do not alleviate those concerns of the vehicles impacted by ACT. Motorhomes make up only one quarter of 1% of all miles driven on California, California roads. Unlike trucks at issue in the regulations, motor homes spend most of their functional life parked and not emitting GHGs.
Like all RV companies, we are a final stage manufacturer. We do not manufacture the chassis and engines that are utilized in our units because of this. We are currently beholden to the chassis produced for sale to us by our chassis OEMs.
We are being told by these major suppliers that due to the A CT and the unavailability of any electric or or zero emission or near zero emission, uh, product for the RV industry, that they simply will not sell us any products for resale into California or other states that have adopted the ACT beginning in 2025.
These chassis manufacturers are not interested in engaging in credit purchasing to our assist the RV industry. So even if we can buy credits, they don’t want to engage with us, they will not sell us chassis for sale in California. Period. I want carb to know that we are taking steps to develop zero emission and near zero emission solutions for the industry. Thor has a longstanding partnership with Harbinger Motors out of California to produce both near zero and zero emission options for the RV industry as we sit here today.
However, despite our best efforts over the last five years, these options are not available and will not be available in any meaningful number for at least 18… [mic cuts off].
In response to all of this, the RVIA SFGate: “While we are continuing to work with manufacturers, dealers, and CARB to find a solution, if nothing changes, motorhomes will not be able to be sold and registered in California beginning in 2025. The exact date is still to be determined.”
Lobbyists for the RV industry and dealers believe there is still time to change the rule. The goal is to get a waiver into the Advanced Clean Trucks rule for motorhomes, but if not, maybe convince lawmakers to kick the can down the road a little further. If the lobbyists are unsuccessful, at least buyers will still be able to get used motorhomes. There are also registration methods some RV owners may take that I will not discuss here.
If CARB does not grant an exemption to new motorhome sales, we could be seeing a very different future for the RV industry. Practically overnight, six large RV markets could dramatically change for a long time. Thor’s Mr. Gasper is correct, the vast majority of the RV industry isn’t ready to go zero-emission yet and won’t be for a while. We’ll be watching as this situation unfolds.
Mercedes: did you know that 2005 Monaco Dynasty motorhome had E39 headlights?
lookup, this is hilarious
A lot of angry comments here. If I’m reading this right, the RV mfgrs can still sell ICE RVs if they choose to buy EV credits. Just like Ford, GM, and whatever Chrysler was called back then bought EV credits from Tesla instead of building EVs themselves.
This is a great opportunity for Ford, Rivian, etc to partner with Winnebago or someone for some EVs on pickup platforms like they used to do with Toyota pickups in the 80s.
“ No RV manufacturer currently sells a heavy electric motorhome.”
Well I think the solution is simple… start selling some! There are commercial grade electric truck chassis they could use… with the Tesla Semi being one example.
What kind of modern camping location doesn’t provide electricity? I spent a week at Disney Fort Wilderness in April and was plugged into Level 2 the entire time.
I hate so many CARB rules – holding all cars post-1974 to their original emissions standards is my main gripe.
On the other hand, I remember how bad my asthma got riding my bicycle to work in Los Angeles.
So, how do we really identify the problem and solve it. Do people really need to drive around in a bus-sized vehicle visiting wherever?
Or, do we, as Americans, believe we should be able to do whatever tf we want?
I dunno, there’s a middle ground, hell if I can figure out where or what it is.j
Maybe RVs aren’t really the problem. Maybe we should give them a by, and focus on high density areas. I dunno.
It just occured to me that in some cases dealershipe bought desired cars and then resold them as used for a higher price they were allowed to sell new. Why can’t they do this on RVs wah it through a Arizona or Nevada dealership transfer ownership to a California dealer as used and sell it for a mark up as a used RV?
I have to wonder at what point will even the least intelligent voter realize California left wing politicians are absolutely Stoopid. The more regulations the higher the gas prices. If you want that fine. But don’t vote for candidates promising lower gas prices and pushing for more regulations and higher taxes.
California has the 3 cities with the worst air pollution in the country.
That is part of the reason why it’s so important to have clean vehicles. California is also home to 40 million people, the highest in the country. Unsafe, filthy air is not good for humans or other carbon-based life forms.
The workaround is to register a motor home in another state, which while fraudulent, is likely not going to result in any consequences.
Should there be an exception made for oversized motorized houses driven by the wealthiest of middle-class consumers?
Another solution is for motor home manufacturers to make small, battery-powered motor homes to sell alongside the behemoths, about the size of a pickup with a camper shell.
Another workaround is to go “camping” with a trailer and a tow vehicle, instead of a motorized McMansion towing another vehicle.
This will have zero impact even if it works as intended unless you’re an RV dealer. RV buyers will just buy their motor home in a bordering state, LLC-launder it and register it in Montana like the supercar crowd does.
So we’re still pretending that’s going to happen. Swell.
Yes all sales will be done in other states but the politicians can say they eliminated ICE car sales and the lemmings will celebrate and reelect them and believe that their $10 a gallon gas prices are a result of price gouging despite the price in other states are way cheaper.
Yeah, I’m gonna say that this is a skill issue on the chassis manufacturers’ part.
This wasn’t a surprise, and for RVs that share chassis with commercial trucks and buses, electrification is needed for other markets anyway. (And, apparently compliance is possible with a PHEV as someone else in the comments pointed out, with PHEVs being ideally suited to this.)
That said, I wouldn’t be surprised to see various schemes done to get around the whole “not possible to register new non-compliant vehicles in-state” thing – I’m aware of a few that were done for 2004-2006 VW TDIs. (IIRC, there was even a used car dealer in California that was caught committing odometer fraud – rolling the odometer forward to 7500 miles – to illegally sell new 2004-2006 TDIs as used. More legal schemes would be to simply drive 7500 miles around the US on temp tags before importing it to California, or I’m pretty sure there was a dealer that was exploiting a breakdown loophole that allows you to buy a non-compliant car to complete your journey after a breakdown and register it in California even before 7500 miles.)
To your point on RV’s sharing chassis with other vehicles (a fair chunk of them), I don’t really see why there wouldn’t be a workaround where the VIN applies to the chassis builder (ie. Ford, Freightliner, etc.) and being registered as such with the production percentages applying to the chassis builder instead of the coach builder.
Also, totally agree on the whole world seemingly getting too far over their collective skis and trying to go BEV in this segment when PHEV’s would be an almost ideal solution using current and near-future tech.
Plug in hybrids are ideal for smaller vehicles which see 90% of their miles on shorter trips around town.
In other words, RVs are the worst possible application for plug in hybrids. And most of them cover so few miles that any effort to improve efficiency or reduce emissions will never pay for itself. The current gas and diesel RVs are honestly an ideal power train technology, let’s work on every other type of vehicle before we go after RVs.
You realize that the EV range is scalable right? Bigger/more batteries+ an already large motor that could also be a generator=more range.
The biggest point being that very significant mileage increase is possible using existing tech. Also going full BEV without MAJOR tradeoffs in this segment is overly optimistic with current charging tech and infrastructure.
You’d think that’d be the case, but RVs also tend to have ICE generators and large battery banks, for powering the vehicle off-grid, while alternately also being used on-grid.
In the former case of boondocking, a plug-in hybrid specifically isn’t that useful, but you’ll want a decent amount of battery anyway to cover house loads, so why not make it a plug-in? Then, you can use the more thermally efficient, built to automotive instead of power equipment standards, likely quieter, main engine to generate house power above and beyond what the batteries can carry. And, because it’s the watercooled main engine, not a secondary possibly aircooled generator engine, you can even do combined heat and power shenanigans to heat the RV using waste heat from the engine and not have to directly burn more fuel than is needed for the electrical loads.
In the latter case… hey, 10-75 miles of AER (for the NZEV regulation) is 10-75 miles less fuel you have to buy.
As my econ prof pointed out long ago, complaining doesn’t cost a dime so businesses will complain endlessly about taxes and regulation in the hope they get a handout.
They can use compliant chassis or buy EV credits like everyone else does (guess where Tesla makes a lot of its money?)
RVs are arguably the worst application for EVs. Driven infrequently, and driven long distances when they are. You’d have to sit at a charger all day to get back to 80% on something that big. Lucky you’d have a bedroom with you.
The batteries dedicated to a single RV could be used to build a dozen or more commuter cars.
You could always go hydrogen, as long as your vacation plans involve traveling between 3 fueling stations in California
Now, a PHEV RV, that’d be great. Plenty of range, but still not terrible around town. Almost all campgrounds have at least a 3.6KW hookup and most these days have a 12KW. Without hookups, you can just run the motor for a short period and be good all day even running a decent bit of climate control.
Famously, manufacturing EV batteries involves massive environmental impact and carbon emissions. This is offset by the fact that they produce much less CO2 as part of operation, but the payback period can be 100k miles or more.
Most motorhomes will never drive that far. EV motorhomes are DEFINITELY worse for the environment and emit more CO2 that current gas and diesel ones. And would be massively more expensive and worse to use.
That 100,000 mile number is way wrong.
Political theatre at it’s finest. Anyone who can afford to buy an RV that STARTS at $300K++ and goes to a couple of million can afford to setup a Montana LLC and register it there. And chances are they are going to do that anyway for the tax savings. It’s no different than my home state of Maine where NOBODY who owns one of these things registers it there because the annual excise tax bill (based on original MSRP, not current value) can be in the tens of thousands of dollars per year for a high-end bus conversion.
Not enough of these things are sold and registered in CA to make a hill of beans difference to air quality, and of course they can’t stop many thousands of them from rolling in from out of state as tourists. How about just NOT basically exempting heavy trucks from emissions and fuel economy standards in the first place, nationwide? Phased in over some reasonable time period.
I have a hard time with regulations like this when cruise ships, private jets, and mega yachts pollute more in one day than most of us “poors” will do in a lifetime.
IMO RV’s and busses are great candidates for hybrid tech.
That makes two of us. It’s political theatre for a segment of transportation that simply makes no difference at all.
Somewhat OT but local RV dealers appear to have massive amounts of inventory. I can only guess at what the floor planning costs must be on acres upon acres of high priced motorhomes.
Set up an LLC in a state that permits the RV’s. Register and plate the RV in that state. Drive it wherever you want. The contiguous 48 states all allow vehicles plated in other states to drive their roads.
That is exactly what people who buy these things do already to avoid the taxes on them, with Montana being the usual choice.
Not to get too political(which usually prefaces something political) but I REALLY hope the new fedearl administration puts the hammer down on CARB.
CARB’s done some good things, but California is big, disproportionately big, and with the other 6 states they are basically creating 2 standards for vehicle manufacturers to build in the US.
Meanwhile flights in and out of LAX are burning more fuel than everyone sitting on the 405.
basically creating 2 standards for vehicle manufacturers to build in the US….
That is exactly what we had in the 70s and 80s. Then finally the car maker decided just to build all the cars to California standards.
Yeah, and understandably some parts of California had really bad air in the 70s and 80s, so it as totally warranted. There’s still a need to keep pushing the needle, but I feel like it should be at the federal level, especially with multiple states now following what California does, that seems a little bit of overreach. Unfortunately now at the federal level it’s probably gonna roll us back to 80s so not sure that’s a better answer anymore.
Agree. There was a time when CARB was 100% necessary, however, now that the EPA has relatively caught up, emissions should be regulated at the federal level – especially since transportation and associated sales fall under interstate commerce.
That said, the EPA should be driving tightening standards that are realistic and achievable, but also continue to reduce emissions. Now if cities such as LA wish to go to adopting ZEV zones, I could understand that to improve local air quality, but if they do so then they should be required to have adequate Park and Ride infrastructure.
CARB needs to adjust to having realistic emissions standards and not over-zealous draconian rules that act as effective technology bans and leaving entire markets unserved. If they can’t be realistic, then they should not be granted their waiver. That’s not to say we should not be striving to reduce emissions, but we should be striving for realistic and achievable targets that reduce emissions without heavy handed bans.
I would also like to offer a very hearty “Go Fuck Yourself” to every Shill that has tried to twist the 2035 Mandate as “No one is actually trying to ban gas cars, you can still buy one in another state”. It has always been obvious that CARB states have zero intention of letting non-CARB (ICE) vehicles be registered in state after 2035.
To be fair, Southern California has unique requirements for this due to the entire LA basin being a bowl with constant temperature inversions. So it very much makes sense to severely limit pollution in that area. And IMHO, there really isn’t much downside to not just having that standard for the country as a whole, at least until they get into this sort of mandated nonsense. Nobody is going to buy a zero-emission RV, they simply don’t have the range to do what RV’ers actually do with them with today’s tech. And there aren’t enough of these big diesels sold to make any difference, with modern ones being pretty damned clean to start with.
So in a nutshell, I am fine with CA emissions requirements, but not fine with thier zero-emissions mandates, absent them coming up with incentives to buy them that would make people actually WANT them, and not just forcing manufacturers to make them. Supply side economics NEVER works.
RVs are stupid. 90 some % of National Parks and Campgrounds have cabins. You d be $ ahead if you bought a Bentley and stayed in cabins.
Good point. How many nice hotel rooms can stay in for the price of a giant RV?
Staying at a hotel is not an option if you wanna have a campfire
Many hotels/motels I’ve stayed at in rustic areas have fire pits and propane fireplaces for guests. It’s not necessarily strictly a one-or-the-other situation. That said, I’m usually plenty happy tent camping in Michigan’s state parks for a fraction of the price of hotels.
Yep I have a tent that I can stand it. is freestanding, goes up in about 1 min i put a cot, table, and chair in the tent and the whole set up was about $350 so about 1/10 the price of a roof top tent that takes longer to set up. Tent camping is not bad at all.
That sounds like a challenge…
Do they make Bentleys with bathrooms? One of the advantages of my RV is that I never have to use a public bathroom.
Never bought a Bentley, but I imagine if your in that tax bracket, they’ll find somewhere to put that compost toilet for enough money.
Bentley? No.
Rolls Royce? Yes.
Here, read this article from a bowel movement obsessed auto journalist.
What a great article! I wonder what that author is up to these days? 😛
“Do they make Bentleys with bathrooms?”
I’ll answer your question with another question.
Do they make Bentley’s?
Yes.
So OBVIOUSLY they make Bentleys with bathroom. Toss a bucket in there and you’ll be fine.
And if things get messy – you can already afford a Bentley, so you should easily afford to buy another that is clean.
Do racetracks have cabins?
The four MotoX courses I was at last month were all entirely devoid of cabins.
The seven road courses I have raced at have zero cabins.
EAA Oshkosh did not have cabins either.
That said.. I tent it.
I’d prefer to sleep in my own bed with my own sheets thank you
RVs are stupid, sure, but so are people.
A lot of the time, the people in the big diesel pushers are actually living out of it full-time. It’s not the cheapest option still, but there’s some advantages to being able to travel all over the place and still be home in your own bed with all your stuff.
National park campgrounds are not your house, and you have to lug your junk into the cabin every time.
It’s a motorHOME, not a convenient transportable cabin. Do you really think people are blowing half a million on a motorhome and using it for occasional camping? A lot of these are permanent residences.
This further reinforces my longstanding belief that CARB is an evil organization of unelected, unicorn riding bureaucrats and pecksniff elitists who don’t go any where and certainly don’t get out into campgrounds and nature. They are convinced that California is gonna save the world, totally ignoring that Asia , to the west are still building and operating coal burning power plants. The fact that California’s air is as clean as it is is near miraculous. When the first white settlers came out, the first peoples referred to the LA basin as “the valley of the smokes”.
I’m confused as to why you think that CARB is literally evil but you say in the exact same comment that it’s miraculous that CA has such clean air. It’s clean because CARB has stood up to corporations for decades and told them no. The fact that China pollutes more than CA does is completely irrelevant. CARB can only influence what goes on in CA.
The wind blows from Asia to the west coast. Surprisingly, pollutants come with it. I get annoyed because CARB moves the goalposts just about the time all the affected entities get close to attainment.
I mean, yes, they do move the goalposts because the goal is zero emissions.
An unrealistic goal. Similar to the plastic bag rule. I buy a wheel of cheese, wrapped in plastic; a head of lettuce, wrapped in plastic; a jug of milk,in plastic; a bag of chips, in plastic; but I can’t have a plastic bag to take it home in and then use to line my bathroom garbage can or pick up my dog’s excrement. For that I have to buy a box of 5 mil plastic bags.
Virtue Signaling is becoming more and more insane and insulting.
Energy is best in dense packages, as in petroleum products. Electric trucks will be crippled on cargo capacity and/or distance, farm tractors will be out of reach in cost and under performing in the ability to do work. Industry and agriculture will be dependent on petroleum far into the future, until all heavy equipment comes equipped with a “Mr Fusion” unit.
Bigger picture, California (and the other CARB states) makes up a significant portion of the RV market. Eliminate that portion of the market and the entire market may disappear, even in non-CARB states, While I’m no fan of the big Class A’s, nor would I ever be in a position to buy one, I’m even less of a fan of any one state being able to dictate what can and cannot be sold in the rest of the country.
These vehicles make up a tiny fraction of the vehicles on the road and they travel far fewer miles, annually than most other vehicles do (nobody is using one for their daily commute). By definition, they’re big, heavy, non-aerodynamic boxes, they’re the antithesis of efficiency. As one of my bosses was prone to say, “It’s like trying to tell a eunuch to get well.” If people want to blow their money on one, I’m more in the camp of “You do you”, and not in the Karen camp of “I am going to let perfect be the enemy of good”.
Well said. The heavy handed “Target Zero” (tailpipe emissions) is getting in the way of progress for reducing emissions across the entire fleet. Toyota has the right mentality right now in that it is more impactful to reduce all fleet emissions by 50% than to reduce the emissions of 20% of the fleet by 70%.