To Whom It May Concern,
From a seasoned landscaper's perspective;
Overlooking the fact that the current technological status of
battery operated landscape equipment is not yet satisfactory (to
say the least), and is most definitely incomparable to the far
superior gas powered equipment, the implementation timeline that is
currently set is most definitely inappropriate. Here are a
few reasons why;
* The massive demand for battery powered equipment that will be
caused by this legislation will tax an already stressed supply
chain network that will leave tradesmen without the necessary
equipment that we need to get the job done.
* Heavy labor demand and limited supply have left our industry
(and many others) in need of hard working men and women. Reducing
efficiency during a time of labor shortages will only increase the
demand for labor when there is already a problem with job
vacancies.
* in an already unprecendented time of large-scale inflation,
why does it make sense to rapidly force feed legislation that
decreases efficiency and therefore heavily raises cost for goods
and services to the residents of California?
* There is also the concern of the amount of infrastructure
& training that will need to be upgraded in order to
accommodate the storage, charging, and maintenance of the
alternative equipment. This takes time to do.
In summary, professionals in the landscape industry strive to do
the right thing and we certainly understand that carbon emissions
need to be reduced, but the alternative technology's are not yet
there to substitute out the high quality gas equipment. The
industry needs a much more extended timeline in order to execute
this without failures that will be felt state wide, by
ALL.