Generate an explanation for the given claim using the provided supporting material from the paragraph. Please consider the following points while generating an output. 1) The claim will always have supporting proof in the paragraph, and the paragraph will have a clear point of view supporting the claim. 2) There can be instances where direct correlation to the claim is not available. Make use of the sentences in the paragraph to provide a corresponding output supporting the claim. 3) The explanation should be at least one and at most twelve sentences long.

Example input: Paragraph: "Although the story didn't cite the cost of appendectomy emergency or urgent surgery and we wish it had, we nonetheless will give it a satisfactory score because it at least cited what the editorial writer wrote, ""A secondary benefit is the savings to the hospital generated by minimizing staff and anesthesiologist presence late in the evening and during the wee hours of the morning."" As with our harms score above, although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Despite running less than 300 words, this story did an adequate job in explaining the quality of the evidence, including pointing out limitations. No disease-mongering here. The story meets the bare minimum requirement for this criterion in that it at least cited what an editorial stated. The focus of the story was on a study comparing emergency appendectomy with surgery done up to 12 hours later or beyond. This is the whole focus of the story and one we applaud when it begins: ""Appendectomy is the most common emergency surgery in the world, but it doesn't have to be."" There were no claims made about the novelty of this research, and we may have wished for a bit more context on this. Nonetheless, the potential for guiding future care decisions was made clear. Not applicable. Given that the story only pulled excerpts from the journal article and the accompanying editorial, and didn't include any fresh quotes from interviews, we can't be sure of the extent to which it may have been influenced by a news release.". Claim: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
Example output: We really don't understand why only a handful of mainstream news organizations reported this story. (At least in what we found.) The most common emergency surgery in the world. Rushing to emergency surgery may not carry any benefit. Waiting a few hours may be safer and less expensive. Why is that not a story? We applaud USA Today for finding time and space and clearly it didn't need to free up much space to do a good job telling the story. The story explains that as many as 300,0 appendectomies are done each year in the US. That figure alone explains why this is an important study to report.
Example explanation: The output is an analysis of the claim while considering the paragraph as a reference. The output highlights the key features presented in the paragraph and explains the claim accordingly.
Q: Paragraph: Home to the two largest ports in the country in Los Angeles and Long Beach, California has roughly 1.5 million medium and heavy duty trucks on the road that spew harmful pollutants as they haul freight to warehouses. The state's transportation sector accounts for 41% of all greenhouse gas emissions, a cause of climate change, and is a major source of ozone and particulate matter pollution that can cause respiratory problems. Regulators estimate the new rules would result in roughly 74,000 zero emission trucks on the road in California by 2030, or about 4% of all trucks. California already has a rule requiring car makers to offer for sale specific numbers of clean cars. But Mary Nichols, chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board, said the truck rule would be the first of its kind in the world. The board considered the new rule in a public hearing on Thursday that drew more than 100 public comments. The board won't vote on the proposal until next year. But Thursday was the last chance for advocates and opponents to weigh-in. "Trucks are increasingly a major contributor to air pollution nationwide, but especially in our cities where they are among the largest sources of toxic emissions in vulnerable neighborhoods," Nichols said. If adopted, at least 15% of sales of heavy duty pickup trucks like the Ford F-250 and full size vans like the Chevrolet Express must be zero emission vehicles by 2030. That standard also applies to the heaviest trucks, including tractor trailers. The standard is tougher for box trucks and delivery trucks, mandating at least half of all new sales be zero-emission vehicles by 2030. The rules are part of the state's plan to have 100% zero emission truck sales by 2040. By then, state regulators say the phased-in limits could prevent more than 600 premature deaths due to poor air quality in California. Sales requirements for the heaviest trucks would begin in 2024 and gradually increase until 2030. Sales requirements for pickup trucks would not begin until 2027. The proposed rules continue California's aggressive push on environmental regulations, which already include tougher emission standards on cars and trucks than the federal government imposes and a first-in-the-nation cap-and-trade system that requires big polluters to purchase credits to let them pollute. Most environmental groups support the rule, but they say it is not strong enough. Trucks last longer than passenger vehicles, which is why companies are slower to replace their fleets. While the rules would impact up to 50% of some new truck sales by 2030, it would only result in about 4% of trucks on the road being zero emission vehicles. Andrea Vidaurre, policy analyst for the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, said these types of trucks historically are clustered in poorer communities. That includes communities in the Inland Empire, an area next to Los Angeles where warehouses store freight from ports. The group says low-income communities can be most impacted environmental health hazards. "We have so much traffic going in right now just in this area, and the rule currently, it would barely cover it," she said. Jed Mandel, president of the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association, said he supports efforts to get more zero-emission trucks on the road. But he said making rules "on a naked sales mandate is fundamentally flawed." "Trucks are not cars. Our customers invest capital to purchase vehicles that must return a profit," Mandel said. "We all know today that (zero emission vehicles) are more expensive than traditionally fueled vehicles." Mandel said California regulators should narrow the rule to apply to trucking segments that are "more readily suited to that technology," including school buses and municipal fleet step vans. Claim: California considers requiring zero emission truck sales.
A:
The country's most populous state could become the first to require a portion of new truck sales be electric or "zero emission" vehicles as California grapples with how to clean up its worst-in-the nation air quality.