Trucks at Work Blog

“Responses to climate change impacts in the United States will almost certainly evolve over time as we learn through experience. Implementing these response strategies will require careful planning and continual feedback on the impacts of policies for government, industry, and society.” –Dr. Anne Waple is with the US Global Change Research Program

If you missed it, President Obama’s administration issued a big report this week on the potential impact of climate change in the U.S. You’d be forgiven if, upon reading it, you’d think the authors used the Bible’s “Book of Revelations” as a style guide, but that’s beside the point I’d like to make here.

First, the report – given the surprisingly bland title of “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States,” considering the almost hysterical nature of the prose within – outlines the possible direction of climate change under two broad scenarios, according to Dr. Anne Waple: the first projects what might happen if the U.S. focuses on aggressively reducing greenhouse gas emissions, with the second postulating what happens if we don’t.

The report also details the current impact of climate change already being felt across the U.S. as well as those that will soon emerge or become more intense if action is slow to occur. Some of the impacts that Dr. Waple pointed out in her briefing this week are:

• More rain is already coming in very heavy events, and this is projected to increase across the nation. This would have impacts on transportation, agriculture, water quality, health, among other sectors;

• Heat waves will become more frequent and intense, increasing threats to human health and quality of life, especially in cities;

• Warming will decrease demand for heating energy in winter and increase demand for cooling energy in summer. The latter will increase peak electricity demand in most regions;

• Water resources will be stressed in many regions. For example, snowpack is declining in the West, and there is an increasing probability of drought in the Southwest, while floods and water quality issues are likely to be more of a problem in most regions;

• In coastal communities, sea-level rise and storm surge will increase threats to homes and infrastructure including water, sewer, transportation and communication systems.

Dr. Waple went on to say that effectively managing the nation’s response to a changing climate falls into two general categories:

1. Implementing measures to limit climate change and therefore avoid many of the impacts discussed in the report. These measures must reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and might include increasing our reliance on clean energy, and developing energy efficient technologies

2. Reducing our vulnerability and increasing our resilience to ongoing climate change in pro-active, community-based ways. Examples of this include such measures as developing more climate-sensitive building codes to keep people out of harm’s way, or planting more drought or heat tolerant crops, for example.

OK, now, whether you agree with anything in this report or not, it’s my belief that not much is going to be done about it – except for an effort here and there by the federal government to raise taxes. In short, this is an exercise in futility.

Now, why would I say that? It’s simple – and we’ll use the third bullet point above as an example. Climate change is supposedly going to increase demand for heating and air conditioning – thus driving up energy demand. Yet President Obama’s administration is saying that we must reduce our overall energy demand and, further, significantly cut our reliance on coal, petroleum, and even nuclear power for it.

When push comes to shove, though, do you think 400 million Americans are going to willingly turn down the heat and turn off the A/C … or scream for more juice so they can stay warm and cool? We talk a good line about being “green” in this land of ours, but when it comes time to sacrifice, we’re always waiting for someone else to do it.

Here’s the other big problem – we in the U.S. don’t live on our own ecologically isolated island. We share the same water, air, and wind with the rest of the world. So we could become as “green” as conceivably possible … yet find all our efforts cancelled out by the two billion denizens of China that decide being “green” might remove a competitive advantage for them.

Right now, the environmental and safety mandates governing China’s factories and cities can’t even come close to ours – which is why in large measure so much manufacturing has been outsourced to them over the last two decades. And everything they do – or don’t do – is going to impact our climate issues, regardless of what we do or don’t do.

[This is one reason the U.S. refused to sign the Kyoto Protocols back in 2000 – because they severely restricted developed countries yet let nations like China, India, and others continue to pollute with abandon.]

Is this to say that we should NOT attempt to deal with climate change? Hardly. It’s just that we must realize that doing so will require a lot of sacrifice on the part of ALL Americans (especially from the Malibu house set in Hollywood), that it will change the way we live our lives for good … and that if the entire world doesn’t get on the bandwagon, it very well might be all for naught.

“Until … economies of scale are established, most heavy-duty hybrids will be sold at a very high premium compared to non-hybrids.” –Dennis Slagle, president and CEO, Mack Trucks

It’s the “Catch-22” of the hybrid truck industry: higher sales volume of these trucks would significantly helps lower the cost of hybrids, but their currently high sticker price of hybrid trucks compared to their diesel-only brethren keeps sales low. So what to do?

That’s a point where OEMs, fleets, industry experts, and (yes, you knew there’d be a few) members of Congress agree that more incentives to spur sales of hybrid trucks are needed. Not an easy solution to swallow, considering the debt load our nation is carrying right now ($11 trillion and rising) and the still-abysmal state of our economy.

Yet here we were, at an event in front of the U.S. Capitol building – lyrically dubbed “Hybrid Day on the Hill” – calling for increased government largesse to offset the purchase price premium for hybrid trucks and buses.

Yet if you think about it, this is actually a pretty smart idea, providing federal incentives to spur the purchase of hybrid trucks – be they tax credits, rebates, whatever. Hybrids make a good fit in many different truck applications – pickup and delivery, refuse, beverage, utility operations, you name it – and they provide an awesome “one-two” punch in terms of reducing fuel usage AND tailpipe emissions simultaneously.

The best thing is, if the batteries go dead for whatever reason, the truck isn’t stuck on the side of the road. Rather, the diesel engine can keep it up and running and in service – and thus, from an operational point of view, there isn’t an extreme Achilles heel with this technology.

Yes, a lot of work still needs to be done – recycling the batteries required to provide electric power onboard these hybrid trucks is the big one – but it’s an effective solution and it’s available now, Over 1,000 hybrid trucks are in service or on the production line right now – it’s not technology, like hydrogen-powered fuel cells, that’s at least a decade away from practical every day use.

“Our hybrid technology will be commercially viable, yet it will take time to establish a robust hybrid market for heavy vehicles that will enable us to invest in large scale production,” said Dennis Slagle, president and CEO of Mack Trucks. “Incentives will accelerate the adoption of Class 8 hybrids and bring forward the positive environmental changes.”

“Government incentives are necessary to establish a market for these vehicles with environmental benefits, similar to the incentives offered for hybrid passenger vehicles,” said Thomas Kelly III, Mack’s senior vice president-product portfolio management (seen in the photo below standing at right, talking with John Walsh, Mack’s director of communications). “The public benefit of these incentives will be reduced environmental impact as hybrid heavy-duty trucks become more common.”

He believes some existing short-term federal tax credit programs apply to heavy-duty hybrids, and some incentives in the federal stimulus bill could possibly apply as well. But Kelly also thinks longer-term incentives are needed. “For example, we’d like to see Congress extend the federal Alternative Motor Vehicle Credit, enacted by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which expires at the end of 2009,” Kelly said.

I talked to Kelly at the “Hybrid Day on the Hill” event last week (you can see a video interview with him at that event below) and to his mind, the flexibility of hybrid technology is its greatest asset – technology that can be used in shuttle buses, package delivery vans, refuse trucks, and even linehaul tractors. Mack is currently pilot testing two hybrid refuse truck designs with Waste Management and New York City’s Dept. of Sanitation to see just what kinds of savings the technology can generate.

“We’re talking fuel savings, savings from reduced wear and tear, and of course less noise – that’s a big benefit, especially in urban truck operations,” he told me.

Hybrids are certainly not a silver bullet to our energy security and environmental issues, but they do offer a strong advantage in that fleets don’t have to turn their operations upside down and inside out to incorporate them. That’s worthy of some investment dollars at the federal level, I think.

“The claims made by the CFC are absurd. Only creditworthy customers are approved and to date not a single one has defaulted. In a discussion with the CFC last fall, we pointed out the inaccuracies of their report which at the time they acknowledged, but apparently continue to claim.” –Jack Ferry, media relations, Daimler Financial Services

So I got a call from Jack Ferry of Daimler Financial Services following my post yesterday about the clean truck program mess out at the Port of Long Beach, upset that I seemed to be saying all the accusations leveled by the Consumer Federation of California against Daimler Financial Services were true. That is NOT what I was saying, nor should it be construed as such.

That also wasn’t even remotely the point of my post, so let’s revisit these extremely touchy issues over clean air, truck leases, and a wide variety of other items swirling around the efforts by California’s two major ports to reduce truck exhaust emissions.

The first reason I quoted the CFC’s extremely nasty letter to Dieter Zetsche, Daimler’s chairman, yesterday was to show just how far off the reservation the Port of Long Beach’s effort to reduce truck emission levels has gone. It’s a total soap opera, with people hurling invective that should be confined to rarely watched cable TV shows late at night.

The second reason, which I didn’t seem to convey well enough, is that the wild accusations against Daimler totally miss the point. This company wouldn’t even be involved with the clean truck program if the port hadn’t so heavy-handedly targeted a whole slew of truck models for elimination, then left the burden of buying new trucks on the backs of owner-operators. Daimler got called in by the PORT to offer a way for port truckers to finance equipment, not the other way around.

The port situation is actually reflective of the larger emission-reduction problem facing the entire trucking industry. The federal government established firm mandates for the reduction of particulates and oxides of nitrogen (NOx), significantly adding to the price tag of new Class 8 tractors – boosting sticker prices by 5% to 10% in 2007, with another 5% to 10% increase on the way for 2010. Consider that a basic Class 8 model now costs over $100,000 makes such emission-related upcharges a big bill to swallow for smaller operators.

So the Port of Long Beach asks for help in arranging some way for port truckers to get cleaner equipment, enlisting Daimler Financial Services to help. Now everyone is screaming about Daimler; well, I say, why are they there in the first place? They didn’t come up with the clean truck plan – the Port of Long Beach did. If the economics for port truckers are so bad, if public interest groups claim these truckers can’t afford it, why don’t you instead put the clean truck program on hold for a year or two, until the economy recovers?

Then there are all the regulations and fees attached to the clean truck program that don’t have anything to do with reducing emissions – part of the “concession plans” both the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach designed – at least as far as I can see.

In fact, Judge Christina Snyder of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California – following guidance from a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling made back in March – recently put many of the tenets of those plans on hold.

A refreshing change of pace would see the ports use a plan similar to the Environmental Protection Agency’s SmartWay program, whereby carriers AND shippers both put some skin in the clean air game. The key benefit to SmartWay is that is uses POSITIVE incentives to get carriers to adopt fuel saving and emission reduction strategies – with the shippers providing the monetary and business incentives to do so.

A good example of how this works comes from Bay & Bay Transportation up in Rosemont, MN. I interviewed the company’s president, Sam Anderson, last year about the main reason they made the move to become a SmartWay approved carrier “One of our largest shippers told us that if we became a SmartWay carrier, they’d put us on a different fuel surcharge that would give us four cents more per mile,” he told me. “That’s some serious money.”

That’s a model the ports could use to encourage truckers to upgrade to newer trucks or retrofit their older models to reduce emissions: access to higher compensation, not just to avoid excessive fees. That, I think, would’ve created a much more positive outcome, instead of the soap opera we’re witnessing today.

“Today, as the economy has continued its downward slide and the volume of imported containers plummets, the prospects of these already-impoverished drivers repaying their [clean truck] loans are worse than ever.” –Richard Holober, executive director, Consumer Federation of California

Who would’ve thought that the effort to reduce truck exhaust pollution at one of the biggest ports in California could dissolve into such a thicket of recrimination and rhetoric worthy of a low-rent soap opera? Then again, this IS California we’re talking about here.

The latest salvo in the on-going clean truck battle at the port of Long Beach got fired this week by the Consumer Federation of California (CFC). Last year, they released a report entitled “Foreclosure on Wheels: Long Beach’s Truck Program Puts Drivers at High Risk for Default,” and accused Daimler AG and its Daimler Truck Financial subsidiary of “predatory lending” in its effort to offer port truckers leases low-emission trucks complaint with the ports’ rules.

The CFC ratcheted that effort up this week in a vitriolic letter sent from Richard Holober, CFC’s executive director, to Dieter Zetsche, chairman of Daimler AG, accusing the German truck maker of all sorts of malevolent business practices.

“It is irresponsible for Daimler to continue to finance trucks for owner-drivers who get paid not by the hour, but by the number of containers they haul. The volume of work will not sustain these leases. Drivers do not want these leases,” Holober said in his letter. “More than being predatory, these leases to drivers who are being forced to buy trucks that should be purchased by the motor carriers they work for are coercive, exploitative and ultimately disastrous for the drivers, your company, and shareholders.”

Daimler Truck Financial was awarded a contract by the port of Long Beach last year to finance its “Clean Trucks Program” and under its terms, Daimler backs the funding for a low-emissions vehicle to any independent port truck driver whose dirty diesel rig is banned by the port, regardless of his/her credit worthiness and ability to pay.

Discounted for volume, though, clean diesel and alternative fuel trucks cost $100,000-$200,000 and Daimler officials publicly told Long Beach officials that the company expects “over 40%” of port drivers to have “high difficulty meeting the payments” – not in the least that port drivers average $11 to $12 an hour, if they are lucky, because they get paid by the number of containers they move.

I wrote about this still-ongoing battle over the clean truck plan espoused by the ports last year – at the heart of which is a series of state government mandates aimed at getting drayage truckers to turn in their old equipment and upgrade to vehicles powered by either 2007-model clean diesel engines or ones using liquefied natural gas (LNG).

The plan aims to cut port-related diesel truck emissions roughly 80% by requiring licensed motor carriers that service the ports to enter into drayage concession agreements that will remove high-polluting trucks from the ports. Under the plan, the port of Long Beach granted five-year renewable concessions to carriers that comply with the CTP guidelines and pay a one-time application fee of $2,500 and fees of $100 per truck annually, the ports said.

There are other requirements, too, such as: committing to using 100% employee drivers by 2013; using trucks for drayage that meet EPA 2007 heavy-duty truck emission standards; ensuring drivers and trucks comply with driver training, vehicle maintenance, inspections and driver hours standards; registering drivers with the drayage truck registry database and ensuring enrollment in the federal Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) program; and agreeing to affix radio-frequency identification devices (RFID) to vehicles.

Don’t forget, too, the mandated $35 “clean truck fee” per loaded 20-foot equivalent container (TEU) on any truck entering a terminal in the ports with an engine model year between 1989 and 2006 – a fee collected from the Beneficial Cargo Owner (BCO) by the terminal operator. Trucks made before 1989, however, will NOT be allowed to operate at the ports.

[Notice how there’s a lot of items in the CTP that aren’t directly related to lower emissions? Such as RFID mandates? Interesting how that always seems to happen …]

This is all supposed to save more than it costs, for according to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), pollution from ports contributes to hundreds of premature deaths each year and costs the public between $100 million and $590 million each year in health impact costs.

Indeed, those figures are why Commissioner Joseph Brennan broke with his colleagues on the Federal Maritime Commission earlier this year to support all aspects of this program. From his review of the record, he said, “it is abundantly clear that the enormous, long-term economic, health, and security benefits of the clean trucks program outweigh the projections, by some, of cost increases and service decreases.”

Yet here is the CFC, at the same time about the same program, loudly proclaiming that the mechanisms forcing owner-operators to buy or lease said “cleaner trucks” are in effect destroying them. They simply can’t afford them based on the low wages they receive for hauling containers.

Needless to say, an effort that started out with the goal of reducing pollution has now blown up to include labor issues, economic issues, pay scales, and a host of other gripes well outside the pale of clean air. Frankly, it’s quite a mess – and lord only knows how it’ll get sorted out.

“With [this program], California is embarking on a fundamental transformation of its transportation system to substantially decrease greenhouse gas emissions and petroleum use.” –James Boyd, vice chairman, California Energy Commission, on the golden state’s adoption of the group’s Alternative and Renewable Fuels and Vehicle Technology Program.

There’s been a saying lately in transportation circles (and not always a kindly one) that “as California goes, so goes the nation.” From mandating a wholesale switch to ultra low sulfur diesel (ULSD) to fuel economy standards, California has blazed a unique trail when it comes to the regulatory impact on its (and our nation’s) transportation strategy – a trail both liked and loathed in equal measure by truckers.

Now the golden state is adding a new wrinkle with the adoption of the California Energy Commission’s extremely far-reaching Alternative and Renewable Fuels and Vehicle Technology Program – a program that provides $176 million of funding over the next two years to “stimulate” green transportation projects and “encourage innovation” to help meet the state’s aggressive climate change policies.

“Vehicles are the major contributor to global warming pollution [and] more than 38 percent of the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in California come from burning gasoline and diesel in cars and trucks,” noted James Boyd, the group’s vice chairman. “[This plan] promotes sustainable development. With it, California is embarking on a fundamental transformation of its transportation system to substantially decrease greenhouse gas emissions and petroleum use.”

California is making aggressive moves on a number of transportation fronts right now: working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, decrease petroleum fuel use to 15 percent below 2003 levels by 2020, and increase alternative fuel use to 20 percent by 2020.

Boyd noted that achieving these multiple objectives will require a portfolio of new fuels and vehicle technologies including electric drive and fuel cell vehicles, low-carbon biofuels, gasoline and diesel vehicles with far greater fuel economy, along with natural gas and propane vehicles.

That’s why the Energy Commission’s plan is using its share of the federal stimulus package money to expand the use of low carbon fuels and cleaner vehicles that are available today and open up the market for the more exotic technologies that are required in the future.

To accomplish those lofty goals, a lot of big bucks are goping to be spent over the next two years:

• Investing $46 million for electric vehicles, public charging stations, and manufacturing plants;

• Some $40 million for hydrogen fueling stations;

• About $12 million for advanced ethanol fuel production facilities and E-85 fueling stations;

• Another $43 million for natural gas vehicles, fueling stations and biomethane production facilities;

• However, only $6 million will be spent on advanced renewable diesel and biodiesel facilities, with just $2 million for propane vehicles.

The plan also directs $27 million go to fund workforce training programs, research, public education and technical assistance programs – over four times the amount being spent on renewable diesel infrastructure.

The big unknown right now is what mandates California might develop to help spur further development and use of all these different propulsion methods – and regulatory mandates are a favorite tool of the golden state.

Right now, for example, California’s truckers face several fuel-saving and emission-related mandates, including first-of-their-kind standards for trailer aerodynamics approved by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) this year that go into effect in stages beginning Jan. 1 2010: stating that most 53-foot dry vans operating in the golden state must be equipped with aerodynamic devices that improve fuel efficiency by at least 5%, while for refrigerated trailers the benchmark is 4%.

It remains to be seen if such regulatory mandates will play a future role in broadening the California Energy Commission’s alternative fuel program. What is for sure that it sure seems the golden state is firmly committed to this plan for the long haul.

“If we don’t understand what is natural, I don’t think we can say much about what the humans are doing. So our interest is to understand – first the natural variability of climate – and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural.” –Dr. Anastasios Tsonis, climate researcher at University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

Trucking needs to step up its presence in the climate change debate, especially now that more evidence is coming to light that the current global warming and cooling patterns we’re experiencing may not be so heavily driven by us humans as previously thought.

Let’s start with the recent study from the researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UW-Milwaukee). Scientists at the university used a math application known as “synchronized chaos” and applied it to climate data taken over the past 100 years.

In essence, using that formula should that the weather changes we’re experiencing are far more “natural” than many currently believe – meaning a lot of anti-global warming efforts, such as reducing power plant emissions via a “cap-and-trade” system, might not amount to a hill of beans in terms of their impact on the world’s climate systems.

[For a good explanation of how a “cap-and-trade” system works, check out the video below. Jeremy Symons, the National Wildlife Federation’s Senior Vice President of conservation and education, provides a good, simple overview of how it might function.]

“Imagine that you have four synchronized swimmers and they are not holding hands and they do their program and everything is fine; now, if they begin to hold hands and hold hands tightly, most likely a slight error will destroy the synchronization. Well, we applied the same analogy to climate,” said UW-Milwaukee Researcher Dr. Anastasios Tsonis.

His team’s analysis of the past century of climate data concludes that the air and ocean systems of the earth are now showing signs of synchronizing with each other. Eventually, the systems begin to couple and the synchronous state is destroyed, leading to a climate shift.

“In climate, when this happens, the climate state changes. You go from a cooling regime to a warming regime or a warming regime to a cooling regime,” he noted in a recent interview. “This way we were able to explain all the fluctuations in the global temperature trend in the past century. The research team has found the warming trend of the past 30 years has stopped and in fact global temperatures have leveled off since 2001.”

Tsonis believes the last climate shift point occurred in 2000 according to his data, said he thinks the current trend of steady or even cooling earth temps may last a couple of decades or until the next climate shift occurs.

This isn’t the first time the “orthodoxy on global warming” has been seriously questioned, either. Columnist Lorne Gunter with the National Post of Canada noted this in a story last October that the number of climate change skeptics is growing rapidly because “a funny thing is happening to global temperatures – they’re going down, not up.”

He pointed to research by Brazilian Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart that on Sept. 5 last year, areas of southern Brazil were recording one of their latest winter snowfalls ever and entering what turned out to be their coldest September in a century. Hackbart went on to explain that extreme cold or snowfall events in Brazil has always been tied to “a negative PDO” or Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Positive PDOs – the famed “El Nino” – produce above-average temperatures in South America while negative ones – La Ninas – produce below average ones.

Gunter added that Hackbart also noted periods of solar inactivity known as “solar minimums” magnify cold spells on his continent. So, given that August 2008 was the first month since 1913 in which no sunspot activity was recorded – none – and during which solar winds were at a 50-year low, he was not surprised that Brazilians were suffering (for them) a brutal cold snap. “This is no coincidence,” he said as he scoffed at the notion that manmade carbon emissions had more impact than the sun and oceans on global climate.

Gunter also pointed to work by Don Easterbrook, a geologist at Western Washington University, that global cooling – not warming – is the trend our planet is facing. “It’s practically a slam dunk that we are in for about 30 years of global cooling,” as the sun enters a particularly inactive phase, Easterbrook said. His examination of warming and cooling trends over the past four centuries shows an “almost exact correlation” between climate fluctuations and solar energy received on Earth, while showing almost “no correlation at all with CO2 (carbon dioxide),” noted Gunter.

Michael J. Myers of Hilton Head, S. C. – an analytical chemist who works in spectroscopy and atmospheric sensing – is another global warming skeptic Gunter brought to light.

“Man-made global warming is junk science,” explained Myers, pointing out that worldwide manmade CO2 emission each year “equals about 0.0168% of the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration … This results in a 0.00064% increase in the absorption of the sun’s radiation. This is an insignificantly small number.”

Now, with all this in mind, do we just discard any and all efforts to reduce pollution of our air by factories, cars, trucks, boats, planes, etc.? No, not all.

What we need to do, however, is address how FAST we need to make changes – as in maybe the rapid nine-year emission reduction effort the U.S. trucking industry is in the midst of could have been slowed down a ways to reduce pre-buys and other economically damaging side effects. That may be the real lesson we learn if global cooling turns out to be the trend line we’re facing.

“Our emissions reduction technology for 2010 will bring immediate benefits for the air we breathe without using emissions credits, while at the same time significantly improving fuel economy for our customers.” –Scott Kress, senior vice president-sales & marketing, Volvo Trucks North America

Volvo Trucks North America (VTNA) is the first OEM to take the all-important plunge when it comes to 2010 emission control technology – revealing how much it’ll cost. Late yesterday, Volvo said its trucks, equipped with selective catalytic reduction (SCR) systems to meet the 2010 emission standards, will include a surcharge of $9,600.

Yowza! You heard it; an extra $9,600 applies to new Volvo trucks built with Volvo D11, D13 and D16 engines, as well as those with the Cummins ISX engine, sold after January 1, 2010. Scott Kress, Volvo’s senior vice president-sales & marketing, noted that pricing also includes the development of advanced onboard diagnostics (OBD) systems required by the new emissions regulations.

So now the pricing issue is out in the open, and it’s safe to say that the other truck makers should pretty quickly start laying their own cards on the table.

Mark Lampert, senior vice president of sales for Daimler Trucks North America (DTNA) (which builds Freightliner and Western Star trucks, among others), passed on a question to address his company’s 2010 pricing back in February at the Technology & Maintenance Council’s annual meeting.

He noted then that DTNA is still three to four months away from releasing cost increases due to the addition of SCR. “We’re still finalizing the design of these engines,” Lampert said. “Though I can tell you the engine’s size will have an impact on that cost – in terms of medium-duty versus heavy-duty engines.”

Pricing is already the big battleground when it comes to the implementation of the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2010 emissions standards. That’s because every diesel engine maker and truck manufacturer EXCEPT Navistar Corp. is planning to use SCR technology to reduce the amount of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) given off in the exhaust stream down to the required level of 0.2 grams per brake horsepower hour (g/bhp-hr)

Navistar, though, is going with what it calls advanced exhaust gas recirculation (Advanced EGR) to cut NOx emissions from its MaxxForce brand of diesel engines [the 13-liter model is pictured below] down to the required level.

The battle between these technological choices – with Volvo, Mack, Freightliner, Western Star, Peterbilt, and Kenworth, on one side and Navistar all alone on the other – has been getting more and more contentious of late, with Navistar in particular throwing a lot of stones, specifically on the pricing issue.

According to a study released late last year by New York City-based NERA Economic Consulting — a research effort funded by Navistar — 2010-compliant Class 8 trucks using SCR systems were projected to add a surcharge of $7,000-$10,000. And though SCR reduces diesel fuel consumption, it needs to use diesel exhaust fluid or DEF (made from urea, a liquid ammonia compound) sprayed into the tailpipe in order to do so – adding an extra, ongoing cost to the system.

The pricing projection so far (at least in Volvo’s case) seems to be right on the money (no pun intended). But let’s be very clear about one important fact – ALL the heavy-duty diesel engines that’ll be sold after Jan. 1, 2010, will use EGR. It’s just that Navistar’s product line will use more of it, along with higher fuel injection pressures and other measures – especially emission credits – to reach the required level. While it makes Advanced EGR at least so far seems a less expensive option compared to SCR, it also doesn’t offer the fuel economy gains SCR technology brings to the table.

“Depending on the cost of diesel fuel, you could expect a return on the SCR technology in less than three years with fuel savings alone,” stressed David McKenna, powertrain products marketing manager for Greensboro, NC-based Mack Trucks [and that’s the company’s MP10 engine displayed below].

Michael Jackson – DTNA’s general manager of marketing – pointed out that Detroit Diesel Corp.’s DDC’s 2010 SCR solution should improve the average Class 8 truck’s fuel economy a net 3% over current 2007 engine models – reducing diesel fuel consumption per truck by roughly 800 gallons a year, balanced against the consumption of some 300 gallons of DEF annually.

“Our customers tell us that it [the net fuel economy increase] will give them a true competitive advantage,” he said. “For some, it means thousands of dollars are freed up to put towards new equipment. For others, that fuel economy advantage is passed on to their customers – helping them strengthen their business relationships.”

Steve Charlton, Cummins’ vice president of heavy-duty engineering , noted that it’s really the combination of EGR and SCR – along with the diesel particulate filter (DPF) – that allows those engine makers following the SCR path to meet the 2010 standards.

“Our heavy-duty ISX engine family will incorporate the XPI fuel system, proven cooled EGR, our VG turbocharger, DPF and advanced electronic controls for the best performance, fuel economy and reliability,” he said. “We have the capability to make the engine systems and aftertreatment technologies work together seamlessly [and] the addition of the new SCR catalyst technology ensures that we will deliver the best fuel economy in the industry and total operating cost benefits to our customers.”

Charlton add that the copper zeolite catalyst used in Cummins’ SCR solution should allow its 2010 engines to achieve up to a 5% improvement in fuel economy while meeting the EPA regulations,

By its own admission, Navistar expects its Advanced EGR solution to be “fuel neutral,” meaning it’ll neither improve nor decrease fuel economy in comparison to 2007 engine models, said Tim Shick, director of marketing with Navistar’s engine group. Yet he notes that by avoiding SCR, Navistar avoids all the extra gear needed to make SCR function – DEF, a DEF tank, catalyst, hoses, sensors, the works – which can add up to 400 extra pounds to a truck chassis.

“There is no doubt we can meet the 2010 emissions levels, we have trucks out there doing that today,” Shick said. “Our in-cylinder solution will increase the amount of exhaust gas recirculated into the cylinder by about 10%. Meanwhile, we’ll boost fuel injection pressures [to around 35,000 pounds per square inch (psi)] to increase engine efficiency and it may also move to a five-stage injection cycle so fuel is burned more efficiently. I can also say with full confidence we will be competitive in price.”

One caveat, though, is that Navistar plans to ramp its way up to the EPA 2010 emission levels by cashing in credits it’s collected by exceeding previous emissions requirements. That means the engines Navistar builds after January 1, 2010 will NOT meet the 0.2 g/bhp-hr standard right away. Rather, they will gradually meet those standards over the course of several years – thus requiring the OEM to make engines today that produce emissions below the 2007 standards so they’ll have credits in the bank for future use.

It’s still a very complicated picture, figuring out which technology to choose, for it’s not all about the surcharge for 2010 technology. Certainly, $9,600 extra for a new highway truck after Jan. 1, 2010, is pretty steep, but if it returns a 3% to 5% net improvement in fuel economy, it just may pay for itself. How much Navistar will charge for its 2010 solution also remains an open question, one that should get answered pretty quickly here.

One thing is for certain in all of this: truckers are now starting to get a much more complete picture of the extra costs and benefits they’ll face as they transition to new equipment after Jan. 1, 2010. And knowing those numbers can only help them plan for that transition more effectively.

“On-site renewable energy generation has been extremely efficient and successful for FedEx, and we are continuously looking for new investments.” -Mitch Jackson, director of environmental affairs and sustainability, FedEx Corp.

You‘re probably sick to death of hearing about the many “green initiatives” going on in the freight world - including ones mandated by law, such as the commercial truck emissions rules here in the U.S. Yet “going green” is becoming a bigger and bigger deal for carriers and shippers alike because it‘s increasingly becoming a way both can save a lot of money - especially in terms of reducing energy consumption.

Take Memphis-based FedEx Corp. for example. Its FedEx Express subsidiary is building its first solar-power equipped freight hub outside the U.S. at the Cologne/Bonn airport in Germany - a building slated for completion in 2010. Equipped with new ramp, freight and sort facilities with a fully-automated sort system that will cover a floor space of approximately 50,000 square meters, the Cologne hub will also incorporate a 1.4-megawatt (MW) solar power system that should generate approximately 1.3 gigawatt hours of electricity per year - equivalent to the annual consumption of 370 households. Solar panels fitted to the roof of the new ramp and sort facilities will cover a total surface area of 16,000 square meters, FedEx said.

Remarkably, this isn‘t the first “solar-powered” hub FedEx has built. In August 2005, FedEx flipped the switch on a solar-electric system at its Oakland, CA, hub which has in three years produced more than 3 million kilowatt-hours (kWh) energy, avoiding the release of more than 1,000 tons of carbon dioxide emissions. FedEx noted the solar power system can provide approximately 20% of the Oakland‘s facility‘s total electricity needs and can meet 80% of its

The company‘s LTL trucking arm, FedEx Freight, recently completed the installation of solar-electric systems at terminals in Whittier and Fontana, CA, which generate 1.5 megawatts (MW) of power, avoiding the release of 2.9 million pounds of carbon dioxide emissions each year.

But, as everyone knows, solar power technology ain‘t cheap. On average, it costs about $40,000 to equip a single family home with a solar array large enough to generate significant amounts of energy - an investment that can be hard to recoup over time. However, a new study by Professor David Roland-Holst at the University of California in Berkley figures that energy efficient technology and policies can, over time, reap some significant savings.

Roland-Holst recently wrapped up a study of the California‘s energy-focused policies over last 35 years to determine what - if any - economic benefits resulted from such efforts. Based on his research and applying it to the future, he said that if California improves energy efficiency by just 1% per year, proposed state climate policies will increase the gross state product (GSP) by approximately $76 billion, increase real household incomes by up to $48 billion and create as many as 403,000 new jobs.

“Our analysis provides solid evidence that California’s legacy of energy policy has grown the economy, created jobs and put billions of dollars into the pockets of consumers,” said Roland-Holst. “At this pivotal moment in history, as global markets teeter on the financial edge, our study reveals the economic power of energy innovation and efficiency.”

His study - “Energy Efficiency, Innovation, and Job Creation in California” - examined household reductions in per capita electricity use between 1972 and 2006. As household consumption is the most powerful driver of economic activity in the state - representing over 70% of GSP - household expenditure patterns are the leading determinant of state energy dependence and employment. Roland-Holst said several things stood out from his energy research:

– Over the past thirty-five years, forward looking energy efficiency policies created 1.5 million jobs with a total payroll of over $45 billion, and saved California consumers over $56 billion on energy costs.

– The same efficiency measures resulted in slower (but still positive) growth in energy supply chains, including oil, gas, and electric power. For every new job foregone in these sectors, however, more than 50 new jobs have been created across the state’s diverse economy.

– The economic benefits of energy efficiency innovation have a compounding effect. The first 1.4% of annual efficiency gain produced about 181,000 additional jobs, while an additional one percent yielded 222,000 more. It is reasonable to assume that incremental efficiency gains will be more costly, but they have more intensive economic growth benefits.

– The size and distribution of potential growth benefits that result from the increase of merely 1% in energy efficiency justify significant commitments to explicit incentives for competitive innovation and investment in the discovery and adoption of new efficiency technologies. These technologies offer win-win solutions to the challenge posed by climate change for the state’s industries and consumers.

The whole point here, I think, is that there‘s serious money to be saved by becoming more energy efficient. And in this cash-strapped world we‘re living in now, saving a buck here and there could really make a difference going forward.

“Our efforts not only reduce our carbon footprint but also help us remain competitive in the marketplace.” -Steve Matheys, executive vice president of global commercial services for trucking enterprise Schneider National

That singular comment by Steve Matheys about Green Bay, WI-based Schneider National‘s ongoing participation in a bevy of “green” efforts (enabling the carrier to bag its third consecutive “environmental excellence award” from the Environmental Protection Agency this year) really gets to the heart of things. In short, while going green is great for reducing air pollution, allowing climate change, and all that, it‘s also becoming a key way for truckers to save money - LOTS of money.

Schneider is but one of many text book examples in trucking today. This year, the carrier voluntarily slowed its fleet down to 60 mph. While this effort reduced the carrier‘s emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) - a greenhouse gas that may be accelerating climate change - by 83.25 million pounds annually (the equivalent of taking 7,259 cars off the country‘s highways), it‘s saving Schneider some 3.75 million gallons of diesel fuel per year. If we peg diesel at $4 a gallon (and it‘s higher than that across much the U.S. now) we‘re talking about saving $15 million a year.

Can you say “cha-ching”?

Then look at Celadon Trucking Services Inc. - a wholly-owned subsidiary of Indianapolis-based Celadon Group. Now, they are a big fleet - approximately 3,000 trucks and 8,000 trailers - and that is nowhere NEAR typical in this industry, yet despite adding 520 trucks since they joined the EPA‘s “SmartWay” program in 2005, they‘ve actually IMPROVED fuel efficiency by 25% and cut CO2 emissions by 40%. Not too shabby.

“In a challenging operating environment, we have invested heavily in our business to reduce fuel consumption and air pollutants,” said Steve Russell, Celadon‘s chairman and CEO. Those efforts run a wide gamut, I might add, including:

–Installation of auxiliary air heaters on trucks to eliminate the engine‘s need to idle in cold weather;

–Equipping trucks and trailers with the most fuel efficient tires available on the market;

–Accelerating new truck purchases planned for the next two years, all of which include EPA-compliant engines in SmartWay-certified trucks;

–Recalibrating new engines to produce less than 30 grams of nitrogen oxide (NOx) at idle;

–Shortening trailer to tractor gaps to minimize aerodynamic drag;

–Use of synthetic lubricants in all transmissions and differentials to minimize friction;

–Reduction in maximum road speed for the entire fleet.

None of these things, however, are done by Celadon just for the “green” of it. I interviewed Paul Will, Celadon‘s vice chairman and CFO, last year about how fleets need to calculate a solid return on investment for any “green” effort they undertake.

“Globally speaking, fuel costs are driving big changes to equipment specifications today,” he told me. “While specs improving fuel economy may cost more, that cost is outweighed by long-term fuel savings. That‘s why we‘re going with aluminum vs. steel wheels and fuel tank skirts on our trucks, for example: we‘re adding aerodynamic improvements where we can.”

That‘s also why Celadon is moving to Navistar’s ProStar and Freightliner’s Cascadia tractors, as well. “That‘s because the both offer much more fuel-efficient, aerodynamic designs compared to previous models we used to use, the 9400 and Columbia, respectively,” he explained

It‘s also the fundamental reasoning underpinning the EPA‘s SmartWay Transport Partnership program, launched back in 2004 - make sure “green” efforts saves “greenbacks” where possible for carriers and shippers alike. Today, over 1,000 businesses and organizations from the freight sector - from Fortune 500 companies down to family-owned businesses (yes, that includes owner-operators folks) - are conserving almost 600 million gallons of diesel fuel per year, while eliminating an estimated 6.8 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to global warming. Yet it‘s salient to note that those fuel conservation efforts are saving the trucking industry at least $2.5 billion in annual fuel and maintenance costs. That‘s BILLION, with a big “B.”

By 2012, the EPA hopes the SmartWay program - with full trucking industry participation - can achieve annual fuel savings of 3.3 billion to 6.6 billion gallons of diesel fuel, eliminating 33 million to 66 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions and up to 200,000 tons of NOx emissions. For the trucking industry, though - on track to spend $135 billion on fuel this year alone - those savings are nothing to sniff at.

I mean, even the really simple stuff is generating big savings. United Parcel Service, for example, went back and optimized its delivery routes in 2007 to specifically minimize left-hand turns - an extraordinarily change that saved the company 3 million gallons of fuel a year. “Not only is UPS contributing to this country‘s energy independence, UPS is proving that businesses can save green by going green,” noted Stephen L. Johnson, the EPA‘s Administrator.

“As the industry continues to evolve, it becomes increasingly important for companies to adapt - providing customers with the added peace of mind that they are doing what‘s best for the environment,” said Tom Escott, president of Schneider Logistics. “It‘s one more way we can ensure we‘re all doing our part to conserve and preserve our environment for future generations.”

More importantly, left unsaid in Tom‘s comments above is that doing all these environmentally wonderful things is saving fleets large and small a lot of money - and that green stuff is getting awful tight in these days of financial and economic upheaval.

“The really big thing is you don‘t know your driving a 2010 emissions truck.” -Jimmie Kissling, a 12-year veteran truck driver with general contractor Haines & Kibblehouse, based in Skippack, PA

So it‘s a little after six in the a.m. when Jimmie Kissling and I get rolling down the still-dark rural roads for the first job of the day - getting a load of asphalt “binder” for a parking lot expansion project at a shopping mall located some 40 minutes northwest of Philadelphia.

[And what‘s with all of these bleary early-morning stories anyways? Talk about a run of bad Karma on my part!]

It‘s a pretty routine job for Kissling. This is a guy that‘s driven trucks for over 30 years, everything from long-haul over-the-road routes for General Battery, local and regional driving for landscapers, to over a decade worth of tasks at Haines & Kibblehouse in Skippack, PA (a subsidiary of the H&K Group, an almost legendary family-owned firm in the construction world.)

[Below is Jimmie‘s take on his new truck and the SCR system in his own words.]

[Click here for more FleetOwner videos.]

Jimmie makes hauling and delivering several tons of asphalt look easy, with shifts and acceleration as smooth as silk with nary a hitch in the chassis. For nearly eight years, though, he pulled the company‘s big construction equipment - road pavers, bulldozers, you name it - on lowboy flatbeds behind the wheel of Class 8 tractors till he hurt his back. Now he pilots big four-axle dump trucks all over Chester and Elks County (to name just a few) for H & K, hauling a wide variety of materials - asphalt, construction debris, you name it. Rain or shine, plowing snow or hauling whatever, nothing rattles him.

That includes the selective catalytic reduction [SCR] system that‘s underneath the Mack Granite Axle Back four-axle end dump truck model we‘re sitting in, too.

[In this photo, what looks like a big black tank is the SCR catalyst. If you look closely, you can see the silvery shape of the DPF behind the steps.]

Under and along the passenger side of Kissling‘s 14,040-pound GVW beast rests the diesel particulate filter [DPF] - hidden cleverly behind the steps used to enter the cab - and the SCR catalyst, which looks like nothing more than a big black box, rounded at the edges. On the driver side, forward of the big 116-gallon steel diesel fuel tank, is a smaller reservoir holding 17 gallons of diesel exhaust fluid [DEF] - an ammonia-based liquid that reduces oxides of nitrogen [NOx] emissions when injected into the exhaust stream.

[The tank with the baby blue cap on it holds the DEF. Mack also plans to use a D-shaped fuel tank for its 2010 production models, with the straight edge of the D facing out. That will offer more fuel capacity while leaving room behind the tank for cable bundles, hoses, etc.]

Due for a new truck based on his years of service at H & K, Jimmie told me he jumped at the chance to be a “test pilot” in his own words. “The guys do rib me about being a ‘test pilot‘ but I always like to try something new,” he explained. “It‘s a great opportunity.”

[Jimmie Kissling is pleased as punch with his 2010 test truck.]

Aside from taking copious notes every day concerning mileage, type of operation, fuel consumed, etc., there hasn‘t been much to do related to the 2010 technology on board. “You don‘t even notice it,” Jimmie told me. “One thing that has changed, though, is I don‘t have to hit the ‘active regeneration‘ switch anymore. The filter [DPF] pretty much cleans itself all the time now.”

[The blue switch Jimmie is pointing to started and stopped active regeneration of the DPF. With the SCR system on board, however, he almost never needs to press it now.]

That‘s one of the big benefits Mack Trucks is noticing just five months into its 18-month SCR pilot test with H&K. “We‘re using less DEF than we thought and we‘ve reduced demand for active regeneration by 80% to 100% in some cases,” David McKenna, Mack‘s powertrain sales and marketing manager, told me. “We‘re also seeing up to an 18% improvement in fuel economy over pre-2007 engines and up to a 5% fuel economy improvement over our 2007 engine package, depending on the duty cycle.”

According to Kissling‘s numbers, that adds up to about a 5.4 miles per gallon average for his truck - across a day spent under load (over 60,000 pounds) and empty, puttering in stop-and-go traffic on local roads to roaring along at 60 miles per hour on the highway. “Think about this for a minute,” McKenna stressed to me. “This is what you‘re getting in a four-axle dump truck. Translate these kinds of fuel savings to an over-the-road environment, where the engines operate at a much steadier state more frequently, and you can see why we‘re excited.”

One issue that has some operators concerned is what happens to the DEF - and the SCR system as a whole - if the solution freezes. Vocational trucks, especially, operate in some pretty cold spots across the U.S. and at 12 degrees Fahrenheit, DEF first becomes “slushy” before becoming a waxy, paste-like substance as the mercury dips further, McKenna said.

[The monogram on the dashboard let’s you know whose baby this truck REALLY is.]

“The key thing to remember, however, is that DEF is there to neutralize NOx, which is created by high engine combustion temperatures,” he explained. “That means a COLD engine isn‘t going to produce NOx, so you don‘t need that DEF right away.”

Part of Mack‘s solution, then, is to make sure the supply pump runs after the engine shuts down, returned any unused DEF from the injectors to the tank to empty the supply line, so it doesn‘t get clogged with cold waxy fluid. Then, at start up, a tank heater warms up the DEF little by little so by the time the truck is ready to roll, enough DEF is ready for use. “It‘s really a non-issue in terms of proper SCR operation,” McKenna said.

DEF consumption is pretty much a non-issue as well. Dan Alderfer, fleet superintendent for Haines & Kibblehouse, told me that while they keep the DEF tank topped off for testing purposes, it could really go for two weeks before requiring a fill up. “Refilling the tank doesn‘t change our work practices either - it‘s not an imposition at all to our fleet,” he added

For Kissling, though, the real issue is power. With a 407 horsepower Mack MP7 engine under the hood married to a 10-speed Mack T-310MRL transmission with multi-speed reverse, Jimmie told me his Granite struggles on the road not a whit. “It‘s got excellent power - that‘s what you need in this job,” he said. “You‘ve got to get over the hills and up to speed on the highway under load. It does that with plenty of horsepower to spare.”

His truck also has lots of “gingerbread” as Jimmie likes to say - electric windows, remote-controlled side mirrors, a super-comfortable Bostrom Talladega mid-back air ride seat, and AM/FM radio with CD player (a radio he keeps tuned to a country-western and classic rock station that cranks out tunes from the 1950s and 60s.)

[One thing asphalt hauling requires is the driver to hop out and clean off the tailgate after a load is delivered, so the residue won’t gum things up. You always wear a hard hat, glasses, and gloves when doing it though, for fresh asphalt is delivered at 325 to 350 degrees Fahrenheit.]

There are a couple of critical things this truck doesn‘t have, though. First and foremost, there‘s no diesel smell - period. Not at idle, not when the engine revs up to power the dump bed‘s hydraulics, not while accelerating on the road. No black smoke either - the exhaust pipes and areas around the pipe opening are free of any carbon deposits, even after 50,000 miles of hard operation.

[The faint cloud you may see around the truck isn’t exhaust — it’s steam from the super-hot asphalt.]

“You can literally put your face to the exhaust pipe opening while the truck‘s at idle and smell nothing. I know - I‘m the idiot that did it,” McKenna told me. “I don‘t think as an industry we talk enough about this - that the air coming out of the exhaust pipe is, in many cases, cleaner than what‘s going into the engine on these [2010] trucks. Shame on us - this is an incredible story. And by telling it, we hope to get everyone back off the ledge in terms of their concern about 2010 emission technology.”