Trucks at Work Blog

“This approach will reduce emissions without imposing crippling new costs that will hurt construction firms and their workers.” –Stephen Sandherr, CEO, Associated General Contractors of America.

It’s a novel approach, to say the least: requiring state highway contracts not only to require diesel emissions reductions from any and all equipment used on such jobs, but covering the cost of retrofitting or repowering equipment to meet emissions standards.

Will it work, however? That remains to be seen – but, in a most unlikely marriage, the Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) and the non-profit Clean Air Task Force (CATF) are jointly calling on Congress to give state officials both the authority and funding to require use of clean construction equipment at federally-funded transportation projects.

“This is a great opportunity to clean up many of the millions of older diesel engines still in use,” said Conrad Schneider, CATF’s advocacy director. “We are standing side-by-side with the contractors on this.”

Basically, the two groups are calling for emission reductions from any big highway projects to be achieved by contract change orders that cover 100% of the cost for contractors – following the award of a project to the lowest bidder, of course – and are also espousing what they call a set of “Clean Construction Principles” to help guide this process.

Under these “principles,” states would first require successful bidders for federally-funded transportation projects to identify the off-road diesel equipment they plan to use at the job site. After exploring Environmental Protection Agency-approved options for reducing diesel emissions, states would issue change orders requiring contractors to pursue the best of those options – with said change orders entitling contractors to recover 100% of their equipment retrofit costs. Also, states would give priority to such “clean construction” projects located in areas with poor air quality.

Now, where would the money come from to fund such retrofits? Both groups are recommending that Congress set aside a significant portion of the funds historically provided for Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) programs, and/or an appropriate percentage of other funds that the relevant legislation authorizes Congress to appropriate for surface transportation projects.

It’s an ambitious effort, no doubt – and it may go nowhere with a Congress so absorbed with an attempted legislative overhaul of healthcare industry in the U.S. that even transportation funding is getting short shrift these days. But it’s an interesting tactic to try, nonetheless.

“We’ve also got to fundamentally rethink the way we build and produce goods in this country.” –Gary Locke, U.S. Secretary of Commerce

If you don’t think curbing emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) is becoming a big deal within the Executive and Congressional branches of government in this country, think again. Right now, not one but two legislative efforts in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate seek to establish a “cap-and-trade” program in the U.S. to limit CO2 emissions, referred to more broadly as “greenhouse gases.”

That “greenhouse” terms relates to the environmental effect CO2 is supposed to cause – turning the Earth into a “greenhouse,” leading to global warming and all sorts of ecological disasters.

Now, from where I sit, there’s still an awful lot of scientific debate over “global warming,” and I’ve got plenty of my own reservations about this supposed disastrous environmental trend. But all that is almost beside the point, because the federal government and many members of Congress are moving full speed ahead to reduce CO2 emissions in this country. So regardless of your position on greenhouse gases and global warming, there’s inexorable movement forward to deal with them – and that is going to directly impact a broad swath of American industries.

Gary Locke (seen here below), the former Governor of Washington State and now U.S. Secretary of Commerce, summed up the federal government’s direction on the issue of carbon controls – and the issue of energy conservation and efficiency as well – during a speech last week at the International Trade Administration’s Sustainability and U.S. Competitiveness Summit held in Washington, D.C.

His remarks provide some interesting insight into the debate over greenhouse gas controls and global warming, because Locke is right at the focal point of all of this – a cabinet member that must carry the Administration’s “green banner” while at the same time responsible for overseeing the health of American business.

Yet he made some excellent points – noting that conservation and efficiency efforts, especially when it comes to energy use, could go a long way to producing a smaller environmental footprint for American business and lower cost structure at the same time.

In Locke’s view, sustainability and competitiveness must go together from here on out in U.S. business circle, he said, “Because in today’s economy, I don’t think you can have one without the other.”

He also strongly believes revitalizing American manufacturing is a critical national necessity. “For too long, we’ve just accepted that a shrinking manufacturing sector is a natural byproduct of globalization or technology or any other number of structural factors,” Locke explained. “Once employing one in three Americans, manufacturing now only accounts for one in 10 jobs. It’s time to arrest and reverse the decline. Manufacturing employment may never again make up one-third of our workforce—nor would we necessarily want it to. But a vibrant manufacturing base is absolutely essential to America’s future.”

Locke said manufacturing is a vital source of middle-class jobs, as manufacturing employees make 13% cent more than the average for all other workers in America and comprises two-thirds of our nation’s research and development spending – not to mention the boatloads of freight demand this sector of the economy generates, from shipping raw materials to the factories while taking finished goods from them to market.

But the landscape is changing fast for manufacturing and transportion, too, said Locke – not just in terms of greenhouse gas restrictions but also in terms of energy demand. “Take a look at the last century, and there were two things American manufacturers could usually count on: Fossil fuels were cheap, and the externalities of using them, like carbon emissions, were of almost no concern,” he explained. “Those days are over. Fuel is no longer cheap. And the external costs associated with fossil fuel energy are dangerously high. If we don’t curb the carbon, the consequences for our environment and our economy will be devastating.”

OK, there’s his – and President Obama’s – position on CO2 emissions. How does that impact manufacturing and – by extension – transportation?

“Over the next few decades, virtually every economic activity—from the way we manufacture goods to the way we design our transportation systems—will have to be re-engineered to reflect a carbon-constrained world,” Locke said.

“But this long-term project shouldn’t distract us from the fact that we can make a huge impact immediately, by being more efficient and more sustainable in everything we do,” he stressed. “And if our manufacturers get serious about more sustainably using everything from water to land to energy, it will save them money and go a long way towards making them more competitive in the global marketplace.

Take energy, for example, said Locke: The Department of Energy just did a study finding that the United States electric-power industry alone wastes enough energy annually to fuel the entire nation of Japan for a year. A study by the Environmental Protection Agency also found that if the U.S. harnessed all of our industrial waste energy, it could meet 19% of the country’s electricity needs – the equivalent of 95 nuclear plants.

“Is it any wonder, then, that people have taken to calling efficiency the ‘low hanging fruit’ of the world’s energy challenge? With efficiency, we don’t have to depend on scientific breakthroughs or engineering miracles. We’re not waiting for economies of scale to get big enough so efficiency can compete with other energy alternatives.”

Locke said an upfront investment in efficiency is on average five times cheaper than investments in new supply. And it is immune to the troubling vagaries of the energy market. “Efficiency is an economical investment whether oil is $20 or $200 a barrel, because it is not competing with fossil fuels,” he explained. “Efficiency is a win-win all the way around. It’s good for our country; it’s good for consumers. It’s going to enable our manufacturers to do more with less energy … and we know how to do this, [for] the American economy is already more than twice as efficient as it was in 1970.”

Building on that success is simply a matter of working with industry to implement efficiency processes that work for their businesses, Locke noted, pointing to a broad effort by the National Institute of Standards and Technology in partnership with other federal agencies and industry to help small- and mid-sized companies cut costs.

“This public-private effort has already reviewed 125 companies and found ways for them to cut $62 million in costs by reducing water and energy use, and air emissions and solid waste production – and the return on the companies’ investment to implement these practices is estimated to be 130 to one,” he said.

Now, $62 million in savings is a drop in the very large bucket of energy consumption here in the U.S. And one wonders if such savings would be dwarfed by the costs imposed by strict carbon limits. But whichever way you view it, CO2 limits are coming to the U.S. in some shape or form, sooner or later. And getting more efficient at energy use might be one of the major ways businesses can minimize the impact of such rules on their operations. Of course, time – plus Congressional legislation and federal mandates – will tell.

“The California regulation applies to trucks that travel in California regardless if they are registered inside or outside of California and includes all carriers that transport perishable goods using diesel-powered refrigeration systems on trucks, trailers, shipping containers and railcars operating in California.” –Ken Gillies, truck engineering manager, GE Capital Fleet Services

Here’s a good question pertaining to California’s recent greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction measures for commerical trucks: if a fleet leases or rents commercial trucks or equipment, is it the fleet or the leasing/rental firm responsible for making sure it complies with the Golden State’s GHG regulations?

From the perspective of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), it appears the leasing companies and rental firms are the ones that will be ultimately responsible for making sure their vehicles are compliant with the rules – thus leaving them on the hook for potentially thousands of dollars in fines.

This question dates back to modifications CARB made to its heavy-duty vehicle GHG emission reduction measure back on September 17 that changed the definition of “owner” regarding leased and rented truck tractors or trailers operating in California, according to the Truck Renting and Leasing Association (TRALA).

Those as yet still-proposed changes would render leasing companies and rental firms responsible for compliance with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) SmartWay mandates that make up the core of California’s GHG rules – that is, unless specific language dictated by CARB gets included in rental and lease contracts. [You can click here to read about these rules in more detail.]

TRALA, however, argues that the companies owning rented and leased vehicles typically retain little control over where their customers operate their tractors and trailers – and that motor carriers can and do operate them in California, sometimes without the knowledge of the rental or leasing company.

From this perspective, then, TRALA posits that the responsibility for complying with CARB’s GHG rules should be pinned squarely on the registered operator of the vehicle, rather than on the leasing company or rental firm – and furthermore, that it should be left up to leasing companies, rental firms, and their customers to figure out who is responsible for compliance with CARB’s GHG rules through contracts tailored to fit each specific situation, instead of using CARB’s “one-size-fits-all” boilerplate.

One thing is for sure: this situation is one of one of many “side effects” of emission regulation efforts we’ll be seeing in the days ahead.

“In the near term, the biofuels market looks like a train wreck. However, in the 10 to 15 year timeframe, the outlook remains very positive.” –Clint Wheelock, managing director, Pike Research

Making biofuels a consistent, reliable source of energy for world transportation needs, yet one that also does not encroach upon the globe’s food supplies, is becoming an even tougher goal; a goal that is, at least in the short haul, increasingly viewed as unattainable.

Yet the jury is still out on whether there is no future in biofuels, be they cellulosic ethanol, renewable diesel, biomass-to-liquids (BTL) or Fischer Tropsch liquids made from feedstocks such as agricultural or municipal solid wastes, grasses, woods, waste paper and algae. According to a new study released today from Hart Energy Consulting, despite a number of key issues such as land use and competition for feedstocks supplies for traditional food and feed uses, global use of biofuels is expected to more than double between now and 2015.

The firm’s global analysis reports that the U.S. is leading that expansion in biofuel use, with a growth of total biofuels use of more than 35%. Brazil will grow domestic supplies by 30% and more than double export volume. Indonesia and Malaysia will more than double production of palm oil biodiesel, while Germany will remain the largest producer of biofuels in Europe, Hart noted in its report.

Yet despite major public policy interest in next-generation biofuels, actual commercial growth in the production and use of these fuels between 2009 and 2015 is projected to remain behind expectations, according to Hart. It found that out of the approximately 170 next-generation biofuels projects around the world that are in some stage of development (operational, under construction or proposed), only 30% of those are actually expected to be operating between now and 2015, with most of those only in the pilot project stage.

Moreover, Tammy Klein, executive director of Hart’s Global Biofuels Center and this study’s leader, pointed out that government mandates set that require next generation biofuels will not be met, particularly in the U.S.

“The economics of ethanol and biodiesel are not yet competitive with petro fuels, and governments have pulled back some of their support,” noted Clint Wheelock, managing director at Pike Research, in a similar analysis of the global biofuels market released back in July.

He stated the widespread excitement surrounding biofuels is being tempered somewhat by its many challenges, which include: limited availability of inexpensive feedstocks, ethical questions of food versus fuel, petroleum price volatility, global recession, and overcapacity of production. Yet Pike’s research also determined that, despite those significant challenges, the combined biodiesel and ethanol markets should reach $247 billion in sales by 2020, up from just $76 billion in 2010.

My compatriot Brian Straight noted in his own recent blog post on the subject of biofuels – specifically about bidodiesel – that several major issues need to be addressed: geographic depth, strong institutional funding and vertical integration along the supply chain, with “government support essential” for both U.S. and European suppliers.

Pike’s research indicates three key waves of next generation biodiesel development over the next several years. First, fuels based on waste greases will hit the market in 2010. Jatropha-based fuels will begin having a significant impact on the market in 2014. Then the third big wave hits: algae-based biodiesel, which will achieve commercial availability in 2012 and will have a deeper effect on the market beginning in 2016.

It’s a given, however, that much about the future of biofuels remains uncertain – especially when placed in the context of competition over arable land with food and feedstock. Figuring out the answer to that huge problem is what will truly unlock the potential of biofuels down the road.

“This question is really more about the strategies a fleet operation must employ to meet regulations in effect at acquisition time, as well as applying diligent forethought to ensure the spec meets future regulations.” –Ken Gillies, truck engineering manager, GE Capital Fleet Services

If there is anything more convoluted or fraught with potentially expensive missteps facing a fleet manager today, it’s got to be complying with emission regulations – both at the state and federal level, I might add. One of the big challenges in the emissions arena is dealing with myriad rules promulgated by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) that are affecting commercial trucks in various ways.

A week or so ago, Ken Gillies – truck engineering manager at GE Capital Fleet Services – painstakingly put together detailed answers to a bunch of questions I had about how CARB’s rules impact truck spec’ing decisions; in no small part because California’s rules go above and beyond federal emission rules in many cases, posing some costly dilemmas for fleets not only based in the Golden State but for those hauling freight in and out of there as well.

The resulting story I wrote, though, had to be brief out of necessity [there isn’t THAT much space on our web site, you know!], but its brevity left a lot of unanswered questions in the minds of some readers. I’ll share one such comment with you:

“Ok, so there are changes coming. Details, details; Please provide substance! What are the changes? Your story is nothing more then [sic] scare tactics unless you provide detailed info to support the story. What are the changes? What trucks are effected (it’s not JUST class 8). When do these changes to existing trucks start? When do new vehicles change?”

With that in mind, I’ve laid out the entire Q&A with GE Fleet’s Gillies below. Note, however, that he told me his answers are for general informational purposes only and fleets should not make decisions based just on this data alone. “Each [truck spec’ing] situation is unique and readers are encouraged to insure that they have discussed their compliance obligations with their own professional advisors,” Gillies stressed.

With that in mind, though, here’s his take – from a truck spec’ing perspective – on the potential fallout from CARB’s and the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) various emission control regulations:

Q: CARB has been releasing a bunch of new mandated regulations for heavy-duty trucks. In essence, do you think all of these rules will basically force the creation of TWO types of commercial trucks – ones that can operate in 49 states and ones that can operate in California?

First I’d like to clarify the information I’m providing is focused on medium and heavy-duty trucks – Classes 4 through 8. Additionally, it’s important to understand that a number of the California-specific regulations mandated by CARB are narrowly focused on Class 8; sleeper-berth tractors pulling 53-foot (or longer) dry or refrigerated van trailers. This is especially important when thinking about the GHG [greenhouse gas] emission reductions measures – also referred to as “EPA SmartWay Specs.”

It’s possible some fleets may pursue the California and non-California configuration solution. However, the logistics of ensuring a non-California configuration truck doesn’t end up in California could be difficult to monitor. When considering that potential daily fines for a non-California-configured vehicle could be thousands of dollars, the incentive to develop a two-spec operation may drop considerably.

There are multiple factors to consider. For example, a fleet may have infrequent trips into California. As a result, outsourcing those trips to another carrier, or renting a 2010 emissions-equipped truck could be considered.

Q: As a truck engineering expert, will CARB’s slate of rules add more cost and required upfitting to the trucks slated to meet 2010 emission rules … or will fleets still be able to buy a truck compliant with federal 2010 emission rules and use them in California?

There are certainly up-front cost implications for the 2010 emissions-equipped truck chassis (applies to both straight trucks as well as tractors). Depending on the chassis manufacturer as well as the engine manufacturer, cost increases are ranging from about $6,000 on a medium-duty truck (Class 6 or 7) to about $9,000 for a heavy-duty class 8 tractor. Comments from the truck OEM community around cost increases are typically emphasizing fuel economy improvements gained from the 2010 emissions-equipped truck versus the 2007 emissions-equipped version as a way to mitigate some of the cost impact.

Additional up-front costs that are a bit less obvious include possible increases in wheelbase and cab-to-axle (CA) dimensions in certain configurations to allow room for the diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) tank and the dosing system. The need to re-mount the DEF tank to accommodate certain upfitting specs could affect installation time and costs. In addition, some reduction in payload will need to be addressed because the dosing system and tank with fluid will add about 175 pounds in Class 3 and 4 trucks to 350 to 400 pounds in the highway tractor configuration. For weight-sensitive bulk product transporters, this is a significant matter.

Recent truck spec’ing activities with our customers who utilize Class 3 thru 5 trucks (10,001 lbs. thru 19,500 lbs. GVWR) equipped with service and/or crane bodies show loss of some cubic capacity in certain compartments, while at the same time the truck’s empty weight increases. These operators of service body-equipped trucks frequently have limited access to scale the truck and, as a result, they run an increased risk of unknowingly exceeding the GVWR.

Trucks built after January 1, 2010 are required to comply with the federal EPA Diesel Emission standards for 2010 (applies to diesel powered trucks from 8,600 lbs. GVWR and up). Trucks built after January 1, 2010 also align with CARB regulations as they exist today.

It’s important to know the federal EPA 2010 emission regulation focuses on tailpipe emissions of particulate matter (PM) and other gases such as oxides of nitrogen (NOx). California-specific regulations that apply to Heavy Duty Vehicle Idling Emission Reductions, GHG Emissions Reduction Measure, TRU ATCM (Truck Refrigeration Unit Airborne Toxic Control Measure) also apply to diesel-fueled TRUs and TRU generator sets operating in California.

The California regulation applies to trucks that travel in California regardless if they are registered inside or outside of California and includes all carriers that transport perishable goods using diesel-powered refrigeration systems on trucks, trailers, shipping containers and railcars operating in California. Emissions reduction from certain existing trucks and buses (diesel vehicles greater than 14,000 lbs. GVWR and certain yard trucks, shuttle vehicles and out-of-state trucks and buses operated in California) are not considered in this regulation.

Fleet managers should clearly understand these regulations since a truck that complies with federal EPA 2010 standard could fall outside one or more of the California-specific regulations. California regulations have varying time schedules for implementation and in the case of the CARB’s “Reduction of Emissions from Existing Diesel Engines,” the compliance schedule extends beyond 2020.

Q: How are CARB’s separate and more stringent rules affecting the spec’ing plans for national fleets?

At GE Fleet, we’ve spent significantly more time working with our customers and OEMs regarding CARB rules and spec’ing trucks to help customers make well-informed decisions.

Specification changes with wheelbase and California exhaust system routing, air tank positioning, driveline configurations, fuel tank size and placement are some of the first areas affected. Available space on the frame for mounting equipment also changes when considering auxiliary power units (APU’s) in tractor configurations.

We continually suggest options for customers to consider regarding driver comfort when drivers must use the sleeper berth without running the truck engine. Most OEMs have developed proprietary systems to heat and cool the sleeper without the need for an APU. Cost is a continual factor, and our engineering team provides our customers with cost analysis for available options.

The final step in our spec’ing process is a detailed review with the customer to be sure they are comfortable with the spec they’ve chosen.

Q: How are you helping fleets get trucks compliant with CARB rules?

A GE customer in the home heating oil delivery business has been working on plans with one of our senior engineers for over a year developing solutions to their truck needs when only 2010 Federal EPA emission engines are available. The loss of frame rail space and payload are this customer’s primary concerns.

Customers with trucks in virtually every class and application have been continually increasing their level of involvement and collaboration with our engineers since the beginning of the year. Requests vary from a simple “what’s this all mean to me?” to “I need to get orders slotted in order to get ahead of the 2010 regulations (and price increases) and also develop specs for my ongoing needs after these regulations take effect.”

We’ve found the most efficient and effective approach is a careful balance between educating while simultaneously applying that education to the actual spec development process. Immediate application of our knowledge gained has proven valuable because we’ve been able to continually improve efficiency, thereby benefitting customers with faster answers and more lead-time for their decisions. It also helps customers with additional time to interact with their companies’ operations and build higher acceptance of the changes that are coming.

In spite of the initial GHG Emission Reduction requirements taking effect January 1, 2010, the level of awareness we’ve seen is relatively low. This is understandable since the requirements impact a minority of GE’s customer base. In an effort to better prepare our customers for this particular regulation, our engineering team has been offering specs that include the EPA-compliant SmartWay specs for both tractors and trailers since early this year. The SmartWay spec is also being offered to customers who are not based in California in an effort to assist them in their efforts to reduce GHG emissions as well as reduce fuel costs. Many of our customers have embraced this dual spec offering.

For fleets that already spec engines that meet the “Idle Time Limit” regulations, there’s little effect. Similar to our SmartWay spec practice discussed previously, we also point out these regulations and various implementation levels in a majority of the states – even at the metro area level where different versions of regulations may exist.

Q: Are CARB’s rules making it harder to retrofit older trucks in a cost effective manner

Yes, the cost to make the changes doesn’t appreciably improve the value of the chassis. In some cases, financing assistance to perform the retrofitting may be difficult to obtain.

Q: Are they basically forcing fleets to buy new 2010 compliant vehicles?

A fleet manager recently commented that he runs his tractors (for local and regional delivery) up to 20 years or more and this regulation does in fact “force” him to alter his company’s replacement cycle. He feels the cost burden will make it very difficult to maintain the same levels of service and the cost of the products his company carries will be negatively impacted. He expressed frustration in the state of California’s (apparent) lack of consideration for the financial impact this will have on his business and other businesses in similar operating conditions.

Most fleets use replacement cycles that are shorter than the CARB requirements for retrofitting older diesels. The impact of this regulation will be felt more by private individuals and small fleets that keep their vehicles longer.

One market segment in California that will feel a significant squeeze is the agricultural businesses operating “cab-over-engine” (COE) tractors to enable use of 57-foot trailers. The compliance schedule for these trucks will depend on the model year of the truck’s engine. Since there’s little option to replace these COE trucks with new ones because they are no longer available, retrofitting or discontinuing use of the 57-foot trailer becomes the only option. CARB is offering some financial assistance programs to help offset the cost of these retrofits. Documentation to apply for financial assistance is extensive; however, the money available to a fleet that invests in this effort can be a major benefit.

Q: Of all the regulations CARB is putting out there – including the 2010 Diesel Exhaust Emission program, Heavy Duty Vehicle Idling Emission Reduction Program, Heavy Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Reduction Measure, and Truck and Bus Regulation Reducing Emissions from Existing Diesel Vehicles measure – which ones will be the most expensive for fleet compliance?

The GHG (Smartway) program and the Truck and Bus Regulation (retrofits) will likely be the most expensive for a fleet to meet the regulations.

Q: Which one is the most difficult to comply with from an engineering perspective?

This question is really more about the strategies a fleet operation must employ to meet regulations in effect at acquisition time, as well as applying diligent forethought to ensure the spec meets future regulations. The truck engineering challenge is to help customers be well-informed and able to understand how the sliding scale of requirements impacts the spec and vehicle lifecycle.

With 18 other states strongly considering similar CARB regulations, it is important to create specs that align with CARB regulations to fullest extent possible even if the fleet doesn’t operate in California. Costs of either retrofitting or in some cases having to prematurely cycle a truck out of the fleet may drastically alter the lifecycle cost as projected at acquisition time.

Once again, our expertise is applied to aid the customer’s understanding and enable them to make well-informed decisions.

Q: Which one creates the more tricky tradeoffs to make the vehicle compliant?

The GHG Reduction regulation coupled with the Emission Reduction [rule for] existing diesel engines creates a formidable challenge. The GHG regulation impacts spec development to ensure the truck meets applicable regulations at the time the truck goes into service. Additional challenges reside in maintaining that match-up as various future dates arrive with additional regulation requirements.

The “Emission Reduction” regulation requires looking at the age of trucks currently in operation and their proposed replacement timing. I believe this effort may be the most challenging because it combines the past, present and future with the constantly changing regulations and target dates.

“The challenge today, however, is that our societies are infused with technologies that are at once complex and ubiquitous. That makes the dialogue about science and technology much more difficult, but also immensely more important to get right.” –Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., director of the National Science Foundation

One of the things that’s been so frustrating about the ongoing effort to lower emissions from commercial trucks over the last decade is an almost total lack of either appreciation or understanding of the science – and price tag – by the general public.

We’re on the verge here of adding another $12,000 or so to the base cost of a single Class 8 tractor – after a roughly $7,000 to $9,000 per unit hit three years ago – and the impact of that surcharge is going to be felt far and wide in this industry … but elicit maybe at most a yawn from anyone outside it. That ignorance is but one reason why truckers haven’t been able to get any sort of price break for these emission system mandates; and why the public at large still views trucks as “dirty” despite all the advances in science and technology at work here.

This is part and parcel of the strange dichotomy affecting our society today, I think. So much technology surrounds us and makes our day-to-day life so easy that we take it all for granted. It’s long been noted that the public looks down on trucks and trucking, yet relies heavily on that very same industry for its high quality of life. By extension, we demand clean energy and less pollution, yet won’t make the lifestyle changes necessary to achieve those twin goals.

Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr. (at right), director of the National Science Foundation (NSF), took note of this worrisome trend in a speech a while back – and for a scientist, this guy makes some very compelling and straightforward arguments as to why everyone, truckers included, needs to be more aware of what’s going on in scientific circles and how that science can eventually impact all of our lives.

“Democratic ideals and values can be at risk in an increasingly technological society when we do not educate and fully engage citizens in dialogue on critical issues,” he said in a speech entitled Science, Policy and the Public at the Royal Academy Symposium in Washington, D.C., in July.

“At a minimum, we need a clear statement of the science. Although this seems obvious, science that is accessible to policy makers and the broader public is in short supply,” Bement stressed. “Communicating science is a complex endeavor, but one we must work to achieve. We also need an analysis of possible policy options, and a transparent decision making process … [because] engaging citizens in genuine dialogue is the essential final ingredient – yet one that presents enormous challenges.”

Bement pointed to a recent public opinion survey on energy issues conducted by Public Agenda as an example of the disconnect between science and society today. That survey revealed that 51 percent of those surveyed could not name a renewable energy source; 39 percent could not name a fossil fuel. Yet what struck him as most significant about the survey was that, despite a lack of knowledge about energy sources, three quarters of those surveyed believe that the U.S. should move toward increased use of alternative energy even if oil prices go down.

“These strong attitudes appear to be based on a very slim base of knowledge,” Bement warned. “Crude as this snapshot may be, it points to a pervasive and serious problem – and one that lies at the heart of broader dialogue on emerging technologies. We need an informed public to arrive at informed decisions. It is a fundamental responsibility of everyone to promote and support science, technology, engineering and mathematics education at all levels. Without this goal, our decisions will be made ‘exclusive-ly,’ not inclusively.”

He noted that in the case of emerging technologies that are very complex – and emission control systems for trucks, along with biofuels, certainly fit that category – we as a nation require sophisticated and subtle solutions, the very best we can devise.

“The nexus between science and engineering and policy is not a new subject, but more urgent today as technology penetrates every aspect of our lives,” Bement said. “This is the arena in which science and policy should work hand in glove – but very often don’t!”

As for the broader societal dimensions of scientific advances, he shared an approach voiced by the famous seventeenth century Japanese swordsman, Miyamoto Musashi: In strategy it is important to see distant things as if they were close, and to take a distanced view of close things.

“This advice applies to the intersection of science, technology and policy no less than it does in considering strategy,” Bement continued. “Although this perspective may sound at first like a contradiction, the deeper reality is that we must see emerging technologies from ‘without,’ which is the citizen’s standpoint, and we must find a way to help citizens see it from ‘within’ as researchers do.”

In the end, he said, that puts us all together in the same boat – steering for the future, with all its uncertainties and its promises, but with a shared understanding of where we’re heading and why.

“While installing a green roof may seem like a small step, these upgrades save energy, filter and absorb pollution, and store carbon.” –Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA)

I know, I know; it sounds all-too-much like “green dreaming,” this idea that “greening” the roofs of commercial buildings in a variety of ways could reduce pollution and save money. But it doesn’t seem so farfetched when companies such as FedEx and quasi-government agencies like the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) are betting big on “green roofs” to help them defray the cost of facility operation.

Let’s start with the USPS: the agency recently just “greened” the roof of its 2.2 million square foot Morgan mail processing facility in midtown Manhattan (seen here at right). Built in 1933 and designated a historic landmark in 1986, the building’s roof as originally constructed could support 200 pounds per square foot. As a result, when the roof was scheduled for replacement in 2007, architects deemed it strong enough to support the weight of the soil, vegetation and other requirements of a green roof.

At nearly 2.5 acres, the Morgan building’s green roof sounds more like a botanical garden, with native plants and trees include Calamagrostis, what the USPS says is “a lush, maintenance-free grass.” Even the 14 orange-hued Ipe Brazilian wood benches that dot the roof are made from lumber certified sustainable by the Forest Stewardship Council. [If anything, remembering the word “Calamagrostis” will help out when next playing “Scrabble” I assure you.]

Nice, I’m sure … but what the heck does any of this have to do with saving money or reducing pollution for that matter? Well, for starters, here’s a big one – the USPS says this “green” roof will last up to 50 years, twice as long as the roof it replaced, plus reduce energy usage 30% by 2015, according to Sam Pulcrano, the agency’s vice president-sustainability. Those two factors alone could make a big difference to the bottom line (as one can only imagine how much it costs – in midtown Manhattan, no less – to heat and cool a 2.2 million square foot facility.)

The foliage on the Morgan facility’s roof is also going to reduce the amount of contaminants in storm water runoff flowing into New York’s municipal water system from the building, Pulcrano noted – projecting the reduction in runoff to be as much as 75% in the summer and up to 35% during the winter months.

Of course, this isn’t the only way to “green” a roof – as FedEx is proving. Since 2005, the express carrier has installed solar panels on the roofs of several facilities – an effort designed to significantly cut down on the electrical bills for their package sorting hubs. “We … want to identify and implement ways that we can reduce energy use and shrink our carbon footprint,” said David Rebholz (at left), president and CEO of FedEx Ground.

FedEx is currently working on installing its third rooftop solar-electric system at its distribution hub in Woodbridge, N.J., in partnership with BP Solar – a 2.42 megawatt solar power system that will cover approximately 3.3 acres of rooftop space with approximately 12,400 solar panels.

When completed, the system will be capable of producing approximately 2.6 million kilowatt hours of electricity a year and could provide up to 30% of the Woodbridge hub’s annual energy needs, FedEx noted.

[Here’s a short video showing how the solar system is installed on a FedEx hub building.]

It’s also interesting to note that FedEx’s Woodbridge hub – opened in 2000 –sits on more than 80 acres of former “brownfield” once used to stockpile soils dredged from the nearby Raritan River. Soils and groundwater were contaminated with various polluting substances, primarily arsenic., said FedEx, so in order to build the facility, FedEx Ground worked with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection on a remedial action for the site.

Overall, FedEx operates five facilities partially powered by solar-driven systems. Last year, FedEx Freight – the LTL arm of FedEx – installed two solar power systems; a 282-kilowatt system for its sort hub in Whittier, Calif., while equipping another in Fontana, Calif., with a 269-kilowatt system. In 2005, FedEx Express activated a 904-kilowatt system at its Oakland, Calif., hub facility; a system that covers 81,000 square feet of roof space with 5,700 solar panels and meets up to 80% of that facility’s peak energy demand.

FedEx is also currently constructing its Central and Eastern European gateway at the Cologne/Bonn, Germany airport – slated for completion in 2010 – that incorporates a 1.4-megawatt solar power system.

The interesting thing in all of this to me – whether a commercial building’s roof is literally turned “green” with plant life or figuratively made “green” with the addition of solar panels – is the potential for some serious cost savings. We all know the cost of electricity is going in one direction (that would be “up,” if any of you were at all in doubt) and that more and more regulations are popping up among localities mandating reductions in greenhouse gases.

What better way to kill two birds with one stone as the old saying goes: reducing one’s “carbon footprint” to stay ahead of fines, while cutting back on energy consumption (and by extension saving cash). I’m not saying this is a “green bullet” by any stretch of the imagination, but it’s one more thing to consider as those transportation companies operating warehouses, terminals, and other big facilities look for ways to cut costs and meet and ever burgeoning plethora of “green regulations” at the same time.

“Finding alternative energy sources to put in our fuel tanks is good business for our company and our nation.” –Gary Whicker, senior vice president of engineering for trucking conglomerate J.B. Hunt Transport Services

It’s a surprise, to say the least, to see a trucking company the size of J.B. Hunt commit to burning significant amounts of algae-based biodiesel in its truck tanks. But that’s exactly what’s going to happen.

The carrier conducted a series of successful tests using biodiesel made by SunEco Energy; a fuel comprised of 100% natural algae oil produced at SunEco’s pilot plant in Chino, California. These tests, using a 20% and 50% blend of algae oil with petroleum diesel, measured an 82% reduction in particulate emissions with no loss of power.

“Producing renewable fuel supplies from algae grown in American ponds is an intriguing new option,” noted Gary Whicker, senior vice president of engineering for J.B. Hunt, in a press statement. “Our initial experience with their algae-based biodiesel is promising, and we are excited about the opportunity to work … towards a lower cost, less carbon intensive, and more secure energy supply for our business.”

I’ve talked about the potential for algae as a vehicle fuel stock in this space before – just last year in fact – but I didn’t think we’d be seeing it put through its paces in trucking this soon. And frankly, I shouldn’t be surprised that J.B. Hunt of all carriers is forging ahead with a plan to use algae-based biodiesel in its trucks, for this is a carrier long known for doing things differently – a hallmark of its late founder, Johnnie Bryan Hunt.

Still, there’s a lot of work to be done – and by no means should algae be considered a “silver bullet” in the alternative fuel debate, at least not yet. As research firm Frost & Sullivan noted in a report earlier this year, the cost disadvantage of producing biofuels is significantly higher than the benefits achieved from their use right now – and this scenario is unlikely to change until 2015, even with the use of second generation biofuels.

“Second generation biofuels will be commercially successful only if the price of extracting biofuels is lower than or equal to the price of producing fossil fuels,” the firm noted in its report “Farming subsidies given by local governments are becoming critical as farmers choose biofuels over food crops. Countries with high biofuel consumptions, such as Sweden, are importing feedstock from countries like Brazil thereby increasing food prices. Vast areas of forest land have been erased in Malaysia by farmers wanting to make quick money by exporting feedstock to Europe.”

Challenges related to vehicle warranties are also dampening market prospects, as OEMs cannot offer any assurances or guarantees in the event of using high biofuels content, owing to the absence of certification and standardized vehicle testing guidelines, Frost & Sullivan added.

Still, it’s a landmark moment when a billion-dollar carrier decides to commit to biofuels on this scale despite dealing with the aftershocks of a freight market collapse – one brought on by one of the worst economic recessions in recent memory. And you know if Hunt is doing this now, they see a big payoff in the future – most likely when the cost of 100% pure diesel starts to rise to significant heights again, as it will one day surely do.

“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.