ANOTHER SLEDGEHAMMER MANDATE?

August 17, 2011 Vol. 7, No. 17

Man, is there really such mass acceptance of Washington's new truck fuel-efficiency and greenhouse-gas emission standards? They made it all official a week ago, and since then everyone and his mother in the big-fleet and manufacturer corners of trucking has applauded. But not all players are pleased.

As well as little old yours truly, the natural gas lobby and OOIDA (the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association) are also less than impressed. The three of us seem to be alone. I'll get to the doubts and objections in a minute.

To review the new regime very briefly, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Transportation penned a whopping big 958-page document, originally demanded directly by President Obama, that will change your spec'ing process rather a lot. And quite possibly the nature of your operation. Plan on spending more money too, of course.

It's a wildly complex rule -- how could it be anything else? -- that affects trucks (and buses) built in 2014 through 2018. It covers pretty much everything from class 2b vehicles grossing 8500 lb on up to class 8 trucks and tractors. The joint DOT/EPA program aims to improve fuel efficiency on the average tractor-trailer by something like 20% by 2018.

Given the wide divergence of tractor-trailers out there, that improvement percentage varies a lot. The range is actually 9 to 23%, compared to a 2010 baseline.

A crucial fact in here is that we're talking about fuel-economy and emissions standards as achieved by the whole truck, not just its engine. That means things like tires and aerodynamic devices will be factored in, as they should be.

The new regs define three vehicle categories: heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans; tractors; and vocational vehicles. There are sub-classes within those groups, acknowledging the difference between, for example, a day cab tractor and one with a high-roof sleeper. Standards will be applied in different ways and will be phased in at different rates depending on the nature of the truck's job, because it's obvious that efficiency can't be measured the same way in all cases.

Vocational-vehicle improvements will be in the 6-9% range, and heavy pickups and vans will need to improve by 17% for diesel-powered vehicles, 12% for gasoline-engined trucks.

I don't have anywhere near enough space here to go much deeper into this, though I should add that truck-makers will be able to do all manner of banking and trading and averaging to achieve these goals.

I should also note that the basic SmartWay spec is really the foundation for meeting the early standards in 2014, but by 2018 new technologies of some sort will be required. And nobody knows what they'll be.

THAT'S WHERE MY OWN DOUBTS BEGIN, namely the seemingly reckless assumption by Washington that we'll get there somehow. They even admitted that they're taking a flyer here when all this was announced last year. Now, I do have faith in the engineers and chemists who'll be working on this, and I do believe we'll get there, but at what cost? Especially, at what cost to the little guys of trucking?

I also fear that you'll no longer be able to spec a truck precisely, won't be able to make it fit the job in order to achieve maximum operational or more specific fuel and emissions efficiency.

Our trucks come in so many widely divergent shapes and sizes and do such a huge variety of work that I believe you can't possibly write rules to accommodate all of them. Some spend long hours at constant speeds on flat highways, some roll slowly around construction sites. Some need a heavy spec, some can be light as a feather. It goes on and on.

The EPA and DOT have tried to account for the differences by measuring CO2 emissions in grams per ton-mile and fuel economy in gallons per ton-miles. Well, in my view it doesn't account for the differences because the work is just too varied. Unless you limit the truck maker's model lineup, squeeze the buyer's spec'ing choices, and in some cases, maybe many, force the wrong truck to do the job. I think that's exactly what will happen.

Manufacturers won't actually have free rein to design your truck the way you need it because they'll be working with a limited databook based on SmartWay specs with approved bits and pieces like tires and fairings and such. And nothing else.

What happens when the wrong truck is shoehorned into a given job? Efficiency is almost always lost. Durability and maybe even safety are compromised too.

OOIDA'S OBJECTIONS ARE CREDIBLE, it seems to me, and I have to wonder if they've been reading my editorials. Fine by me. The association calls the new regime "a flawed, one-size-fits-all rule."

I agree with them heartily when they say, “This rulemaking basically takes EPA’s SmartWay program and mandates participation – regardless of whether certain technologies are appropriate for a particular operation.”

OOIDA also claims that Washington ignored input from small-business trucking, overlooks less expensive options to achieve EPA goals of reduced emissions, and will ultimately increase new truck costs.

The main less expensive option? Driver training, something I've been bleating about for years, because the difference between the best and worst driver in terms of fuel economy is as much as 35%. OOIDA says that "should have been the priority.”
 
The association charges that "EPA ignored the findings of the National Academy of Sciences and instead developed a rule that will cause many small businesses to keep and rebuild older equipment. In 2010, the academy found evidence that driver training offers potential fuel savings for the trucking sector that rivals the savings available from technology add-ons and mandates. The Academy called for consideration of this alternative before any regulation was developed."

DID NATURAL GAS GET THE SHORT END of the stick in all this? Sure did, according to NGVAmerica, the trade association representing the natural gas industry in the vehicle world.

“The rules include some regulatory incentives and flexibility for natural gas trucks but should have gone much further in recognizing the benefits of NGVs,” says NGVAmerica president, Richard Kolodziej. “The rules are designed to address the urgent and closely intertwined challenges of dependence on oil, energy security, urban emissions and global climate change. Natural gas vehicles help achieve all these goals and more.”

“It is unfortunate and disappointing that the Administration is not being more supportive of natural gas powered trucks”

Every natural gas truck that rolls off an assembly line and is put into service begins backing out 100% of the petroleum that would otherwise be used, the organization says. And yet, it goes on, the rules only provide about a 20% fuel economy credit for such vehicles.

“That makes little sense,” Kolodziej says. “NGVAmerica and its members made a strong and effective case for a much more significant fuel economy incentive for natural gas trucks, but those arguments were ignored. We also urged the Administration to provide enhanced greenhouse gas emission credits for natural gas trucks, but no such credits were provided either.

“The US currently has the largest selection of medium and heavy-duty natural gas powered truck offerings anywhere in the world. But demand growth for such vehicles in these economic turbulent times has been slow. Adopting the right type of regulatory incentives is a low-cost way to stimulate market demand for such vehicles, but the agencies missed this opportunity.”

I agree with these guys too, for what it's worth.

BEFORE I LEAVE THE SUBJECT, let me be clear that I'm all for technologies that will improve fuel efficiency and in the process help North American fleets of all sizes make a buck. I'm also in favour of helping our fragile environment, though I'm a little less clear on the science over on that side of this equation. I'm just a sceptic and I don't trust Washington's numbers on what this rule can achieve for a second.

Maybe it was inevitable that your spec'ing choices would be limited at some point, and I foresaw a while back that SmartWay would be doing the job for you. But I fear that what we have here, yet again, is a mandate in the shape of a sledgehammer. No finesse in sight.

Hope I'm wrong, hope this actually helps you, hope it helps all of us. But I think one result is that an awful lot of trucking operations will be running old trucks longer than they ever thought possible. Maintenance shops will love it.

SPEAKING OF SMARTWAY, the EPA is changing the designation for tractors and trailers it lists as fuel-efficient options, from 'SmartWay Certified' to 'SmartWay Designated'.

The agency says this will help distinguish top-performing vehicles that meet SmartWay specs from those certified to meet EPA regulatory requirements.

Some critics have pointed out that the word 'certified' implies the EPA has actually tested the listed equipment, but that's not the case. It tests nothing, relying instead manufacturers' own testing based on EPA protocols. The equipment maker submits those results to the EPA, and if the criteria are met, the gizmo gets listed on the SmartWay website.

There are now updated logos for manufacturers of these technologies to use, as well as for SmartWay Partner fleets that want to label their trucks and trailers.

Wonder how long it will take the counterfeiters to work their nefarious magic and allow some carriers to look better than they actually are, with phony SmartWay stickers emblazoned on doors and fenders.

ANOTHER SUPERTRUCK CONTRACT has been awarded, this time to the Volvo Group, involving both Mack Trucks and Volvo Trucks North America. Somewhat vaguely, they'll work on developing technologies to improve the freight-moving efficiency of heavy-duty trucks and reduce greenhouse-gas emissions with a particular emphasis on improved aerodynamics and something they call "energy conversion".

The contract, with the U.S. Department of Energy, is worth $19 million.

R&D work under the SuperTruck program will be conducted over the next five years in Greensboro, N.C., where Mack and Volvo are headquartered, and in Hagerstown, Md., where all of the company's engines and transmissions are assembled.

The company's longtime focus on vertical integration will be a factor, says Kevin Flaherty, Mack senior vice president, U.S. and Canada. "Integrated proprietary components provide superior performance because they're specifically designed to work together."

Last year, Cummins, Daimler Trucks North America, and Navistar scored nearly $120 million in SuperTruck contracts from the DOE, aimed at achieving a very optimistic 50% improvement in truck fuel efficiency. Each of the three companies got just shy of $40 million.

The Cummins challenge was to develop a highly efficient and clean diesel engine, an advanced waste-heat-recovery system, an aerodynamic Peterbilt tractor-trailer combination, and a fuel-cell auxiliary power unit to reduce engine idling.

Daimler was to work on engine downsizing, electrification of auxiliary systems such as oil and water pumps, waste heat recovery, improved aerodynamics and hybridization.

And Navistar's contract had it developing technologies to improve truck and trailer aerodynamics, combustion efficiency, waste-heat recovery, hybridization, idle reduction, and reduced-rolling-resistance tires.

AND FINALLY, SOME CONFERENCE REMINDERS. The TMC fall meeting and TMCSuperTech2011 National Technician Skills Competition are set for Sept. 19-22 at the Raleigh Convention Center in Raleigh, N.C. And the Hybrid Truck Users Forum will hit Baltimore on October 10 through 13.

THIS NEWSLETTER IS PUBLISHED every two weeks. It's a heads-up notice about what's going on with trucking technology. I also write here about interesting products that may not have had the 'air play' they deserved within the last few months.

I should remind you that I don’t endorse any of the products I write about in this e-newsletter, nor do I have the resources to test them. What you’re getting is reasonably well educated opinion based on more than three decades in trucking.

If you have comments of whatever sort about Product Watch, or maybe you've tried a gizmo I should know about, please contact me at rolf@newcom.ca.

 

ON/OFF-ROAD TIRES

(August 17, 2011) -- From Michelin, the X Works XDY and XDY-EX2 on/off-road tires

SUSPENSION OPTIONS

(August 17, 2011) -- Western Star introduces two new suspension options

AFFORDABLE EOBR

(August 17, 2011) -- Mobile communication and navigation in a single device for less than $800

TRAILER DOLLY

(August 17, 2011) -- Powered dolly for moving OTR and lowboy trailers

UPGRADED GRINDERS

(August 17, 2011) -- Snap-on PT series grinders and cut-off tool