Commentary: GHG - A Look Beyond the Machinery

August 2015, - Editorial

by Rolf Lockwood

SHARING TOOLS        | Print Subscribe
Rolf Lockwood, Executive Contributing Editor
Rolf Lockwood, Executive Contributing Editor

OK, so we’ve seen Phase 2 of the fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas emission regulations for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was finally published in June by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

It’s a whopping 1,349 pages long, so I’ve barely scratched its surface. But some numbers in there make me uncomfortable, even though I believe that the ultimate result will be good for trucking (see Locking It In, March 2015, for my original take on all this).

As with every other EPA mandate, estimates are flying. A Class 8 tractor will cost 10-12% more under the Phase 2 rules, officials say. But they insist that by 2027, that cost increase — they say $12,000, which I don’t trust — will be recovered within two years of operation, thanks to reduced fuel consumption.

To be honest, I’m left rolling my eyes, even though I believe that the fuel-economy gains we’re talking about here are reachable. It’s just that Washington’s guesses have never been accurate. And the political suits just love to throw wild macro numbers around in what amounts to a marketing campaign.

They estimate the proposed standards will create $230 billion in net benefits over the lifetime of the vehicles sold in the regulatory timeframe, while costing the industry about one-tenth that amount, or $25 billion.

I guess they have to play at this macro level, but I fear it blinds them to what goes on in the trenches. Where you work.

The proposed Phase 2 regime calls for truck fuel economy to be improved by as much as 24% over 2014-18 levels by 2027, starting in model-year 2021.

Yet I hear all the time of trucks already doing 9, 10, even 11 mpg in 2015 form. Not Montana cattle haulers, mind you, but a whole bunch of plain-vanilla five-axle rigs are on Interstate highways as we speak doing an easy 7 mpg without really trying. They’ll be pushing at least 9 mpg in 2018 simply by virtue of the factory spec. Which means something like 12-13 mpg or more in 2027.

Is it just me, or does something seem out of whack here? Really, it would take relatively little to get awfully close to that level of efficiency more or less right now. Well, soon, at least for basic van operations, and long before we need to talk about semi-exotic technology like waste-heat recovery. Flatdecks and vocational rigs of all sorts represent bigger and different challenges, I’ll admit.

To be honest, I’m left rolling my eyes, even though I believe that the fuel-economy gains we’re talking about here are reachable.

So what could we do right now? Among other possibilities, taking trailer aerodynamics to the max equals an easy 5% fuel saving at least, likely more, for not much money. Costing even less, let’s take driver training seriously, because there’s anything from 10 to 30% in there. 

And in my mind, the best and biggest ton/mile efficiency option we have is to increase truck size and/or weight, though the DOT has effectively nixed the idea of six-axle rigs weighing up to 97,000 pounds – while admitting it would save 2 billion gallons of fuel every year and cut emissions by 19% per ton/mile.

The problem here is that Washington never sees the whole picture, never sees how the various elements that make up the trucking industry fit together and offer opportunities to save.

It’s not just about the machinery we use.


  1. 1. Richard Widman [ August 18, 2015 @ 05:16AM ]

    While am in the industry of serving the truck industry and using their services, I watch these columns closely as I (and my customers) are the ones that end up paying, as the trucking companies raise their rates and reduce the cargo weight. Every week I get ocean containers that are only 2/3 full due to US weight restrictions on the domestic side. A true waste of money and resources that I have to pay taxes on and pass on to my customers.

  2. 2. Franklin Thompson [ August 19, 2015 @ 09:10AM ]

    I have to agree. My thoughts are where do they get their numbers. A truck running flat ground is always going to get better mileage. I remember running through Texas, I bet I didn't down shift twice the whole run, it's a good thing I had plenty of sleep on that run, I would have fallen asleep behind the wheel on that run from boredom. However, run those numbers in the hills of Virginia, West Virginia and Maryland and you will never achieve that kind of mileage unless your running empty trucks on those roads, and who's going to pay the freight bill on an empty truck.

  3. 3. Lou [ August 20, 2015 @ 08:41AM ]

    No one discusses the environmental impact of scrapping out perfectly good trucks for the sake of efficiency and emissions improvements or the added costs and reduced reliability. We have been doing considerable testing on a 1930s technology on an 07 Volvo /Cummins and a 92 Pete CAT 3406 with impressive results in mileage and significantly lower emissions.


Comment On This Story

Comment: (Maximum 2000 characters)  
Leave this field empty:
* Please note that every comment is moderated.


We offer e-newsletters that deliver targeted news and information for the entire fleet industry.


ELDs and Telematics

sponsored by
sponsor logo

Scott Sutarik from Geotab will answer your questions and challenges

View All

Sleeper Cab Power

Steve Carlson from Xantrex will answer your questions and challenges

View All