WASHINGTON — The Biden administration acknowledged that its aggressive push to decarbonize trucking will be costly — but that the federal government will be here to help.
“The overarching challenge is aligning the market-driven desire from fleets to adopt zero-emission freight vehicles with the resources required to make it successful, and right now, they cost more,” said Gabe Klein, executive director of the U.S. Joint Office of Energy and Transportation.
Speaking to NPR before the release on Friday of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s new phase-three truck emissions rule, Klein said that “cost parity” has yet to be reached that would make electric trucks as affordable. A new Class 8 diesel truck costs roughly $180,000 compared with up to $400,000 for a battery-electric truck, according to estimates.
“That’s why the federal government is providing subsidies, to bring it down closer to cost parity,” he said. “I will also say the charging infrastructure is of course a limiting factor. So we need to make sure everybody has access, not just the big fleets and companies.”
EPA’s “Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles – Phase 3” final rule, which applies to model years 2027 through 2032, avoids 1 billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions — equivalent to the emissions from more than 13 million tanker trucks’ worth of gasoline, according to the agency. EPA also estimated $13 billion in annualized public health benefits.
“In finalizing these emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles like trucks and buses, EPA is significantly cutting pollution from the hardest working vehicles on the road,” commented EPA Administrator Michael Regan. “Building on our recently finalized rule for light- and medium-duty vehicles, EPA’s strong and durable vehicle standards respond to the urgency of the climate crisis by making deep cuts in emissions from the transportation sector.”
Timelines loosened
According to the rule’s preamble, the new standards for heavy-duty trucks include less stringent standards for all vehicle categories in model years (MY) 2027, 2028, 2029 and 2030 than had been originally proposed last year.
In addition, while emissions standards for sleeper cabs in the final rule begin in MY2030 as proposed, they are less stringent for that year and for MY2031. However, they are equivalent in stringency to what EPA had proposed for MY2032, the preamble notes.
While placating environmental groups, much of the trucking firmly opposes the rule despite adjustments made to the final rule.
“The post-2030 targets remain entirely unachievable given the current state of zero-emission technology, the lack of charging infrastructure and restrictions on the power grid,” commented American Trucking Associations President and CEO Chris Spear.
He stressed that while the final rule includes lower zero-emission vehicle rates for the initial model years, rates in the later years will drive battery-electric and hydrogen investment and limit other potential zero-emission options.
“While we are disappointed with today’s rule, we will continue to work with EPA to address its shortcomings and advance emission-reduction targets and timelines that are both realistic and durable,” Spear said.
Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association President Todd Spencer called the new rules “unworkable” requirements.
“This administration appears more focused on placating extreme environmental activists who have never been inside a truck than the small business truckers who ensure that Americans have food in their grocery stores and clothes on their backs,” Spencer said.
Daimler throws in support
But not all companies involved in heavy-duty trucking opposed the rule, particularly companies that have been investing heavily in zero-emission technologies, like vehicle manufacturer Daimler Truck North America (DTNA). The company had lobbied EPA for less aggressive timelines when the rule was proposed.
“We thank the agency for addressing industry concern about the challenges of the early years of the rule and we remain committed to upholding the spirit of this regulation,” commented DTNA vice president Sean Waters.
“Ultimately, the successful transition of the commercial vehicle industry is dependent on the availability of reliable zero-emission charging and refueling infrastructure and the ability to conduct business at a reasonable cost of ownership,” he added.
Charging availability and cost was questioned by much of the trucking industry, which commissioned a recent study estimating the cost to install charging infrastructure at $1 trillion.
Incentives needed
The Biden administration’s Klein pushed back on cost concerns, however, pointing to incentives provided at the federal level.
“We’ve already invested $253 million through the Department of Transportation — that’s charging and fueling infrastructure grants — just recently,” he said.
“But there’s also a great deal of private sector funding. And really the goal here is to supplement the private sector, not to supplant their funding.”
Hans Witt
“federals guv. be there there help” jack boots, guns, and fines ? The Electric truck will be 400k and diesel trucks will be $800.K I hope America like to push a wheel barrow, maybe everyone could get little trailer an pull it behind their bicycle , like 3 world countries. Most all small business will be wiped out, the “supply chain will slow way down, add another 2 week deliver time unless you want pay about $16 per mile.
Leander Oran Richmond
Insanity uncured. Sleeping wokeness.
Hey, lts force a standard that is not yet self sustainable. How do we do that when it cost so much? Easy, we just take more tax dollars to pay for new standard product (Subsidy).
But what sense does it make to have the government partially paying for all of these vehicles that noone wants? None but we will feel better about it in our hearts.
Our pockets and our children’s pockets will suffer but at least we’ll feel better about ourselves, on the inside.
People are homeless, isn’t that more important than using tax dollars to pay for products that noone wants? NO! This is necessary because the polar cap is melting.
But hasn’t the polar cap been melting for 10 thousand years? Yes but that’s not the point. It’s almost gone.
Can we stop the polar ice cap from melting? NO but at least we will have battery operated trucks.
If it’s melting anyway, then what is the point of all of this wasted money. You’re not listening are you?
Mark W.
I am a hazmat tanker driver. I would like to ask these ijits who the eff they think is going to drive these things? AI? I sure the hell won’t be. No one that I know will sleep with or drive a truck with an 8 ton lithium battery underneath. RAGING INFERNO FROM Li Ion BATTERY collapses random freeway bridge is a headline in the future with these stupid things. Completely unrealistic expectations as per usual from the idiots on the left.