Equipment & Tech

In September, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul signed into law a bill that effectively outlawed conventional vehicles starting in 2035 — with heavy trucks to follow a decade later — thus aligning the Empire State with California and others in the latest step framed as mandatory to arrest pollution and save the planet. “We must reduce emissions from the transportation sector, currently the largest source of the state’s climate pollution,” Hochul said at the time. “The new law and regulation mark a critical milestone in our efforts and will further advance the transition to clean electric vehicles, while helping to reduce emissions in communities that have been overburdened by pollution from cars and trucks for decades.” Such measures are highly controversial. They are applauded as loudly by environmentalists who see radical change as the last hope for the ozone as they are criticized by members of the commercial transportation industry for being impractical. One thing upon which all parties can agree is this: The current state of the industry has its roots in a decades-long effort to reduce emissions. “Since 1996, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been instituting increasingly aggressive regulations to reduce the allowable emissions from diesel engines,” said Rick Mihelic, director of emerging technologies with the North American Council for Freight Efficiency (NACFE). “About every four years there’s a new standard that is ratcheted down even further, and we have been doing that since 1996.” The EPA’s consistent pattern of ramping up of emissions standards actually has its roots in the Clean Air Act of 1963. This pivotal act is the nation’s primary federal air-quality law, and is considered to be the first and most influential modern environmental laws on the books. The statute was followed by the beefier Clean Air Act of 1970, which roughly coincided with the creation of the EPA itself. Amendments were added to the statute in 1977 and 1990; the latter amendment featured a greatly expanded program for controlling toxic air pollutants. Regulatory officials strove for net zero emissions, meaning the emissions going into the atmosphere were level with what was being taken out. And, per statistics provided by the EPA, it appears to be working. Since 1990, the agency reports, eight-hour carbon monoxide levels are down 73%, and annual nitrogen dioxide levels are down 61%. Other, more recent, trends include three-month lead readings down 86% compared to 2010 levels, and annual particulate matter down 41% since 2000. “The trucking industry has risen to the challenge and been meeting that staircase of requirements,” Mihelic said. “We’re getting to the point where it’s getting very, very difficult to go further. The numbers are so low already that it’s really technically complicated to meet all the requirements at the same time. “We have some regulations called GHG 1 and 2. The GHG 2 regulations went into effect in 2016 and they’re effective from basically now through 2027 model years,” he continued. “They are working on the next generation of rules beyond 2027 now, but it’s very challenging for a diesel to meet the requirements beyond 2027.” Despite this progress, no one believed true zero emissions were possible with combustion engine technology, as even the most efficient gasoline or diesel vehicle will give off something. Hence, the idea of zero emissions was little more than a pipe dream. “’Zero emissions’ refers to, actually, zero emissions,” Mihelic explained. “What you’re looking at with solar power, wind power — those are creating electricity with essentially no emissions. With a diesel engine, it generates both types of emissions, CO2 and particulates. The difference between zero emission and net zero is that zero emission is really you’re not emitting anything. Physically, nothing coming out is harmful.” Enter the modern electric vehicle, which has been around in one incarnation or another since the late 1800s. In 21st century, this technology for the first time provided a path toward zero emissions that experts say diesel engines as a species simply cannot deliver. Regulatory and legislative interests have been quick to advocate to advocate these vehicles. Standards to be rolled out next year by the EPA list guidelines through 2030 that are so aggressive they’re a de facto nudge into electric vehicles. That, bolstered by the aforementioned state statutes, has painted both truck manufacturers and operators into a corner. “If you think of the letter ’S’ as representing how technology gets absorbed into industry, we’re at the bottom left corner of the S. We’re just starting,” Mihelic said. “There are on the order of hundreds of prototype vehicles on the road that are using fuel-cell technology or battery electric technology or some permutation of those. “The industry has something along the order of 2.4 million Class 8 trucks and maybe 8 million other types of trucks,” he noted. “So, we’re a long way from being able to replace the existing vehicles that are out there. If you think about having to replace 2.4 million trucks, it takes a while. Even if every truck was new technology it would take a number of years — I’d estimate 15 to 20 years — to actually replace all the old trucks.” Thus, truck manufacturers have wasted no time ramping up research and development of electric models. In a speech delivered Sept. 28, Kenworth’s Chief Engineer Joe Adams gave some pertinent insights into the company’s march into this new frontier. “(Looking) at what is driving zero-emissions technologies today, I think it boils down to four key categories. The first is regulatory changes,” he said. “Second, many companies today have strong sustainability and green initiatives. And it is not just fleets striving for these green objectives; many end customers are also demanding green from our industry. “Total cost of ownership is another thing that I believe is driving greater demand for zero-emissions vehicles,” Adams continued. “And finally, technology readiness. I think this is probably one of the most important categories because our customers still demand premium, durable and reliable trucks no matter what powertrain they choose.” Adams went on to tell the audience how electric trucks already compare favorably with their diesel counterparts. “Right now, we have several areas where battery electric vehicles have benefits, starting with the cost of fuel, or maybe better said, the cost of energy per mile,” he said. “Diesel fuel is an efficient source of energy, like it or not, so beating diesel is not easy. However, we know that diesel fuel prices fluctuate generally more than what we have seen for electricity, and electricity has a better opportunity for green production through hydro, wind and solar production. For most customer routes, the daily energy bill will be 50% lower with a battery-electric truck. “Another total cost of ownership benefit of battery-electric vehicles is lower maintenance,” he noted. “Simply said, we have fewer moving parts, and we don’t have to deal with aftertreatment systems. We estimate that maintenance will be 30% lower with battery electric vehicles.” That’s all well and good, says Mihelic, but it’s not a panacea for what ails the still-evolving technology. “Electric vehicles are a solution for some duty cycles but they’re not a solution for all of them,” Mihelic said. “I describe the diesel truck as the ‘Swiss Army knife’ of vehicles, because if you bought a sleeper truck it will do the whole thing. It doesn’t do it well, but it does everything. “Electric vehicles can’t do everything, and fuel cell vehicles can’t do everything,” he continued. “Right now, battery electric-vehicles work really well for medium-duty Class 2B through Class 6, where the distances are fairly short, and the freight weights really aren’t an issue. Frito Lay, Pepsi, Budweiser — they’re using battery-electric trucks to deliver beverages to grocery stores. The reason that’s possible is that the vehicles don’t travel very far.” Operators by and large understand vehicle limitations and manufacturers’ lack of production capacity are normal side effects of introducing new technology. But what many find objectionable is state and federal legislation mandating a switch to all-electric trucks instead of letting the market factors hold sway. “We, as an industry, want to be good stewards of our environment, just like everybody else does,” said Adam Blanchard, CEO of San Antonio-based Double Diamond Trucking. “We want to make sure that we leave this world cleaner and better than it was.” However, Blanchard says, there are several factors to consider about the viability of electric-powered over-the-road trucks. “We don’t have the infrastructure in place to accomplish that. There’s weight issues associated with it. These trucks with batteries on them are a lot heavier. That’s going to impact the volume and the amount of goods that we can transport,” he explained. “To me, at this particular juncture it seems like we’re focusing on electric vehicles when in reality that may not be the best technology to have zero-emissions trucks,” he continued. “From what I understand, we need to look more at the hydrogen vehicles. Again, that’s a lack of the infrastructure and the cost component for hydrogen fuel is not there yet.” Blanchard said that in kowtowing to environmental concerns, many lawmakers miss a bigger picture, something that’s playing out in the supply chain issues experienced currently. “We, as an industry, are behind trying to get to zero emissions. But we also are responsible for making sure that everybody has the essential goods that they need and keeping shelves stocked,” he said. “We need to be thoughtful and patient about making sure that, if we’re going to make this transition, we make it in a way that is not going to continue to affect the supply chain.”

Even from a distance, the lights tell you that an approaching vehicle is a commercial motor vehicle. If there’s a hill, even a small one, between you and the oncoming truck, you’ll see the amber clearance lights first — two at the front corners of the box or trailer, then the familiar five atop the cab arranged with a grouping of three in the middle and one on each side. Get a little closer, and it’s possible to determine whether the vehicle is a straight truck, a tractor-trailer or a tractor pulling doubles by the clearance lights down the side. Table 1 of Federal Motor Carrier Regulations subpart 393.11 details the lighting and reflective device requirements for commercial motor vehicles manufactured after Dec. 25, 1968. Those regulations spell out the light colors and patterns that are familiar to every truck driver. Some drivers and truck owners, however, go much further than the minimum legal requirements. Some install extra clearance lights, creating a line of lights so close together that, from a distance they, appear to be a solid line. Others prefer lights that outline areas of the truck, like the bottom of the sleeper or the top of the bumper. Some like to highlight features, for example, positioning amber lights so they reflect off a chrome air filter housing. Imagination is the limit, so long as lighting choices don’t violate the regulations. For example, red lights on the front end of a truck could confuse motorists, and would be illegal. In fact, there’s a name for those magical numbers of lights that far exceed legal requirements. They’re called “chicken lights.” The term is sometimes used to poke fun at a driver who, in the opinion of someone else, uses an excessive number of lights. Other drivers, however, proudly refer to their own lighting schemes by the term. While we’re on the subject of extra lights, let’s address a common CB myth often repeated by drivers without actual knowledge. As the fable goes, no matter how many lights are installed on the truck, they must all be working. Supposedly, someone knows someone who heard from someone else who had 250 lights on their trailer (well into “Rooster Cruiser” territory) and got ticketed because one of the bulbs had blown out. It’s hogwash. As long as there are enough working lights to meet the requirements of 49 CFR 393.11, no laws have been broken. There is, however, a downside to adding extra lighting: Each new lamp requires adding another connection to the wiring. Whether the connection is made by cutting and splicing wires or by using connection devices designed for this purpose, every new connection is susceptible to corrosion. If done right and checked frequently, however, problems can be avoided. In recent years, LED (light-emitting diode) lamps have swarmed the market. Invented in 1962, the first LEDs gave off only low-intensity infrared light. Developments since then have resulted in a variety of colors and intensities, including some suitable for replacement headlight lamps. The earliest use of LEDs for truck lighting, however, came in the form of LED tail and brake lights to replace the sealed-beam incandescent lamps used for tractors and trailers. The new LED models were brighter, quicker to activate, used far less electricity and lasted much longer than the old-style lights. They were also expensive, 10 or more times the cost of an incandescent lamp, and theft was common. Drivers were often dismayed to discover four empty receptacles where tail and brake lamps were formerly located. Installations soon included the use of special screws or bolts designed to prevent theft. These days, LED lamps are standard equipment on most vehicles. However, the use of LEDs has gone far beyond brake and tail lights. Nearly any light on the vehicle, including the headlamps, can now be powered by LEDs. LEDs now come in a dazzling variety of colors, including units that contain diodes of different colors, allowing the owner to change the appearance of the truck at will. Red and amber lights used on the highway can become green, blue or another color when the truck is parked. Lights mounted underneath tractors and trailers light up the ground, adding to the effect. Many of the truck competitions held at truck shows or as standalone events now include a light show. Some even present separate awards for best “legal” and “non-legal” displays. These are highly anticipated and usually well attended. If a little rain results in wet pavement, so much the better. Even better, technology has made it possible to program LED lights to act in ways never before possible. Lights can change color, flash in predetermined patterns or in sequence at the direction of the driver. The lights competition at most shows features rows of trucks lit up like Christmas trees, only bigger and brighter. Displays are limited only by the owners’ imagination – and budget. On the road, LEDs have paid off, too. Incandescent bulbs could blow out at any time, and most drivers carried at least one spare for each type of bulb. With more carriers offering drop-and-hook freight, a driver never knew when the next trailer might have a nonworking light, or several. A blown clearance light could mean a citation at the next scale house, or at least a trip-delaying inspection. LEDs, while not immune to breakdown, are much more reliable. One area where incandescent bulbs have an edge, however, is in heat generation. In snowy conditions, most incandescent lights stay warm enough to melt accumulated snow from the lens area, often leaving a salty film behind. These headlamps were often warm enough to cause a burn if touched. Because LEDs emit much less heat, drivers need to periodically clean snow away to keep the headlamp from being obscured. One LED manufacturer is even marketing lamps with a built-in heater. The Truck-Lite Company’s Supper 44 and 60 Series stop/tail/turn lights contain heating elements that activate when the temperature drops below 45 degrees. With all of the available choices, truck lighting has become a trucking art form. There’s a nightly parade of lights on a highway, or at a truck stop, near you.

BISMARCK, N.D. — The North Dakota Department of Transportation is beginning a pilot study to examine the possibility of longer trucks on state roads. Last spring, state lawmakers considered legislation dealing with “road trains” or extra long semi trailers meant to save on fuel costs and other expenses associated with moving goods. But, the idea raised some safety concerns, so legislators decided to pass a bill to study the matter. “This is a great opportunity to work with our transportation partners and learn more about the long combination vehicle impact on the state highway system,” said Mike Kisse, maintenance assistance division engineer with the Transportation Department. “This legislation has the potential to benefit the North Dakota economy.” The department is accepting applications from the transportation industry through the end of November to gather input on possible trucking routes and configurations, the Bismarck Tribune reported. Among the ideas considered will be allowing cargo trailers up to 130 feet in length. The existing limit is 100 feet. The Transportation Department says it plans to review proposed routes for any issues that could arise regarding longer trucks traveling over bridges or through intersections. It also will study whether it would be problematic for cars seeking to pass the longer trucks. The Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute based at North Dakota State University is helping with the study. The department plans to reports its findings by Aug. 1, 2022.

WASHINGTON — Navistar Inc. has agreed to pay a $52 million civil penalty and mitigate at least 10,000 tons of nitrogen oxide in order to resolve violations of the Clean Air Act. According to the U.S. Department of Justice (USDOJ), Navistar tried to skirt new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) emissions laws by labeling 2009 heavy-duty diesel engines as 2010 models. Stricter regulations on emissions went into effect in 2010. In addition to the fine, Navistar will also forfeit its current account of nitrogen oxide credits, and purchase and destroy enough older diesel engines to prevent 10,000 tons of future emissions, the USDOJ said in a news release. In 2015, the United States filed suit against Navistar alleging that in 2010, after the lower emission standards went into effect, the company sold 7,749 engines that were not certified and did not meet the new standards. Navistar had marketed and sold the engines installed in its International-branded trucks as being EPA-certified model year 2009, even though it completed all manufacturing and assembling processes for the engines in 2010. The court held that the engines were, in fact, from model year 2010 and required to be covered by a 2010 certificate of conformity. “This settlement shows we will hold companies accountable when they skirt the law to gain advantage at the expense of public health,” said Assistant Attorney General Todd Kim of the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division. “The department’s steadfast pursuit of this case achieved a just result, including that the company must mitigate the harm it caused and, in doing so, specifically must consider assisting communities overburdened by pollution.” Acting Assistant Administrator Larry Starfield for the EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance said that “older diesel engines without modern emissions controls emit significant amounts of air pollution that harms people’s health and takes years off people’s lives. This harm is greatest in communities near busy roadways, which are too often overburdened by high levels of ozone and particulate matter pollution. Today’s settlement will protect these vulnerable communities by preventing the emission of 10,000 tons of NOx from older, heavily-polluting commercial vehicles and equipment.”

The Urban Planning Conference was a bust. Leaders from cities across the U.S. gathered in New York City to discuss ideas for dealing with leading environmental health problems caused by pollution. Finding no solutions, the conference ended early. However, a solution was on the horizon, just waiting for the technology to be developed to a point that the public would accept it. The conference referenced above was held more than a century ago, in 1898, to discuss the pollution problem caused by horse manure in the streets. In New York alone, more than 150,000 horses produced an average of 22 pounds of the stuff each day. That same year, the very first model of the “solution” was sold — the gasoline-powered automobile. Early models of the newfangled “horseless carriage” were unreliable, and those stranded by the frequent breakdowns often heard gleeful shouts of “Get a horse!” from passersby. Politicians took positions for and against the automobile. Detractors complained about the engine noise and smoke, the dangerous higher speeds and the horrific potential of bringing thousands of gallons of flammable gasoline into populated areas. It wasn’t until 1912 that autos outnumbered horses in the city, and another five years passed before the city’s horse-drawn trolleys were eliminated. The internal combustion engine wasn’t the only power source being developed at the time. Steam power had been used in ships and locomotives for decades, and a number of inventors used downsized steam engines in their vehicles. There were electric vehicles, too. They were slow and heavy, and they couldn’t go far. Other power sources being explored included methane, diesel, compressed air and even springs used to store energy generated by a hand crank — but gasoline proved to be the most practical. Fast-forward to 2021. Two decades into the 21st century, the technology needed to replace the internal combustion engine is in the late stages of development. Electric-powered vehicles (EVs) are already on the roads. They’re limited in range, in part because of limited battery capacity and, in part, by the lack of facilities to recharge without returning to a home or business location. Just as the infrastructure and the economy evolved to incorporate the automobile into a resistant society, it will evolve for EVs. Of course, some major issues remain, such as where to get enough materials to make batteries to power millions of EVs and how to produce and deliver enough electricity to keep all of them charged. There’s also the problem of funding roads and bridges. Currently, fuel taxes are collected for this purpose. Those tax dollars will dwindle as vehicles that don’t use fossil fuel take over the highways. The Biden administration is determined to accelerate the technology that answers these and other questions. Concerns about pollution, including climate change impacted by carbon emissions, are driving the efforts. An Aug. 5, 2021, an executive order issued by President Joe Biden directed that half of new passenger cars and trucks sold in the year 2030 must be zero-emission vehicles. The order also called for the federal government to adopt standards issued by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), which calls for 100% of passenger and small vehicles to be zero-emission by 2035. However, those goals can’t be met without the infrastructure in place to support the vehicles. Two bills currently being considered in Congress include programs to jump-start that infrastructure, but political infighting has put their passage in doubt. The first is the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Of the $1.2 trillion of spending included in the bill, more than $20 billion would be directed towards EV technology. Included are: $7.5 billion to deploy a network of 500,000 charging stations along highway corridors to facilitate long-distance travel. $2.5 billion for a grant program to develop and maintain “alternative fuel corridors,” where charging stations are publicly available. This also funds charging stations in certain publicly owned properties such as schools, parks and parking facilities. $5 billion for the development of a DOT program to establish a national program to facilitate data collection, operation and maintenance of a national monitoring system for EV charging. $5 billion for grants to states and other entities for the purchase of zero- and low-emission school buses. Another $65 billion would be directed to the development of clean energy transmission, upgrading the current power infrastructure to facilitate the expansion of renewable energy and including “smart grid” technologies. The infrastructure bill has bipartisan support and should have enough votes to pass, but a small group of far-left Democrats is refusing to support passage unless another funding bill passes first. That legislation would be the $3.5 trillion “Build Back Better” bill. EV provisions in this bill include: $13.5 billion to fund electric charging stations in “publicly accessible locations, multi-unit housing structures, workplaces and underserved areas.” The bill claims to also support “electrification of industrial and medium-heavy duty vehicles,” but does not include details. $7 billion for loan and grant programs at the Department of Energy (DOE) to support technology development and manufacturing of zero-emission vehicles. $5 billion to replace heavy-duty vehicles such as trash trucks and school buses, including job training for drivers and others impacted by the changes. $9 billion for energy grid improvement and modernization. $27.5 billion to climate finance institutions to support rapid deployment of low- and zero-emission technologies. Another $150 billion would be earmarked to create a “Clean Electricity Performance Program” (CEPP), monitored by the DOE, that would reward electricity suppliers who increase their percentage of “clean” energy with cash payments. It would also fine suppliers who do not increase that percentage. Republicans are united in their opposition to the Build Back Better act, objecting to tax increases in the bill and claiming the spending amount is reckless. All but a few Senate democrats support the bill, but those few, added to the Republican opposition, are enough to defeat passage. Senate Democrats are currently pushing for a budget reconciliation bill, a process that would enable passage with a simple majority. Without it, 60 votes would be needed to override a Republican filibuster. The infrastructure bill, as of this writing, has passed the Senate but is still held up in the House. In the meantime, progress continues on designing and building the next generation of vehicles.

GREENBELT, Md. — Highway safety officials in Canada, Mexico and the U.S. inspected 35,764 commercial motor vehicles during this year’s Brake Safety Week — a seven-day inspection and enforcement initiative sponsored by the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA). The annual event, held this year on Aug. 22-28, is aimed at inspecting commercial motor vehicles roadside and identifying and removing any commercial motor vehicles with dangerous brake-related issues from our roadways, according to a CVSA news release issued on Wednesday. In North America combined, a total of 35,764 commercial motor vehicles were inspected. Twelve percent of those were restricted from travel because inspectors found critical, brake-related problems and placed them out of service. “That also means that 88% of the commercial motor vehicles inspected throughout North America during Brake Safety Week did not have brake-related critical vehicle inspection item violations,” the news release pointed out. “Vehicles that did not have any vehicle and driver out-of-service conditions during a Level I or Level V Inspection may have received a CVSA decal, which is a visual indicator to inspectors that the vehicle was recently inspected (valid for three months) and had no critical vehicle inspection item violations.” Every year for Brake Safety Week, law enforcement jurisdictions with the CVSA conduct commercial motor vehicle and driver inspections at fixed weigh stations, temporary pop-up inspection sites and during roving roadway patrols, paying special attention to brake components and systems. Participating jurisdictions capture and report data on inspections and the special focus area for that year. This year, the focus was on brake hose chafing violations. “Properly functioning brakes may mean the difference between a catastrophic collision or the ability to avoid a crash,” CVSA President Captain John Broers, who is with the South Dakota Highway Patrol, said. Brake-related violations accounted for eight out of the top 20 vehicle violations in 2020, according to the U.S. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s data. And brake system and brake adjustment violations accounted for more out-of-service vehicle conditions than any other vehicle violation during CVSA’s three-day International Roadcheck inspection and enforcement initiative in May. The out-of-service rate related to brakes in the U.S. was 13.5% out of the 28,694 commercial motor vehicles inspected, according to the CVSA. In addition, inspectors in Canada, Mexico and the U.S. recorded 5,667 brake hose chafing violations, which are a common brake-related violation, whether out-of-service or not. Inspectors reported brake hose chafing violations in five different categories, illustrating levels of chafing severity, including two which are out-of-service conditions, and submitted that data to CVSA.