The electric vehicle (EV) industry is no longer emerging – it’s a global race. You don’t need headlines to see the electric revolution underway; you just need to look around. From quiet electric lawnmowers to battery-powered tools and sleek EVs in driveways, electrification is here, and it’s being driven by real consumer choice – not just regulations.
Electric technologies are more efficient, quieter, and cleaner. But full-scale electrification still faces major hurdles, especially in how we power EVs and manage that power once it’s onboard. At the heart of this transformation is the challenge of managing energy on both sides of the plug: from the grid to the vehicle, and from the battery to the wheels.
This is where Eaton excels. With over a century of experience managing electrical and mechanical power, Eaton brings a unique, system-level perspective to electrification, delivering smarter solutions for both infrastructuring and vehicle architecture.
Before an EV can drive a mile, its power must travel through a complex web of electrical infrastructure. The real bottleneck to deploying EV charging at homes, businesses, and public sites isn’t hardware, it’s ensuring the grid can handle the added load.
Eaton’s Electrical Sector has long powered critical infrastructure like hospitals and data centers. Today, that same expertise is helping to scale EV charging networks. From circuit breakers and switchgear to UPS systems and advanced metering, Eaton’s portfolio ensures that power can be delivered safely, reliably, and efficiently.
To simplify deployment, Eaton partnered with ChargePoint, combining chargers, power distribution gear, and engineering services into a single solution. This streamlines electrification for businesses and municipalities.
Looking ahead, Eaton and ChargePoint are also developing bidirectional charging and vehicle-to-everything (V2X) capabilities. These technologies will allow EVs to feed power back to homes or the grid, turning vehicles into mobile energy assets.
Managing energy doesn’t stop at the charging cable. Inside the vehicle, power must be used wisely to maximize range, performance, and safety. Eaton’s Mobility Group brings decades of experience in vehicle power electronics, safety systems, and drivetrains to meet this challenge.
One example is Eaton’s Battery Disconnect Unit with Breaktor protection, which integrates the functions of fuses, contactors, and pyro switches into a single, compact device. This innovation enhances safety by enabling ultra-fast fault isolation while reducing the number of components – making electric vehicles lighter, more efficient, and more reliable.
Another innovation is the Battery Configuration Switch (BCS), developed with Munich Electrification. It allows EVs to seamlessly switch between 400-volt and 800-volt charging systems without compromising performance, improving both compatibility and reliability.
One of the most overlooked challenges in EV design – especially for commercial vehicles – is drivetrain performance. Traditional direct-drive EV systems struggle with acceleration, high-speed efficiency, and gradeability, especially when carrying heavy loads.
Eaton solves this with a portfolio of EV transmissions purpose-built to improve torque, efficiency, and flexibility across light-, medium-, and heavy-duty commercial vehicle platforms.
Its heavy-duty 4-speed EV transmission, recognized as a 2024 Automotive News PACEpilot Innovation to Watch, delivers smooth launches on 30 percent grades and maintains highway speeds on inclines as steep as 7 percent. The transmission leverages a proven layshaft architecture – common in automated manual transmissions (AMTs) – but reengineered for EVs. Without a clutch, gear shifts are synchronized by the traction motor, resulting in greater efficiency and seamless performance.
Medium-duty EVs benefit from 4- and 6-speed variants that have logged over 2 billion real-world miles. Their lightweight countershaft design and electric gear actuation allow for smaller, more efficient motors – reducing battery size and improving range.
Also, part of the lineup is Eaton’s ultra-compact 4-speed transmission, which delivers exceptional torque density, more payload capacity, extended range, and added space for battery packaging. This design makes it easier for OEMs to tailor powertrains to their specific duty cycles.
Together, these EV transmissions help overcome the limitations of direct-drive systems, providing diesel-like performance while improving acceleration, climbing ability, and highway cruising efficiency. This matters in real-world applications where every percent of efficiency and every pound of payload makes a difference.
In EVs, even the smallest components can have an outsized impact on performance. Eaton continues to lead in terminals and connectors that maximize conductivity and minimize heat loss. Products like high-power lock box terminals and RigiFlex busbars ensure efficient power flow to critical subsystems – from infotainment and climate control to traction motors and braking.
These components support flexible vehicle architectures, enabling OEMs to customize designs while maintaining safety and performance.
Reliability is critical, especially in crash scenarios. Eaton’s dual-trigger pyro fuses act like airbags for the electrical system, disconnecting power instantly in the event of a crash. Combined with Breaktor technology and Bussmann EV fuses, Eaton offers a full spectrum of circuit protection tailored to evolving EV requirements.
These systems help EVs meet the toughest safety standards without adding unnecessary weight or complexity – an essential balance for today’s high-performance electric vehicles.
What sets Eaton apart isn’t just one standout product, it’s the company’s ability to manage power from the transformer to the transmission. The Electrical Sector ensures grid readiness and smart infrastructure. The Mobility Group ensures vehicles are equipped to use that power safely and efficiently.
Few companies have the breadth and depth to support the entire EV power journey. Fewer still have done so with the legacy of safety, innovation, and sustainability that Eaton brings to every product it builds.
Electrification is no longer a dream – it’s happening. But to reach its full potential, the industry needs partners who understand how to connect every dot in the power ecosystem. Eaton manages both sides of the plug, and that may be exactly what the EV industry needs to bridge the gap between promise and progress.
Mike Froelich is Global Vice President of Engineering-eMobility at Eaton., an intelligent power management company that makes products for the mobility, utility, industrial, aerospace, and other markets.
As we stand at the threshold of transportation's electric future, there's an uncomfortable truth we must confront: the very infrastructure that supported EV adoption's early phase is now poised to become its greatest limitation. Global EV sales are set to capture 20 percent of the market this year, with projections showing this could exceed 60 percent by the mid-2030s. In the United States alone, the electric fleet is expected to grow from approximately 5 million vehicles today to between 26-27 million by 2030, according to analyses from both Edison Electric Institute and PwC, eventually reaching a staggering 92 million by 2040. But beneath these impressive growth curves lies a critical vulnerability few are discussing – our charging infrastructure is fundamentally misaligned with the coming wave of mass-market adoption.
The revolution that began with early adopters choosing EVs for environmental and technological reasons is now evolving into a mass-market transformation. But there's a critical disconnect between this projected growth and our ability to support it. The EV revolution will move at the speed of its infrastructure. Without a fundamental shift in charging architecture, we'll hit that wall where EVs are increasingly popular but increasingly difficult to charge.
Current charging solutions were designed for yesterday's EV market – a market characterized by limited demand and modest infrastructure requirements. These systems typically scale to just eight charging points per power cabinet, require disproportionate grid upgrades for expansion, and can't efficiently serve the growing diversity of vehicles from compact cars to commercial trucks.
This creates a three-fold problem:
For years, the industry has engaged in marketing increasingly powerful chargers as the primary metric of innovation. That era is ending. The new competitive battleground will be intelligent power distribution: getting the right amount of power to the right vehicle at the right time – every time! This shift represents charging infrastructure's evolution from a relatively simple fueling model to a sophisticated energy management system that maximizes throughput and return on investment.
When one vehicle needs 50kW and another needs 250kW, the infrastructure should seamlessly accommodate both without overprovisioning or underserving either. This capability – dynamic power allocation based on real-time demand – marks the difference between yesterday's charging paradigm and tomorrow's.
These limitations aren't merely technical challenges. They create practical and economic barriers that threaten to derail the EV transition:
Without a fundamental shift in charging architecture, we face a future where EVs become increasingly popular but increasingly difficult to charge. The market could stall precisely when it should be accelerating.
After over a decade pioneering DC fast charging technology, we at Tritium recognized this fundamental challenge requires more than incremental improvements. It demands a complete reimagining of charging architecture.
"Today marks a paradigm shift in EV charging infrastructure," I noted during our unveiling of TRI-FLEX at ACT Expo 2025. "TRI-FLEX is not just an incremental improvement but a fundamental reimagining of distributed charging architecture designed to scale efficiently at the speed of coming demand in the market."
The core innovation is what we call ultra-scaling distributed architecture – a revolutionary approach that enables unprecedented flexibility and scalability:
The architecture fundamentally changes how we think about scaling charging infrastructure: "Think of traditional charging like having separate water heaters for every shower in your house – inefficient, expensive, and difficult to scale," as I explained to industry analysts. "TRI-FLEX is like one smart water heater serving many showers simultaneously, giving each precisely the temperature and pressure it needs."
This isn't just a technological advancement – it's an economic breakthrough that transforms the financial equation for charging infrastructure deployment:
For drivers, this means the near elimination of "the last vestiges of range anxiety." Going forward, the biggest pain point won't be vehicle range – it will be finding available chargers when and where you need them. TRI-FLEX changes that equation by allowing for fast, cost-effective scaling of EV charging locations that can keep up with accelerating demand.
The coming EV surge – growing from today's early adoption phase to projected fleets of 27 million by 2030 and 92 million by 2040 in the U.S. alone – requires infrastructure that can scale without bounds, optimize without waste, and adapt without replacement.
Ultra-scaling distributed architecture isn't just an option for the future of charging – it's an imperative if we want to remove the final barrier between early adoption and mainstream electrification. Without this evolution, we risk creating the very bottleneck that could stall the EV revolution.
For operators, the choice is clear: continue with architectures designed for yesterday's market or embrace solutions that align with tomorrow's demand. The stakes couldn't be higher – not just for individual businesses but for the entire transition to sustainable transportation. The EV revolution needs infrastructure that can move at the speed of its ambition. That infrastructure begins with ultra-scaling distributed architecture.
Arcady Sosinov is the CEO of Tritium, a global leader in DC fast chargers for electric vehicles.
Trucking fleets operating RNG-fueled trucks save money, slash emissions, and benefit from proven, affordable, clean technology without delay and without compromising existing business operations. RNG is a solution that allows fleets to achieve better than zero results immediately. It is not just carbon reductions that are in play, however. More demanding federal limits on nitrogen oxide emissions and increased durability requirements for new engines make RNG a smart choice for truck operators looking for an alternative to diesel trucks and their increasingly complex emission control systems.
2024 saw the launch of Cummins’ highly anticipated 15L X15N engine, leading a suite of Cummins natural gas engines serving commercial operators. Available now in Peterbilt, Kenworth, and Freightliner chassis, the X15N delivers up to 500 horsepower and torque of up to 1,850 lb-ft, providing a viable workhorse alternative to traditional diesel engines.
Additionally, the Volvo Group’s and Westport Fuel System’s Cespira joint venture is continuing efforts to accelerate the growth of High-Pressure Direct Injection (HPDI) technology into North America. Volvo already uses this technology in Europe for its natural gas internal combustion engine offerings. HPDI technology can run on zero- or carbon-neutral fuels (i.e. hydrogen and biomethane) with diesel-like fuel efficiency, power, and torque.
There are approximately 1,200 heavy-duty natural gas fueling stations in the U.S. While nearly all natural gas motor fuel dispensed in California is RNG, it’s not just California fleets that have access to it. In 2024, 63 percent of RNG motor fuel use occurred outside of California, up from 57 percent in 2023.
The carbon intensity (CI) of renewable natural gas motor fuel continues to drop. Derived from landfills, wastewater, forest waste, food waste, and agricultural waste, RNG continues to make up more and more of the natural gas motor fuel market. In 2023, 79 percent of natural gas used in on-road transportation was RNG, up from 69 percent in 2022. Since RNG is interchangeable with any natural gas vehicle (NGV), RNG is one ultra-low-carbon/carbon-negative fuel that does not require the build-out of new specific infrastructure since it is dispensed from existing stations.
Data from the California Air Resources Board shows the average carbon intensity of the bio-CNG mix sold in California in 2024 dropped to -194 gCO2e/MJ, the lowest CI of any transportation fuel or technology in the state, including electric. That means that fleets operating natural gas vehicles in California are achieving a carbon-negative transportation outcome today.
Sourced domestically, natural gas motor fuel is less volatile to global market swings, providing price stability and savings to fleets of all sizes compared to traditional fuels. Toward the end of 2024 the price for natural gas was $0.70 to $0.83 less than diesel in some regions of the country. For fleets with trucks that drive tens of thousands of miles and consume significant gallons of fuel, the price differential results in real savings and helps to offset the higher price of natural gas trucks.
It is also important to highlight that fleets contracting for RNG often see even more savings as they can benefit from economic value associated with renewable identification numbers and in some cases low-carbon fuel credits or clean fuel credits. Under the U.S. EPA’s Renewable Fuel Standard Program, RNG sales generate RINs that can be sold to obligated parties (e.g. fuel marketers and fleet users), sometimes for several dollars per gallon equivalent. For fleets moving to natural gas trucks, ensuring that they are negotiating with fuel suppliers for a portion of the value of RNG credits can be critical to achieving a lower overall total operation of cost and accelerating payback.
Another important financial incentive for NGV fleets has been the $0.50/gallon Alternative Fuel Tax Credit (AFTC). Fleets interested in building their own fueling facilities also benefit from the Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Tax Credit that is now worth $100,000 per qualifying piece of alternative fuel refueling equipment. Of course, changes in Washington are spurring change in energy and tax policy. The outlook for extending incentives that favor natural gas and domestic renewable fuels like RNG is bullish. The Transport Project’s top priority this year is securing passage of the Renewable Natural Gas Incentive Act, which would provide a $1.00/gallon tax credit to end users of natural gas motor fuel derived from renewable sources.
Perhaps more so than any time in the recent past, the regulatory outlook for truck emission requirements is extremely volatile. California’s regulatory future is uncertain. To make increasing emission reduction gains quickly in the commercial space, California regulators should reembrace ultra-low-carbon, near-zero technologies like RNG-fueled trucks. At the federal level, U.S. EPA’s reopening of its Phase 3 HD GHG regulations likely will also support the growth of technologies like RNG.
NGVs fueled by RNG offer a more cost-effective, less disruptive yet still progressive compliance schedule for commercial fleets of all shapes and sizes. RNG-fueled trucks allow fleets the ability to affordably comply today on their road to achieving full carbon neutrality.
Daniel J. Gage is President of The Transport Project, a national coalition dedicated to the decarbonization of North America’s transportation sector through the increased use of gaseous motor fuels including renewable natural gas and hydrogen.
The clean fuels industry has always been about more than emissions reductions. It’s about economic opportunity, rural investment, health benefits, and energy security. This spring, we’ve seen those priorities drive meaningful investment and policy momentum.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) recently released $537 million in funding for 543 projects in 29 states through the Higher Blends Infrastructure Incentive Program (HBIIP). The HBIIP grants provide matching funds for companies investing in new pumps, fuel storage, distribution, and transportation infrastructure needed to deliver clean fuels to consumers. The program, which receives bipartisan congressional support, is effectively expanding market access for biodiesel across the country. These infrastructure upgrades will help producers supply better, cleaner fuels to states and regions where consumer demand is quickly increasing.
This commitment from USDA arrives at a moment of remarkable progress and unity in clean fuels policy. After more than 15 years of regulatory and political battles over Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) volumes, fuel producers, farmers and refiners are speaking with one voice. Clean Fuels Alliance America, the American Petroleum Institute, American Soybean Association, National Oilseed Processors Association, and other stakeholders have come together to support timely, robust RFS volumes for 2026.
In March, we joined industry partners in a unified request to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): set the 2026 Biomass-Based Diesel (BBD) volume at 5.25 billion gallons. This target reflects both the industry’s current capacity and the growing demand for low-carbon fuels. Following lower-than-expected volumes set for 2023-2025, which contributed to delayed facility startups and job losses, there’s a clear opportunity for EPA to restore certainty and confidence. Setting a 5.25-billion-gallon volume for 2026 would signal stability and help the industry regain momentum.
Demand is already surging. In 2024, U.S. consumption of biodiesel, renewable diesel, and SAF reached 5.1 billion gallons. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that will grow to 5.5 billion gallons in 2026. Rail and shipping companies are joining the clean fuels movement because biodiesel and renewable diesel are decarbonization tools readily available now. Six major U.S. railroads became Clean Fuels members in the past year alone. The new infrastructure supported by HBIIP grants will help meet this surging demand.
The feedstock side is equally strong. Soybean processors have invested over $6 billion to expand or build 20 crush plants in 10 states, according to analysis by S&P Global on behalf of NOPA. Those investments will support an additional 1.4 billion gallons of biofuel production by 2030. In 2024, U.S. producers used over a billion pounds of domestic soybean oil each month – a 15 percent increase since 2022. That strong demand added an estimated $1.10 of value to every bushel of soybeans grown.
The economic case is just as compelling. The U.S. biomass-based diesel industry currently supports 107,400 jobs and adds $42.4 billion to the U.S. economy, according to GlobalData. With expected growth, that impact could rise to 145,700 jobs and over $60 billion in economic activity. From farms and rendering facilities to processing plants and fuel terminals, this is American energy in action.
As 16 bipartisan U.S. Senators reminded EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin in April, we’ve seen what happens when RVOs are set too low. Producers pull back. Markets decline. Communities suffer. We cannot afford another year of policy misalignment. With stakeholders united and the infrastructure investments in place, EPA must seize this moment to align policy with opportunity.
Clean Fuels and industry stakeholders are urging EPA to finalize a 5.25-billion-gallon BBD volume for 2026 and to raise that target to 5.75 billion gallons in 2027. These numbers aren’t ambitious, they’re realistic, and they reflect where the industry is today and where it’s going.
Clean fuels are America’s opportunity to lead in climate, commerce, and community. With smart policy, strategic investment. and continued collaboration, we can deliver cleaner air, stronger farms, and a more secure energy future.
Donnell Rehagen serves as the CEO for Clean Fuels Alliance America, the U.S. trade association representing the entire biodiesel, renewable diesel, and sustainable aviation fuel supply chain, including producers, feedstock suppliers, and fuel distributors.
Let’s face it, even though the stakes are quite often very high, environmental rule making is rarely dramatic. Rules generally move at a glacial pace through extensive review processes at both the state and federal levels. That is why the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) decision on January 13, 2025, to drop its pursuit of a federal approval for its Advanced Clean Fleet’s (ACF) rule stunned the state and nation!
Adopted on April 28, 2023, the ACF would have required approximately 532,000 of the estimated 1.8 million trucks operating in California to reach zero emission between 2024 and 2045. The rule represented a sea change for the trucking industry, introducing new technologies and fuels. For the long-suffering environmental justice communities, it represented a vital chance to reduce the double threats of unhealthy air and future climate change that result from truck tailpipe emissions.
However, the Trump administration had loudly vowed to kill this rule, largely based on significant opposition from the trucking industry and other states, from Trump’s own fossil fuel agenda, and from a fundamental objection to California setting its own vehicle emissions standards. Many who followed the rule believed that California would go to the courts to defend the ACF as a cornerstone of the state’s environmental justice, air quality, and climate policies. But it was not to be and the ACF died with a whimper and without the expected legal knife fight.
In its statement explaining the sudden shift, CARB Chair Liane Randolph said, "The withdrawal is an important step given the uncertainty presented by the incoming administration that previously attacked California's programs to protect public health and the climate and has said will continue to oppose those programs." However, many of those closest to the rule believe that this was just a smoke screen to cover California’s retreat from what they describe as a fatally flawed regulation reliant on unworkable and immature technologies.
During the lead up to the ACFs adoption in April 2023, CARB was deluged with comments from the trucking industry, environmental activists, local, state and federal agencies, and nongovernmental and special interest groups including local chambers of commerce and the powerful Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA). To its credit, CARB tried to provide access to its rule making process to as many stakeholders as possible. But with so much noise coming from every corner, the agency largely stuck with its own council.
This is not unusual, and many of us who have worked with CARB believe that the input process is largely performative – a box is checked and they move on. In their defense, CARB has had extraordinary successes operating like this. Take for example California’s passenger electric vehicle (EV) rule making, its cap-and-trade program, and the large reductions of harmful diesel emissions its rules have achieved at California’s container ports. So, while the trucking industry was animatedly pointing out that there was no electric power or hydrogen infrastructure capable of fueling their fleets, they were largely being ignored.
CARB was also ignoring significant concerns being voiced by California’s Investor-Owned Utilities (IOUs), possibly viewing their input as foot dragging. In written comments on the ACF on October 17, 2022, PG&E noted “as the provider of electricity for approximately two in five Californians, CARB should include additional flexibility to the Infrastructure Delay Exemption given that many of the eligible reasons for delay, including interconnection delays, are likely to take longer than one year.” And PG&E gave an excellent reason for this since the utility wasn’t planning to have the infrastructure built out to fully accommodate truck charging for almost another decade. In their own words:
“In the long-term, PG&E will address 90 percent of the capacity constraints currently anticipated on our system for the next decade by 2032 through our integrated grid planning effort and will continue working to address all capacity constraints on the grid thereafter. In the near term there will likely be longer interconnection timelines to support the substantial distribution upgrades necessary to energize fleet customers’ projects.”
On top of these grid issues, PG&E also cited supply chain shortages, permitting, and environmental remediation as being problems that would seriously delay truck charging site energization.
However, instead of pulling back, CARB chose to rely on promises made by two other state agencies, the California Energy Commission (CEC) and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to forge ahead. At an October 27, 2022, hearing, CARB received assurances from both the CEC and CPUC that grid and hydrogen infrastructure would be ready to handle the additional fueling that the ACF required. CEC testified that its work with the CPUC, IOUs, and California’s Independent Systems Operator (CASIO) would ensure there was enough electricity for truck charging. CEC further stated it would ensure hydrogen fuel production and dispensing infrastructure would be there also.
The CPUC testified that it had been working on site energization issues (getting power from the grid to the trucks) and that – because of California Assembly Bill 841 – it now required IOUs to pass the costs of energizing truck parking sites “before the meter” to rate payers.This meant that truckers would not have to pay the significant costs of getting power lines to their parking sites directly. Also, the CPUC established a 125-day average connection time requirement for IOUs to bring that power to the truck parking sites – so problems solved! (What the CPUC didn’t mention was the fine print on energization. but more on that later). And so, ignoring industry and IOU concerns in favor of the state agency echo chamber, CARB adopted the ACF on April 28, 2023.
Almost immediately, the California Trucking Association sued, then WSPA, then 17 states led by Nebraska, and then others until there were at least six lawsuits against the ACF in state and federal courts. Some alleged procedural violations by CARB as part of the rule making process, but others, perhaps most significantly, challenged California’s right to set the emissions standards for trucks in the first place.
Historically, because California’s air pollution problems are so severe, it has been allowed to set its own stricter emissions standards for motor vehicles by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This is done through what is known as the preemption waiver process. Essentially, motor vehicles – or in this case truck emissions standards – adopted in California must be approved by EPA. The lawsuit from Nebraska and the other states objected to CARB proceeding forward with ACF implementation prior to EPA’s review and approval of the emissions waiver request.
Faced with the lawsuits and without EPA approval, ACF implementation stalled in early 2024, with CARB rolling back multiple rule requirements including compulsory Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) truck purchases.
While the lawyers battled it out in court and CARB scrambled to roll back the rule, on the ground the implementation issues were insurmountable for many heavy-duty fleets.
When looking for the trucks that would meet CARB mandate, truckers were initially stunned by sticker shock. The trucks available were double (in the case of battery electric) and triple (in the case of hydrogen) the cost of conventional vehicles. Truck suppliers tried to entice purchases by touting supposed operational savings with both technologies relative to the maintenance and fueling cost of conventional diesel trucks. However, that initial cost, on top of the lack of availability of electric charging and hydrogen infrastructure, was too great a barrier for most to overcome. This caused a spike in diesel truck purchases by California drayage (port) fleets in 2023 before the rule deadline – the exact opposite effect that the ACF was intended to have. For those who bought the electric or hydrogen trucks, or those lucky enough to secure grant funding to help defray their costs, the waiting time to get power to their truck parking facilities was frequently quoted in years by the IOUs or the hydrogen infrastructure was simply unavailable. This left those assets stranded and grant monies unused.
Looking at the fine print on the CPUC’s requirements, it turns out the IOUs had multiple options to stop the clock on supplying power, including if a power request was over two megawatts. This meant that – depending on how the trucks were charged – fleets with as few as four to six Class 8 trucks were out of luck. This struggle was reported on in detail by Canary Media in September 2024 by Jeff St. John. His excellent piece details efforts by the California legislature to address the truck charging issue with the IOUs, the years-long wait for power in many areas, and the mounting incredulity with ACF requirements. However, in November 2024, Donald Trump was reelected, sounding the death knell of the ACF and perhaps sparing California and CARB’s blushes.
At the start of this article, we rightly praised CARB for the work that led to their significant successes in improving health outcomes and their programs to protect global climate for Californians. However, they have also been responsible for more than a few calamitous outcomes including the use of methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) in gasoline, the failure of California’s first EV mandate, the various scrambles around the implementation of the original truck, bus, and car rules, and now the ACF debacle.
While regulatory setbacks are to be expected when pushing the technological envelope, in this charged political and economic environment CARB simply must take more care to ensure that the rules it adopts will stick. This may mean being more conservative in the short term and making smaller and better understood technological leaps with willing partners. For example, there were some notable successes in ACF implementation. Companies like FEDEX and Amazon deployed significant numbers of electric trucks. However, these companies had duty cycles that suited those solutions, corporate commitments to greenhouse gas emissions reductions targets, available power at warehouse locations, and over a decade of advanced planning to ensure smooth integration of those ZEVs.
Ultimately, small steps forward are still progress. Large defeats like the ACF, especially where the technology is arguably unworkable, significantly undermine the credibility of the environmental movement. This fuels critics’ attacks on rule making and makes progress harder to achieve. It also serves to discourage allies in industry from doing the right thing and frustrates impacted communities who are relying on these types of rules to ensure better health outcomes.
So how can CARB avoid this in the future? It needs to fundamentally change how it takes and values input – no more checking boxes! This will mean exiting the state echo chamber and coming to a real understanding of the industries it is trying to regulate, the technologies that are available to help, and the expectations of the communities it is seeking to serve.
About the Author: Damian Breen is the founder of Environmental Communication Strategies and former Deputy Executive Officer of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. He has worked at the crossroads of the environment, people, business, and future technology for over 29 years. For more information on this article, contact Damian at damian@ecs-ca.com.
Electric vehicles reached a new record market share in 2024, so it seems the enthusiasm for electrification won’t be powering down anytime soon. Adoption of electric vans and trucks continues to grow on the commercial side, including among large cities, small towns, and businesses of all sizes. That’s what we’re seeing every day at Ford Pro, the commercial vehicles division of Ford Motor Company.
Based on conversations with real-world Ford Pro customers, we’ve gleaned three trends for 2025 on electric vehicles in business and government fleets that are worth considering.
Early adopters are entering their next phase: Many companies that were early adopters of electric vehicles in pilot programs are now expanding their fleets. That’s likely to continue in 2025, having found that electrification made good business sense for them.
Elite Home Care, a South Carolina-based senior and disability care provider, started their electrification journey with a single Ford E-Transit electric van in 2022. Today, they have 27 E-Transit vans upfitted with lifts providing over 10,000 trips per month for their patients while saving $6,500 per van each year.
Chris Russo, co-founder of Elite Home Care, shared with us what these savings have meant for his business: “E-Transits have allowed us to expand our business because we save so much money. Now we can expand our reach to more people needing care. Moving to E-Transit vans has lowered our fixed costs. It’s allowed us to do more of the things we’d like to do to give back.”
Business and government customers are increasingly learning from their connected vehicles and relying on those learnings to make informed business decisions. These insights include realizing fuel and cost savings, tracking efficiency, staying ahead of the curve on maintenance, and even knowing when to replace vehicles.
DHL Express, a global delivery and logistics company, uses Ford Pro E-Telematics to see how much gas and carbon dioxide emissions they’re saving by switching to electric vehicles.
Chris Wessel, director of U.S. Fleet for DHL Express, told us how important that data is for a sustainable company with a stated goal of 60 percent of its last-mile delivery fleet being zero-emission by 2030: “In conjunction with other tools, we’re using Ford Pro E-Telematics to look at the fuel savings of our fleet, and then we’ll tie that back to our carbon reporting, making sure that we have a holistic view of our fleet and greenhouse gases avoided.”
Data is also helping customers decide when – or if – to electrify their fleet. Ford Pro E-Switch Assist, our free online tool that uses vehicle telematics data to determine fleet suitability for electric trucks and vans, has already assessed more than 38,000 vehicles.
If you’re reading this, chances are good there’s an electric vehicle charger installed outside your office, warehouse, or other place of business. But commercial electric vehicle charging is increasingly moving beyond the vehicle depot or company parking lot and into employees’ homes and other locations – and not just in warmer locales like California or Texas, but across a wide range of climates, terrains, and geographies.
With nearly a third of fleet managers reporting company vehicles being taken home at night, that trend will likely grow throughout 2025.
Fize Électrique, an electrical contractor in Canada, has installed six Level 2 chargers at its office. But their employees who take their company electric vehicles home at the end of the workday also have chargers installed at their homes.
Alain Fiset, director of smart energy for Fize Électrique, explained why they’ve split their charging between depots and employee homes: “Having a charging station for each EV is necessary for a smooth experience. The key to success with an electric vehicle is to charge it every night on a Level 2 charger.”
Behind these trends is an important fact: having the right team behind you makes adopting electric trucks and vans easier. That’s why Ford Pro offers an end-to-end solution of vehicles, charging, software, service, and financing to help streamline the process and maximize uptime for small, medium, and large business and government fleets. Just ask BellaVista Landscaping in San Jose, California, which has used the full spectrum of Ford Pro solutions in adding 25 hybrid and electric vehicles to its fleet since 2023.
As we enter 2025, look for companies to charge ahead with electric trucks and vans, the chargers and software that power them, and the service solutions that keep them on the road.
Trevor Blum is Senior Manager, Commercial Electric Vehicles at Ford Pro
It’s clear the rise of electric vehicles (EVs) has redefined the auto industry from a product point of view. But it has also forced automakers to innovate in how they connect with shoppers. The divergence in approaches between legacy automakers and startups like Tesla reveals a key insight: selling EVs isn't just about the product; it's about understanding fundamentally different customer bases.
In their early days, EVs were perceived simply as vehicles with a novel propulsion system –an evolution from hybrid technology to fully electric zero-emission powertrains. However, battery-electric pioneers like Tesla treated the EV as a new kind of vehicle to be sold in a new kind of way. By shedding legacy design constraints and conventional distribution schemes, the car was reimagined as a software-defined product. Tesla's over-the-air (OTA) updates, which enable real-time improvements and new feature rollouts, exemplify this approach.
The idea of OTA updates shifted the paradigm from static vehicles to dynamic platforms, much like smartphones. For early adopters, the concept of a car as a constantly evolving tech product resonated deeply. These customers are drawn to the novelty, the innovation, and the sense of participating in a beta-testing community. For better or worse, the Tesla model embraced the spirit of technological experimentation.
Startups like Tesla have excelled at capturing the early adopter market, but moving into the mainstream presents significant hurdles. One of the primary challenges is service accessibility. The direct-to-consumer model has some advantages but lacks the extensive service infrastructure that legacy automakers have built over decades. Traditional automakers, through their dealership networks, provide customers with nearby service centers, which startups struggle to match.
Another challenge is quality. Early Tesla models faced criticism for build quality issues, such as panel gaps and inconsistent paintwork. While early adopters might overlook such flaws in exchange for innovative features, mainstream buyers demand high standards of craftsmanship.
Legacy automakers face a different set of challenges as they enter the EV space. For these manufacturers, EVs represent not just a new propulsion option but a shift in how they must engage with customers. Unlike startups, legacy automakers are accustomed to serving a loyal customer base that values simplicity and convenience.
These companies must find ways to educate mainstream buyers about EV technology. Many consumers are unfamiliar with the requirements of EV ownership. Setting up a home charger is beyond the ken of many consumers and battery maintenance doesn’t compute. Dealerships, which have traditionally been transactional in nature, need to evolve into hubs for education and support. Legacy automakers also need to prioritize hassle-free ownership experiences. While startups emphasize cutting-edge features like OTA updates, traditional manufacturers must ensure that every aspect of EV ownership – charging, service, and reliability – is as seamless as possible.
The EV market now sits at a crossroads, appealing to two very different customer groups. On one side are the early adopters and tech enthusiasts who value cutting-edge technology. These folks, often drawn to startups like Tesla or Rivian, are excited by the innovation that EVs offer. They appreciate the concept of a vehicle as a gadget on wheels, offering frequent updates and technological advancements post-purchase. For this group, glitches or minor inconveniences are often forgiven, as they see themselves as pioneers in the tech ecosystem.
On the other side are the mainstream consumers who represent the bulk of car buyers. These customers prioritize reliability, convenience, and value. For them, a car is a practical tool, not a project. They are accustomed to the seamless service and hassle-free experience provided by legacy automakers. Mainstream buyers expect their vehicles to simply work, with minimal interruptions to their routines.
Some factors that currently limit EV adoption are common to both buyer groups. Purchase price remains a significant factor, since EVs still come at a premium compared to internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. Charging infrastructure is another major hurdle. Startups and legacy automakers alike must find ways to make charging faster, easier, and more reliable.
Automakers must adopt new strategies and address consumer concerns to accelerate EV adoption. Encouraging households to make their second vehicle an EV is one such approach. For many consumers, this offers a low-risk entry point into EV ownership while retaining an ICE vehicle for long trips or emergencies. By positioning EVs as complementary rather than replacement vehicles, automakers can attract hesitant buyers.
In addition, automakers need to invest in the EV ecosystem. This means improving charging infrastructure, expanding service networks, and ensuring that software and hardware support systems are reliable and easy to use. Battery innovation will also play a key role in the future of EVs. Advances in battery technology, such as solid-state batteries, promise greater range and faster charging, addressing two of the most significant concerns among potential buyers.
Finally, automakers must focus on reducing costs to eliminate the price premium associated with EVs. As production scales and battery costs decline, EVs will become more competitive with ICE vehicles, making them accessible to a broader audience.
The transition to electric vehicles is a monumental shift, akin to the adoption of automobiles themselves more than a century ago. Success will depend on the ability of automakers to not only produce innovative vehicles but also to understand and cater to the evolving needs of their varied customers.
Startups must learn to address the practical concerns of mainstream shoppers, while legacy manufacturers must embrace innovation and adopt a customer-first mindset. By addressing infrastructure challenges, prioritizing quality, and offering competitive pricing, the industry can bridge the gap between early adopters and the mass market.
The journey to widespread EV adoption will be challenging, more so with potential cuts to the Inflation Reduction Act based customer subsidies. However, with thoughtful strategies and collaboration, automakers can mitigate the challenges involved in the transition to a cleaner, more sustainable future.
Srini Rajagopalan is managing director and practice leader of automotive advisory & analytics at J.D. Power.
There’s a continued disconnect between what the broader automotive industry sees from growing, albeit slowly, EV sales and how U.S. dealers view this class of vehicles. At CDK, we wanted to uncover if anecdotes about a lack of enthusiasm on the retail level were real and to test our own hypothesis that it could be largely driven by where the dealers were located.
Why is geography so important? One word, or place: California.
More EVs are sold in California than anywhere else in the country. Nearly one-third of all battery electric vehicles (BEVS) in the first half of 2024 were sold in the Golden State. And the state of Washington is a major player too. That means dealers in those states likely view the technology much differently than clearly those in more rural areas but also populous areas in states from Michigan and Ohio to Tennessee and South Carolina.
In CDK’s Dealers Face the EV Transition white paper, the map is broken down not just regionally but at a subregional level. That allowed us to look at what’s happening on the ground for dealers, their sales teams, and what store leadership sees as the impact on their bottom line.
It was plain to see that Pacific shoppers were the most interested in EVs at 55 percent while the mid-Atlantic states of Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey saw far, far less interest at just 10 percent. That might seem counter to popular thinking, but dealers sell cars in every town, and from the suburbs on out, cars are a way of life that’s hard to change. The least interest came from West South Central – Arkansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Texas at 3 percent. Yes, even though a lot of EV sales happen in Texas, dealers across the state and surrounding states aren’t feeling electric love from customers.
These results came before recent retreats from automakers on their EV plans. Dealer networks are the frontlines when it comes to sales and service, and leadership wasn’t rosy on how EVs would impact their bottom line.
Nearly three-quarters (73 percent) of dealers think EVs will have some negative impact on their bottom line with 53 percent saying they’ll have a negative impact on both their front and back end gross. Only 7 percent see EVs as having a positive financial impact.
Despite this pessimism, nearly three out of five dealers (59 percent) have already started transitioning their stores to sell and service EVs. Only 11 percent remain steadfast against EVs in the near future, saying they don’t plan any changes to adjust for selling and servicing EVs. But as we noted in our white paper: “Most of these EV-resistant dealers are generally smaller operators, with 75 percent saying they own one to two rooftops, and 89 percent are located in rural areas.”
With all these fluctuating conditions, the key stat of the white paper may actually not be as negative as it seems at first glance. When asked if they were optimistic or pessimistic about the EV transition, most (65 percent) fell into the pessimism camp with 19 percent being optimistic and the rest (16 percent) being neutral. The fact that the pessimism number comes below the number of dealers forecasting lower profits is a tiny sliver of a silver lining.
The thing to remember is that we’re indeed in a transitional period, shifting an entire national fleet of cars from something familiar (and often nostalgic) to an electric future that hasn’t made its case in every corner of the country. The nation’s car dealers are pragmatists and offer an unvarnished view of what they see in showrooms every day.
David Thomas is Director of Content Marketing at CDK Global, a leading provider of cloud-based software to dealerships and original equipment manufacturers across automotive and related industries.
In the ever-evolving world of battery technology, the safety of lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries has become a paramount concern, especially as the demand for electric vehicles (EVs) and renewable energy storage systems surges globally. Epsilon Advanced Materials (EAM), a leader in the production of high-quality battery materials, is at the forefront of addressing these safety challenges. Through innovative solutions and a deep commitment to sustainability, EAM is enhancing the performance of lithium-ion batteries and significantly reducing risks associated with their use.
EAM’s journey is rooted in a vision of decarbonizing economies and driving the transition to cleaner energy technologies. It all began when an entrepreneur with a passion for sustainability crossed paths with a battery engineering scientist who had developed an exceptional battery material in his backyard. This meeting of minds sparked the creation in 2018 of EAM, a company dedicated to perfecting the art and science of advanced battery materials. Since its inception, EAM has sought to lead the way in providing innovative battery solutions that meet the demands of a rapidly changing world.
EAM’s approach to battery safety is through its focus on synthetic graphite anode materials. These materials are designed to improve fast charging performance, a feature that is increasingly important as consumers demand quicker charging times for their EVs. Traditional battery materials can struggle to handle the higher currents involved in fast charging, leading to stress on the battery and an increased risk of overheating. However, EAM’s synthetic graphite anode material is engineered to handle these higher currents with less stress, significantly reducing the risk of overheating and enhancing the overall safety of the battery.
Another key factor in the safety of Li-ion batteries is the direct current internal resistance (DCIR), which represents the resistance to current flow within the battery. Higher resistance can generate heat, which in turn increases the risk of thermal runaway – a dangerous situation where the battery can overheat uncontrollably. EAM’s synthetic graphite-based anode material boasts lower DCIR, meaning it offers less resistance to current flow. This reduction in resistance provides better heat management within the battery, minimizing the chances of thermal runaway and ensuring safer operation even under high-stress conditions.
In addition to these advancements, EAM’s synthetic graphite anode material also offers superior cycling stability compared with natural graphite. Over time, battery materials can degrade, leading to unwanted reactions within the battery that can generate heat and compromise safety. EAM’s material, however, degrades less over time, maintaining its stability and reducing the likelihood of these unwanted reactions. This enhanced cycling stability not only extends the lifespan of the battery but also ensures that it operates safely throughout its life cycle.
EAM’s commitment to safety and innovation is further demonstrated by its plans to open a state-of-the-art battery materials and components plant in North Carolina in 2026. This $650-million facility will be a significant step forward in the domestic production of battery materials, including both natural and synthetic graphite anodes. With a targeted annual production capacity of 60,000 tons of anode materials by 2031, the plant could eventually supply enough materials for up to 1.1 million electric vehicles in the U.S.
The decision to establish this manufacturing plant in Brunswick County, NC is strategic, as this location will be part of a burgeoning EV battery hub in the state, positioning EAM to play a critical role in the U.S. battery supply chain. This move is particularly timely given recent developments in the global graphite market. China, which dominates synthetic graphite production, has recently curbed exports of the material, leading to concerns about supply chain stability and rising costs. By developing a domestic source for synthetic graphite, EAM is not only reducing reliance on imported Chinese materials but also bolstering the U.S. battery industry against potential supply disruptions.
EAM’s U.S.-made battery components and materials are expected to qualify for incentives under the Inflation Reduction Act and related U.S. legislation aimed at building domestic supply chains for EVs and batteries. This support from the U.S. government underscores the importance of EAM’s work in ensuring that the next generation of batteries is not only high-performing but also safe and sustainable.
As EAM continues to innovate and expand, its focus remains firmly on the safety and sustainability of Li-ion batteries. The company’s advanced materials and cutting-edge technologies are setting new standards for battery safety, ensuring that as the world shifts towards cleaner energy and electric mobility, the batteries powering this transition are as safe as they are efficient. EAM is not just meeting the challenges of today’s battery industry but is also anticipating and addressing the needs of tomorrow. Through its commitment to innovation, safety, and sustainability, EAM is playing a key role in shaping the future of energy storage and electric mobility.
Sunit Kapur is Chief Executive Officer of Epsilon Advanced Materials, a global battery material manufacturer focused on sustainable battery solutions.
Today’s developments surrounding EVs are not a surprise. They were predictable, an awakening of sorts, to the realities of personal mobility needs and the true desires of a driving public amid a significant and sustained push toward electrification.
Unsold inventories of battery EVs at dealer lots, significant price cuts to move metal, and a rethinking of strategies are just part of today’s electric vehicle universe. We are seeing this new reality across the automotive spectrum as companies previously committed to being “all-in” for EVs – from Ford and GM to Volkswagen and Volvo – reassess the way forward.
Yes, interest in battery electric vehicles has grown substantially in recent years. EV sales have captured a larger slice of the new car market than might have been imagined in just the recent past and that percentage has been growing faster than before. This should rightfully be celebrated by EV enthusiasts. An impressive expansion of the zero-emission EV market should also be celebrated because of the considerable impact this has on decreasing carbon emissions, though it’s becoming increasingly clear that the hoped-for wholesale move toward battery EVs will not resolve our carbon challenges.
After more than three decades of documenting the commercialization of electric vehicles, I feel compelled to point out that EVs still represent a fraction of the overall automotive market and there remains great interest in more familiar options. Battery electric vehicles simply do not meet everyone's needs at this time. Barring significant breakthroughs in technology, cost, and convenience – the latter bolstered by an expansive and reliable national charging network and a resilient electrical grid to support it – there’s a possibility they may not meet all motorists’ needs for some years in the future. To our collective detriment, that has not stopped the powers-that-be from forcing an EV-first agenda.
The assumption that government can severely restrict consumer vehicle choices without alienating huge numbers of car buyers, creating financial havoc and uncertainties within the auto industry, and bringing an array of unintended consequences in coming years is simply an act of hubris. I've witnessed other examples of this over the years. Ultimately, the outcomes have not favored those in power who overstep and assume they know more about the needs and desires of car buyers than buyers themselves.
There are many reasons for this, but fundamentally let’s remember that a motor vehicle – beyond serving as a social conveyance for projecting image, status, values, or nuances of all sorts – is a crucial tool to get folks safely and reliably to work, school, the market, or wherever they need to be, regardless of distance or driving conditions. And lest we forget, a new car typically represents the second largest consumer purchase after a home. That makes buying a car an important financial decision beyond just being a very personal choice.
The battery EV’s rather eye-opening depreciation, identified by car search engine and research firm iSeeCars as averaging 49.1 percent over the first five years, isn’t very comforting from the standpoint of a financial strategy. It’s worth noting that iSeeCars doesn't see this same kind of depreciation across the board for electrification, identifying hybrids as having a nearly 12 percentage point advantage over EVs in value retention over a five year period, slightly better than the depreciation rate for all types of cars.
How much has changed for electric cars over the years? A lot…and too little. To share some perspective, I’d like to offer up a Green Car Journal editorial I wrote in 2012, Curb Your (EV) Enthusiasm. It seems prescient today. In it, a dozen years ago, I pointed out that:
– After decades of battery development, the expectation that battery breakthroughs would come to make EVs cost competitive with internal combustion vehicles had not materialized.
– Battery electric cars still required significant federal subsidies to encourage sales because of their high battery cost and retail price.
– In a normal world, a compact electric SUV should not cost $50,000, a four-door electric sedan $40,000, or a small electric hatchback over $30,000.
– A small number of electric vehicles might be available under $30,000, but comparable internal combustion models would typically be priced many thousands of dollars less while offering greater functionality.
– Government agencies viewed EVs as a panacea for decreasing CO2 emissions, improving air pollution, and enhancing energy security.
- States embraced electric vehicles in their State Implementation Plans as a strategy for showing how they would meet air quality standards mandated by the Clean Air Act.
– Automakers recognized electric propulsion as a strategy for meeting increasingly higher fleet fuel economy targets.
– Electric utilities viewed EVs as a pathway to selling electricity as a motor fuel.
The conclusion about the way forward a dozen years ago? Battery electric vehicles are one part of the solution along with advanced combustion vehicles, hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and extended-range electric vehicles that create on-board electricity to provide full functionality.
It appears there’s a growing consensus today that we’ve come full circle to this way of thinking. As electric vehicle sales cool, multiple automakers have shared they are backing off from previously-announced timelines for EV model introductions, new EV assembly lines, and greenfield battery plants. There’s also a new emphasis on producing an expanding lineup of hybrid and plug-in hybrid models that consumers increasingly desire, even on the part of major automakers that have previously announced plans to exclusively build battery electric vehicles and have shown little interest in hybrid power.
All this underscores that as much as we’re enamored with modern battery electric vehicles and their ability to address carbon emissions, they are not the singular answer to future mobility. They are a choice among other vehicles and technologies that also speak to individual needs, desires, and environmental sensibilities. And that’s the way it should be.
California has banned the sale of new gas vehicles in the state by 2035. Eight other states have adopted its far-reaching rule and more are considering it. This is an environmental win but also a huge worry for many who feel their mobility way of life will be increasingly challenged as we head toward an electrified future. They have a right to be concerned.
It’s true that many assumptions are at work today as we head toward a world replete with electric cars, and these should be well considered. Perhaps the most controversial notion is that the nation’s electrical grid will support a massive influx of electric vehicles on our highways. If we accept that calculations supporting this conclusion were accurate at the time they were made, it’s apparent they didn’t take into account the challenges now posed by an increasingly contrary climate.
One example is Electric Vehicles at Scale – Phase 1 Analysis: High EV Adoption Impacts on the Western U.S. Power Grid, the first of a multi-part analysis by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory conducted on behalf of the Department of Energy. This comprehensive and well-documented report analyzed how the many millions of electric cars expected on the road by 2028 would affect the Western grid.
Without diminishing the considerable work and expertise that went into this report, it’s important to note that there’s an important caveat. In its words, the study’s outcomes “are predicated on normal grid conditions, absent of any grid contingencies, such as generator or transmission outages, extreme weather scenarios, extreme high loads, or fire conditions that require deactivation of major transmission lines.”
This is an eye-opening footnote. In recent years, the nation has experienced a greater incidence of extreme weather events like historic heat waves, deep freezes, high winds, hurricanes, and monsoon-like downpours. These have disrupted the electrical grid and caused blackouts in diverse parts of the country. This not only brings the misery of living in the dark without air conditioning, lights, or staying connected, but also an inability to charge an electric vehicle if one happens to be in your garage.
During yet another California heat wave in a recent summer, the state’s Independent System Operator issued 10 straight days of Flex Alerts asking consumers to cut energy use to avoid rolling blackouts. The ask was that thermostats be set higher and that consumers avoid using major appliances, including electric vehicle chargers, during specific times. Consumers rallied to the call and blackouts were averted. But this is not sustainable as an answer to an overloaded grid.
Overtaxing the grid isn’t exclusively a problem here. Heat waves and a severe drought impacting hydroelectric power affected a million electric vehicles in China, causing public charging stations to go offline. This underscores the challenge, illustrating the fragile balance of power generation and demand, and how unanticipated heat waves, droughts, and wildfires – and of course millions more electric cars – can potentially strain any electrical grid past its breaking point.
California has been successful in increasingly moving toward renewable wind and solar power, but phasing in renewables to displace the need for conventional power generation takes time. In anticipation of projected electricity shortfalls and the potential for blackouts in the years ahead, California extended operation of the state’s last operating nuclear powerplant, Diablo Canyon, which was scheduled to shut down in 2025. The powerplant supplies 9 percent of the state’s electricity and was deemed critical to California’s short-term electrical needs.
Over three decades ago when attention first turned to electric cars, the need for environmental improvement was real. It is, by all measures, now acute. Will a 2035 ban on gasoline cars in California and other ‘green’ states come to pass as planned, and will we be able to charge the millions of electric vehicles this will bring? A great many people hope so. But along the way, history shows us we need to be prepared with realistic options and contingency plans…just in case.
Green Car Journal editor Ron Cogan has focused on the intersection of automobiles, energy, and the environment for 35 years. He is an acknowledged electric vehicle expert and spent a year of daily travels behind the wheel of GM’s groundbreaking EV1 electric car.
The common belief that the simpler design of EVs and fewer mechanical parts would prove a detriment to car service providers is slowly changing course. There may not be an oil change but software- and hardware-related issues, along with an array of recalls, have shown EVs will be making repeated stops in the service department.
That’s why CDK Global reached out to dealership and service department leaders across the country and brands that sell EVs to find out where they stand today and what they think of the future. If nothing else, the EV Service: Today and Tomorrow study suggests that the current service model is unlikely to radically change for years to come.
When you look at EV sales and service, there are a lot of conflicting numbers out there. There are two important facts, though, that overshadow the entire conversation that need to be addressed head-on and then simply put aside. Essentially, half of all EVs sold today are Teslas. And half of all EVs, Tesla or not, are sold in California.
These giant figures are why you hear such different attitudes about EVs from traditional automakers and, of course, their franchised dealer networks. Overall, EV sales may be up by 50 percent in 2023 but to a dealer in the Midwest or Southeast, they may be staring at slow-moving inventory and sales in the single digits.
Just 2.5 percent of new car sales at franchise dealers nationwide are EVs. Not surprisingly, 2.4 percent of all repair orders at dealership service departments are for EVs. These numbers may rise as 2023 comes to a close, but it’ll still be far lower than any national number that’s being reported, which includes Tesla sales and, of course, California.
Yet, every respondent in CDK’s survey said they’ve already begun servicing EVs or will within the next two years, and 99 percent said they have at least a portion of their staff trained on EVs. Nearly nine out of 10 (88 percent) has charging stations on site and 64 percent of those respondents have more than one charging station in the service department. The next time you see a story that claims dealers aren’t prepared for EVs, please keep this in mind.
The single finding that I come back to in our study is that dealers are somewhat pessimistic about EVs in the service lane but not about how much money they’ll make. Only 42 percent of service leaders feel positive about the future of EVs. There’s no sugar coating that.
But when you ask this same group where they see revenue going in the next two years, four out of five see both total revenue (79 percent) and EV revenue (78 percent) increasing.
Much of this is likely due to warranty work, which has always been profitable for dealers, but the latest wave of EVs have proven to require a bit more than most anticipated. Indeed, 89 percent of the service leaders CDK surveyed expect EV warranty volume to increase in the next two years.
Two of the primary reasons people choose a dealer over an independent mechanic or chain for service is for the factory-trained technicians and OEM-supplied parts.
When you look at the EVs from traditional OEMs today, and in the next few years, there are few, if any, options for service outside of a dealership.
Service retention falls quickly when a new car ages out of its warranty, but for EVs that may not be the case. And in many areas across the country, there simply won’t be another option for many years. That could be why 77 percent of service leaders said they expect retention to remain the same or increase for EVs.
Now, will independent shops eventually be able to invest in the advanced equipment, additional lifts, safety gear, and training that dealers already have to fix EVs? Yes. But this is one area where traditional dealers have a leg up on the competition, and they need to ensure they prove their value during this transitional moment.
Service departments will focus more on tire maintenance with the demise of oil changes to keep customers coming in and many respondents agreed on their importance. And while there are fewer moving parts in an EV, there’s more technology that’ll require skilled labor to address. Not everything will be solved by an over-the-air update.
EVs will need service and maintenance, and the infrastructure for it is already in place at the dealership.
David Thomas is Director of Content Marketing at CDK Global, a leading provider of cloud-based software to dealerships and original equipment manufacturers across automotive and related industries.
Just over three years ago, when California’s Governor announced an executive order allowing only zero-emissions vehicles (ZEVs) to be sold in the state, most media (and probably the governor, regulators, and supporters of the rule) understood “ZEV” to mean battery electric vehicles (BEVs) only.
Although the final rule included plug-in hybrids and hydrogen vehicles, we theorized a standard hybrid, with an internal combustion engine (ICE) powered by E85 could have emissions similar to BEVs. When total lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were tallied, as well as carbon intensity (CI) scoring correctly reflecting CI reductions being achieved by farmers and ethanol producers, a standard hybrid flex-fuel vehicle (FFV) can be a ZEV long before any EV.
The American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE) began testing our theory 10 months after the California executive order, using a hybrid vehicle the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) identifies as midsized, to avoid naysayers dismissing the results as coming from a specialty vehicle or tiny clown car that would get good mileage on any fuel. We also wanted a vehicle similar in size to the best-selling BEV on the market, the Tesla Model 3 Long Range. We bought a 2019 Ford Fusion Hybrid in July 2021 for $30k to $50k less than the most popular new EVs of the day, and before converting it to the Hybrid Electric Flex-Fuel Vehicle we call “HEFF.”
We filled it with regular gasoline and drove 3,688 miles to establish a real-world regular gasoline use baseline, rather than having to compare our real-world results with fictional best case showroom sticker miles-per-gallon (mpg) and EPA’s emissions estimates based on that mileage. EPA pegged our car at 42 mpg on regular, with lifecycle GHG of 255 grams per mile (g/m). While that’s much better than the 25 mpg and 429 g/m of the non-hybrid Fusion, our pre-transition Fusion hybrid results were just over 34 mpg and around 310 g/m. We also adjusted the “regular gas” number we use for comparison using generally accepted mileage differentials for cold weather, and have periodically run tanks of regular gasoline to recalibrate for winter temps, vehicle age, and battery capacity changes during the demonstration project.
Those results are used to estimate regular gasoline consumption and also when we record flex-fuel purchases, cost, and odometer reading with each fill. We record current regular gas price along with the baseline mileage to make a cost comparison. Although our goal is to demonstrate the low CI capability of a hybrid FFV and durability of a standard engine using flex-fuel, we track fuel expenditures because we know critics will always ask about mileage and cost.
Once we calculate real mileage and CI, we compare the results to the Tesla mentioned above, and depending on where you plug in, EPA estimates the 2019 Tesla 3 Long Range emits 80 to 200 g/m lifecycle GHGs, with a national average of 111, assuming a range of 310 miles per charge. However, unscientific anecdotal Tesla Uber driver estimates told us the actual range is from 225 to 240 miles, and Car and Driver’s more scientific 40,000-mile test confirmed the drivers’ reports, saying the 2019 Tesla 3 Long Range got 80 miles less than the expected 310 miles per charge. Changing Tesla’s range to 230 miles increases its real CO2 number to 110 to 270 g/m in different markets, and boosts the U.S. average to 150 g/m.
Our baseline mpg-establishing journey ended in San Diego in August of 2021, where Pearson Fuels, the nation’s largest E85 distributor, arranged to transform the Fusion to HEFF with an eFlexFuel Plus conversion kit. The app that communicates with the flex-fuel converter provides actual ethanol content of the flex-fuel purchased, since flex-fuel can have 51 to 85 percent ethanol. Since the amount of carbon in gasoline and ethanol is different, we need the breakdown to calculate how many grams of carbon are being burned, and we divide that number by miles traveled to get our CI. We also use the ethanol and gasoline content to calculate BTU content of whatever fuel is in the tank to compare the mileage one should expect given that energy content with actual mileage to judge the effectiveness of the conversion kit.
Recording price, miles and ethanol content of every fuel purchase, and calculating E10 use and cost, after two years and three months and almost 30,000 miles on flex-fuel averaging 72 percent ethanol, produced average lifecycle GHGs of 205 g/m CO2 at 26.2 miles per gallon – not much higher than real Tesla average numbers, and lower than a Tesla 3 in many parts of the country. We calculated regular gas mpg at 32.7, which would’ve emitted 375 g/m CO2. And HEFF (Hybrid Electric Flex-Fuel) chugged 1,135 gallons of E72 versus a calculated 906 gallons regular, but the E72 cost $2,942, compared to $3,183 for gas.
We have been able to calculate some other interesting numbers based on our test results so far. Had we been able to use true E85 – 83 percent ethanol – throughout the test, our emissions number would drop to 181 g/m, and further to 113 g/m if the ethanol was CARB-approved low-CI corn fiber ethanol. Blending low-CI ethanol with renewable naphtha would provide a CI of 71 g/m in our converted Ford Fusion Hybrid – lower than the same size Tesla could achieve plugged in anywhere in the U.S. All the flex-fuel blends just mentioned are real; they have been or are being sold today.
And although the flex-fuel hybrid – even a converted flex-fuel hybrid – is capable of achieving such results, a fact recognized by Toyota and Volkswagen and being put into use in the 2024 model year in Brazil, fuel regulations being adopted in the U.S. simply refuse to acknowledge that reality. Ethanol has been responsible for nearly all the air quality improvements seen in the U.S. in the past 20 years, and its ability to reduce carbon intensity is a proven fact. But people who claim to be interested in reducing carbon pollution are enacting regulations that increase the use of electricity that is still 60 percent fossil fuel generated, over plant-based fuels like ethanol, based on what they hope and believe will be done to make electricity cleaner over the next few decades. They use buzz-phrases like “extending the life of petroleum fuels” and “false climate solution” to avoid dealing with real numbers. Projections of cleaner electricity are assumed to be facts, and scientific facts of cleaner ethanol production are ignored.
The inclusion of plug-in hybrids and hydrogen vehicles in CARB’s final Advanced Clean Cars II rule provides a sliver of hope that regulators will eventually be as concerned about actually reducing CO2 emissions as they are enforcing the electric car solution they prefer and believe in. If environmentalists and regulators are truly interested in reducing carbon emissions, solutions are available today. HEFF is proof. But if you can’t trust HEFF, ask Brazil. Or Toyota. Or Volkswagen.
Ron Lamberty is the chief marketing officer of the American Coalition for Ethanol.
It is surprising to many people in the United States that globally, propane autogas vehicles exceed the number of battery electric and natural gas vehicles on the road. In addition, the emergence of renewable propane is expected to dramatically increase the number of autogas vehicles operating in the U.S. – currently estimated at 150,000 vehicles – due to its low carbon intensity and cost-effectiveness.
Propane is for much more than your outdoor grill. There are more than 4,000 uses of propane for homes, businesses, and industrial applications, including in the U.S. transportation sector. The Carbon Intensity (CI) of traditional propane is 79.6, less than gasoline, which is currently at 90. Today renewable propane produced in the United States has a CI score of 18-20. In the next five years, innovations such as GTI Energy’s new Cool LPG technology will increase the production of renewable propane globally.
In 2022, rLPG North America formed to bring an increasing amount of renewable propane to the U.S. market in partnership with BioLPG, LLC. Their goal is to utilize GTI Energy’s Cool LPG technology to effectuate the widespread potential of renewably sourced propane. Currently, most renewable propane comes from the production of sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) and renewable diesel. Renewable propane is a co-product of these fuels, which are derived from organic waste such as plant oils, beef tallow, and waste oils.
GTI Energy’s Cool LPG technology was recently recognized at the World LPG Global Science Conference as the technology with the most promise and potential to decarbonize propane and create a legitimate path to zero carbon emissions. Cool LPG technology converts biogas, or bio-syngas, into renewably sourced propane. Cool LPG will expand the number of feedstocks that can be used to produce more renewable propane, as it is agnostic to the feedstock source. This includes landfill waste, livestock and animal waste, food waste, and other sources of biogas. It is estimated that renewable propane derived from the Cool LPG process will have a CI score as low as (-)75 when produced from landfill waste and a score of (-)200 when utilizing dairy and animal waste. This means a blend of renewable propane and traditional propane could be used to provide a zero-carbon solution for small to large commercial fleets and consumers.
Nationally, the average CI score of the electric grid is 165. The battery electric vehicle (BEV) has garnered widespread government support and publicity, but it will be decades before the electric grid can accomplish a CI score equivalent to innovative transportation fuels such as renewable natural gas (RNG) and renewable propane. Companies and consumers who want to make a positive impact today have options. RNG provides a good option for Class 8 trucks and vehicles, while renewable propane autogas is ideal for Class 2 through 7 vehicles.
Over the past 15 years, operating a vehicle on propane autogas has averaged fuel costs 35 percent less than gasoline. Small and large commercial fleets can make a positive impact on emissions while also saving money – a rare feature for companies striving to meet their decarbonization and sustainability goals without extraordinary costs.
Renewable propane and traditional propane can be 100 percent produced in the U.S. In fact, more than 24 billion gallons of traditional propane are exported out of the United States. These exports could fuel more than 6 million commercial vehicles or 12 million consumer vehicles on an annual basis. Between today and 2035, it is projected that as much as 2 billion gallons of renewable propane can be produced in the U.S., enhancing the availability of a low-carbon transportation fuel that can make an immediate impact.
Why are propane autogas and RNG not more widely used as transportation fuels in the United States as they are in the rest of the world? Good question. The status quo and resistance to change are part of the reason. The other reason often cited is no longer valid – lack of viable technology. Today, there is vehicle technology to operate fleets efficiently and reliably on autogas or RNG. Companies such as Alliance AutoGas have more than 1,800 EPA-certified vehicle platforms available to businesses and consumers. Renewable propane will be compatible with current propane technology, so the question for consumers now is, why wait for renewable when we can be prepared for a clean, efficient technology right now?
Stuart Weidie is president and CEO of Blossman Gas, Inc. He also serves as president of the nationwide alternative fuels and equipment network Alliance AutoGas and is founder of the industry coalition AutoGas for America.
The propulsion challenges facing society are complex and multi-dimensional. Decarbonization is at the core of these challenges and, unfortunately, there is no singular fuel type or technology solution to solve them all. Regardless, the transportation segment requires decarbonization – and it requires it yesterday. This truth and its aggressive timetable are why the internal combustion engine is part of the larger solution to reduce lifecycle carbon emissions to address climate change trends.
Regulating tailpipe carbon will not solve the problem of carbon dioxide alone. Reducing the carbon intensity of electric grids will take time. Electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids are great solutions for certain applications, but also need time to reach critical mass. In the meantime, we continue to rely on liquid fuels for combustion engines in conventional vehicles, hybrids, and plug-in hybrids for many on- and off-road applications. Therefore, low-carbon intensity fuels in conjunction with powertrain electrification/hybridization is needed.
Hybridization and low-lifecycle carbon intensity fuels can work together to contribute to a low-net carbon future. The internal combustion engine is ready to use low- and zero- carbon fuels to quickly move down sustainable fuels pathways, power hybrids, and enable more rapid vehicle electrification.
Any decarbonization strategy needs to utilize longer-term low carbon fuels / renewable fuels. The immediate impact of drop-in alternative fuels on legacy vehicle fleets is too great to be dismissed, especially with an existing delivery infrastructure. Industry and legislators alike need to realize it is not always about net zero. Having low-carbon content across a broad scale has a significant decarbonization impact across all transportation sectors. Low-carbon fuels offer decarbonization benefits today as we prepare for the future.
Stanadyne, a leading global fuel and air management systems supplier, is continuing to develop engine innovations enabling the efficient and economic use of low-carbon and future fuels. This continued investment is necessary, as future fuels are propulsion technology drivers with fuel system challenges still needing solutions. As we head down low-carbon fuel pathways, some fuels are thermodynamically challenging with their lower heating values. This and other characteristics make them challenging to use. Their lubricity and viscosity also can be issues, which affect engine start-stop functions and maintaining high fuel delivery pressures for cleaner combustion.
Consumers, vehicle manufacturers, and propulsion systems providers want diesel performance and total cost of ownership, but with a low-carbon fuel without the shortcomings, difficulties, and reduced range. There is a growing impatience for fuel delivery solutions to be developed. Automakers have stated a need for “hyper-collaboration” with suppliers to develop and implement clean propulsion options to meet state and federal legislation.
There are many technology pathways to achieve low- and net-zero carbon emissions. However, hybrid powertrains powered by low-carbon intensity fuels are one of the fastest tracks to decarbonization development and deployment. Alcohol, hydrogen, propane, compressed natural gas, dimethyl ether (DME) and other sustainable low-carbon intensity fuels can energize these small displacement, high-energy output, high speed engines. High-pressure fuel delivery systems operating at twice the flow help overcome alternative fuels’ low energy content. Many systems already can handle biodiesel and other drop-in renewable fuels currently available in the market.
Powertrain and fuel system innovation are key to a sustainable future. Stanadyne is accelerating engine innovation with its growing portfolio of renewable and future fuel complaint products. Our breakthrough direct injection liquid propane system, hydrogen direct injection design platform, and high-pressure direct injection pump and injector advancements are driving internal combustion engine decarbonization.
A low-carbon approach isn’t exclusive to fuels. Stanadyne takes a lifecycle approach by designing products for remanufacturing to support a circular internal combustion engine economy. More than two decades of remanufacturing expertise at scale and quality has kept 15 million pounds of waste out of landfills.
Advanced internal combustion technology will continue to be a dominant part of the fuel and technology mix for decades to come. New engine designs and fuels, like hydrogen and e-fuels, will drive decarbonization. As zero emission technologies continue to emerge, expect a world where engine technologies and fuels compete, complement, and co-exist.
Michael Hornby is Global Vice President of Product Engineering at Stanadyne
Though the amount of public charging stations across the country has grown sharply over the past year – increasing more in 2022 than in the prior three years combined – driver satisfaction with charging infrastructure has dropped significantly over the same time period. From long wait times to high costs, there are many hurdles that must be overcome to accelerate widespread EV adoption.
Specifically, as the EV market has grown, it’s become increasingly fragmented and, as a result, difficult to navigate. With its wide range of stakeholders with distinct business needs to the increasing variety of charging hardware that runs on differing software, a lack of compatibility across the ecosystem often leaves drivers unsure where they can reliably charge their vehicles – what has come to be known as “EV range anxiety” – or having to toggle between multiple applications just to refuel.
We can overcome much of these frustrations by improving interoperability and roaming capabilities throughout charging infrastructure. The concept of EV roaming, also referred to as eRoaming, opens customer access to an almost endless number of chargers. Similar to the use of roaming on a cellular network, eRoaming allows drivers to charge at another service provider’s charging station and have the charging transaction integrated with their normal method of payment. We’ve seen the success of eRoaming in supporting tremendous EV growth throughout Europe – where roaming has been the norm in countries like the Netherlands and Norway for the past decade – and it’s time we did the same in the U.S.
However, delivering EV roaming is an incredibly complex process, involving negotiated service and clearing agreements, comprehensive communications standards, various protocols, and support of multiple languages, currencies, tax rates, and regulations. Its successful deployment depends on eMobility providers (eMSPs) and charge point operators (CPOs) – traditionally separate players in the e-Mobility ecosystem – working together to share their capabilities through either a peer-to-peer Open Charge Point Interface (OCPI) protocol or leveraging a roaming hub, such as Hubject, GIREVE, or e-clearing.net.
What’s more, to enable true interoperability, EV charging management platforms must be compatible with all roaming hubs and support OCPI-based roaming, providing a scalable, live, and automated EV roaming setup between eMSPs and CPOs. At EVolve, a subsidiary of Vontier Corporation, our integrated smart energy management platform allows us to manage hundreds of thousands of EV chargers on roaming networks. From customer-facing tools that streamline the eRoaming experience for drivers to back-end technology that authorizes charging sessions, reconciles transitions between CPOs and eMSPs, and shares charge point data, our platform equips EV charging networks, OEMs, and other e-Mobility partners with a backward-compatible solution to easily deliver eRoaming and create a more reliable and convenient EV charging experience for customers.
Although a complicated landscape, what’s clear is that achieving widespread eRoaming will take the investment, collaboration, and cooperation of the entire industry. And despite differing business needs, this is an issue that all e-Mobility players stand to benefit from. Not only is improving roaming capabilities key to unleashing the true power of electrification – elevating outcomes for all corners of the ecosystem – but it will bring increased use to the charging points of CPOs and foster further brand recognition and loyalty for eMSPs, creating greater streams of revenue for both.
As we consider our goals for the years to come across the EV ecosystem, let’s all prioritize working together to enable eRoaming and increase interoperability to realize the full potential of the EV transformation.
Andrew Bennett is the CEO of EVolve, a Vontier company
In June, the CEO of German manufacturer MAN Truck & Bus SE (MAN), Alexander Vlaskamp, told Austrian Newspaper Der Standard that:“E-mobility is coming now. The technology is mature and most efficient. In our estimation 80 or even 90 percent of logistics trucks will be electrically powered…If hydrogen is to be used, it must be green. And we see today that hydrogen is far too expensive (and) therefore, hydrogen will only be used in a small segment in Europe, such as for special transport.”
I became aware of this pronouncement through a friend in the U.S. trucking industry, who attached the article to an e-mail, saying, “So, hydrogen is dead!” Even as someone who has never been afraid to hold strong opinions on technology, I remember reading my friend's e-mail and thinking, “Well, that’s a bit extreme isn’t it?” Then I took some time to read Mr. Vlaskamp’s full interview and, in fairness, what he said is nuanced. He is not saying all hydrogen is too expensive or that the technology doesn’t work. He is simply pointing out that the cost of ‘green’ hydrogen as a fuel is too high for his customers to do their business.
Fair enough, Vlaskamp knows his customers, and trucking has and will always be a bottom-line driven industry. However, he goes on to state that there is already enough electricity in Austria to deal with the trucking fleet transition, and that to support the 30 percent of trucks in Europe going electric by 2030, 20,000 fast-charging stations will be needed, at a cost of several billion euros! This is where he loses me and quite a few others, as we will see below.
Here in the U.S., as the battle over the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) regulation spills over into Congress, companies and truckers are faced with impossible choices. Do they wait to see if the bills introduced by Rep. John Joyce (R-PA) in the House of Representatives and/or Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) in the Senate, forestall CARB’s rule, or do they start to plan for the zero-emission future now? They haven’t got much time to figure it out; CARB’s rule goes into effect for the first trucks in 2024. One thing is certain: Europe’s second-largest truck manufacturer muddying the waters regarding technology choices won’t help anyone! To try and make sense of whether hydrogen is an option for U.S. trucking, I decided to talk to three experts in the field.
Dr. Tim Lipman is an energy and environmental technology, economics, policy researcher and lecturer with the University of California, Berkeley. His research focuses on electric-drive vehicles, fuel-cell technology, combined heat and power systems, biofuels, renewable energy, and hydrogen-energy systems infrastructure. When I spoke to Tim about the MAN CEO’s thoughts on hydrogen and electric trucks, he had this to say: “Batteries can’t do it all, that is for certain, and I think everyone is underestimating the level of effort needed to get the grid ready for transportation electrification.” He pointed to the fact that fast-charging infrastructure for trucks might require megawatts of power, and whether that power is drawn directly from the grid or from on-site battery storage, it will not be cheap. He also stated that the engineering and technology challenges for charging sites could be significant, given the geographic locations of California’s truck parking sites relative to the grid, the anticipated load growth from truck charging, and the capacity of certain electrical feeder lines. Tim believes these challenges and their costs have already made several public bus fleets (subject to a separate CARB zero- emission rule) reverse course on battery-electric buses in favor of hydrogen fuel cell electric buses.
On the costs of hydrogen, currently retailing somewhere between $16 to $36 per kg, Dr. Lipman was very clear that it is too high. He points to the war in Ukraine, and the entry of California refiners into the low-carbon fuel standard (LCFS) credits program, as being significant contributors to the current cost issue. The Ukraine war has caused the costs of natural gas, a raw material for the steam reformation of hydrogen, to rise sharply; and the conversion of some California refineries to renewable fuels has halved the payments available for LCSF credits from CARB for the sale of hydrogen. However, he believes that the recent announcement of $7 billion in federal grant funding to establish regional clean hydrogen hubs in 16 states will have a big impact on driving down costs. Because of his involvement in California’s successful application to the U.S. Department of Energy for one of these hubs, Tim was reluctant to give his thoughts on how much hydrogen could retail for, simply saying that the hubs will make hydrogen a lot cheaper.
Finally, Tim took some time to explore the comments on ‘green’ hydrogen by MAN’s CEO, noting that it might be more helpful to look at the fuel’s production and carbon intensity. Tim explained that the term ‘green’ hydrogen means production of the gas from the electrolysis of water using renewable electricity. This pathway is preferred by many in the environmental movement, as it dispenses with the steam reformation of methane completely. Hydrogen from any form of methane is viewed by some as a bait and switch strategy by a fossil fuels industry, the currently leading producer of U.S. hydrogen, seeking to extend the use of natural gas.
However, Tim pointed out that other production methods, such as the steam reformation of bio-gas (i.e. methane created from animal manure or wastewater bio-digestors) could be less carbon intensive than ‘green’ hydrogen. This is due to the fact that the releasing of bio-gas directly to the atmosphere has a much more detrimental impact on climate than converting it to hydrogen. Therefore, if we look to carbon intensity and climate impacts as our north star (and don’t get hung up on the hydrogen color wheel), investing in these other low-carbon production methods could increase hydrogen supply and bring down costs significantly. This certainly would change the economics of the fuel dramatically for Mr. Vlaskamp and his customers.
I also spoke with Dr. Matt Miyasato, Vice President of Strategic Growth and Government Affairs for FirstElement Fuel, the largest retailer of hydrogen fuel stations in the world. Prior to joining FirstElement Fuel, Matt served as Deputy Executive Officer and Chief Technologist at the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Matt was taken aback by the MAN CEO’s comments, stating: “This is really premature! There is no silver bullet, and we are going to need all the solutions.” Matt went on to say that electricity is a great solution for fleets traveling shorter routes (up to 40 miles), with fixed hubs that are well supplied with electricity and a duty cycle that allows for overnight charging. However, he too cautioned regarding the ability to install the charging infrastructure, even in the best of circumstances. He expressed concern with the existing grid infrastructure, the possible need for battery banks to charge multiple vehicles, the huge amount of electricity needed, and the rate at which vehicles can charge. In fact, Dr. Miyasato’s main objection to Mr. Vlaskamp’s comments was that they totally discounted the needs of many drivers and fleets. For some truckers, the time required to recharge batteries is simply not practical or cost effective. Time is money in the trucking business, and extensive wait times to recharge trucks won’t cut it.
That’s not to say that the hydrogen infrastructure is perfect. Matt did own up to issues related to the cost of the fuel and the ability to permit, roll out, and maintain stations. However, he also noted that no one had yet built an electrical retail infrastructure for long-distance truck routes (those over 200 miles), whereas his company planned to launch their first truck fueling station in Oakland, California, in December 2023. He said, “With what we know today about costs and engineering, it would be very short-sighted to write off any technology path at this point.”
Finally, I spoke with Jaimie Levin, Director of West Coast Operations and Senior Managing Consultant for the Atlanta-based Center for Transportation and the Environment (CTE). Jaimie previously worked as Director of Environmental Technology at the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) where he oversaw the alternative fuels deployment program. He currently heads up the NorCAL ZERO advanced technology demonstration project, which is bringing 30 Hyundai Xcient fuel cell electric trucks into service at the Port of Oakland in northern California. These Class 8 vehicles have a range of between 400 and 500 miles and a payload capacity of 39,000 lbs. This project is in the road trials phase, with 10 trucks currently deployed hauling steel from the port to California’s Central Valley.
Jaimie stated that the current crop of Class 8 battery-electric trucks, while working fine in the hub model described by Dr. Miyasato, were “really working against what truckers need.” He cited four critical factors for truckers – range, payload capacity, fueling speed, and resiliency. On range, Jaimie states that trucks with variable routes can’t have limits. They need to be able to do whatever route and distance are required by a job. On payload, he cited the total weight limits on the California and national highway system as being a serious issue for battery-electric trucks. The weight of current battery trucks that can travel 250 miles could be as much as 2,000 lbs. more than their diesel counterparts. In an industry where payload is ‘the’ thing, that would reduce carrying capacity and profit. On fueling speed, Jaimie stated that truckers can’t wait around for an hour for their rig to charge up. Costs and deadlines simply won’t allow it. Lastly, on resiliency, he talked about the strain put on California’s grid in the last few years by wildfires, extreme heat, and public safety power shutoff events. He notes that in trucking, you can’t have uncertainty on whether you can refuel your vehicle or not. An excellent point, considering that 77 percent of California communities rely solely on trucking for the movement of their goods.On the cost of fuel, Jaimie reiterated that it needs to come down, citing the same factors previously noted, and hopes that the hydrogen hubs will impact prices. On the cost of the trucks themselves, he believes that the economies of scale will have a big impact on driving down the total cost of ownership, making them comparable to diesel, but agrees that the initial cost of the truck itself will remain high.
I have spent some time looking at the future of battery technology – including lighter weight and faster charging options - and I discussed this with all three experts. While they see the new offerings as solving some issues with current battery trucks, they believe that they do not move the needle on power availability and the cost of infrastructure to charge electric trucks.
Hydrogen is far from done in terms of being a fuel for heavy-duty trucks, but its cost needs to come down quickly! Also, issues with the electric infrastructure and the location of California’s truck parking will hinder the rollout of battery-electric vehicles. This means neither technology is perfect and neither meets the needs of every trucking duty cycle. So, rather than trying to pick the winner in this technology horse race, truckers will need to explore their options based on their own unique locations and business needs. This won’t be easy but eliminating technologies out of hand makes no sense at this point.
Damian Breen is the founder of Environmental Communication Strategies and former Deputy Executive Officer of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District in California.
Requiring 60+ percent of U.S. vehicles sales to be pure battery electric vehicles (BEVs) by 2030 leapfrogged the administration’s own 2021 executive order that called for 50 percent electric vehicles – including plug-in hybrid and fuel cell EVs – by 2030. More on that below.
That 2021 executive order was a stretch goal (then and now), but the auto industry backed a 40-50 percent EV sales target – presuming the requisite public policies would also be in place.
When the companies that will build the millions of EVs required by these regulations say the pace and balance of EPA’s rules are out of whack – in fact, we told the agency those rules are “neither reasonable nor achievable in the timeframe provided" and opens the door to China – regulators and policymakers should believe them.
It’s not too late to course correct. Here are five ways for EPA to fix the proposed rule while supporting increased automotive electrification and carbon reduction.
1. Don’t write off plug-in hybrids and fuel cell EVs.
The current EPA rule calls for 37 percent of new light-duty cars and trucks to be BEVs by 2027 (and the aforementioned 60+ percent by 2030). Keep in mind, BEV sales were just under 6 percent in 2022.
But EPA’s proposal goes further and completely writes off plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). A 67 percent BEV-only approach by 2032 will unquestionably reduce consumer choice and push automakers to non-compliance with such unachievable requirements. The administration’s 50 percent executive order from 2021 included BEVs and PHEVs and fuel cell electric vehicles. Why take PHEV technology off the field?
2. Don't siphon finite resource from EVs to gas-powered vehicles.
EPA’s proposal also sets new rules for criteria pollutants from gas-powered vehicles that are already near zero emissions. A backpack leaf blower produces more ozone-forming pollution in one hour than driving an SUV for 6,000 miles.
But automakers support criteria pollution reductions, most recently in California where we developed a path to reduce particulate matter by 67 percent between 2025 and 2028. EPA should get behind those criteria pollution standards.
That said, EPA’s rule requires automakers to eke out some incremental improvements by installing expensive new technology on all internal combustion engines – a powertrain the administration wants to discourage (and California has already banned for new vehicles sales by 2035).
The point: automakers are investing massive amounts of capital in electrification, but every dollar invested (required to be invested, that is) in internal combustion technology is a dollar not spent on zero carbon technology. And vice versa.
3. Sync up EPA’s rules with yet-to-be-released Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards.
A vehicle tailpipe is regulated by three federal agencies and four sets of regulations. One vehicle overseen by competing, overlapping (sometimes conflicting) rules that aren’t coordinated. It’s expensive and complex and frankly why the country and automakers need a single national standard to reduce carbon in transportation through a streamlined regulatory structure.
At the very least, if an automaker complies with EPA’s greenhouse gas emissions rules, they shouldn’t be at risk of violating the Transportation Department’s coming CAFE rules and subject to significant civil penalties (that create no environmental benefit but do levy additional costs on consumers, workers, and manufacturers).
4. While you’re at it… sync up the rules and eliminate conflict with state standards too.
Let me revise that. A vehicle tailpipe is regulated by three federal agencies and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) using seven sets of regulations. EPA should get with CARB to ensure both programs are on the same wavelength and not creating unnecessary compliance burdens (that deliver no corresponding emissions reduction benefits).
5. Keep score (and keep track) of conditions outside the vehicle.
I’m a broken record about policies and conditions outside the vehicle, necessary for a successful EV transition: residential and public charging, critical mineral availability and grid capacity. EPA should develop a roadmap and methodically track this data so the country – and all sectors of the economy responsible for the transformation – can collectively assess progress.
EPA should release a public report taking stock of the overall EV market, the mineral and processing supply chain, and state of refueling and charging infrastructure. For example: How is the transition going? Is it meeting EPA’s milestones? If not, what’s the fix?
When I raise these points with policymakers, I hear: “Well, things have changed since 2021” and the 50 percent executive order. The implication: EPA’s higher EV targets make sense because EV sales continue to grow. We’re on the right path… they say.
I don’t see it that way, and most experts who’ve been building autos or studying the industry for any length of time don’t either. EPA’s proposal is an outlier when compared to the EV adoption models of S&P, Bloomberg, and other analysts. See this chart:
EPA is asking for a huge BEV ramp up in the next few years. On a graph, their model looks like a hockey stick. The pitch of that curve is most aggressive in the next few years when market conditions (consumer acceptance, supply chains, infrastructure) are most speculative.
The administration’s 50 percent goal in 2021 was aspirational, but it was also based on clearly defined climate goals – from the United Nations and the incoming Biden administration (reflected in its 2023 National Blueprint for Transportation Decarbonization). It was built on a foundation of credible assumptions. And data.
The 60+ percent BEVs by 2030 plan, on the other hand, is a house of cards (… a house of cars?). It rolls up rosy forecasts (like EV batteries will eventually cost automakers nothing) and other hopeful assumptions.
The next couple years are make or break. The auto industry is making huge progress on electrification and continued improvements to internal combustion engine technology. Don’t toss it away now. Let’s come out of this process with a balanced, achievable and durable rule that maintains customer choice and doesn’t blunt America’s EV momentum.
John Bozzella is president and CEO of Alliance for Automotive Innovation. This editorial originally ran at https://www.autosinnovate.org/posts/blog/epas-rules-are-out-of-whack-five-ways-to-fix-them.