Global Green Freight

Action Plan — Technical

Background

Final Report

Prepared for:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Prepared by:

Eastern Research Group, Inc.

April 2, 2015
ERG Project No.: 0303.02.012.002

Global Green Freight Action Plan — Technical Background

Final Report

Prepared for:

Buddy Polovick
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
2000 Traverwood
Ann Arbor, MI 48105

Prepared by:

Rick Baker
Richard Billings
Birgit Caliandro
Mike Sabisch
Alan Stanard
Jim Lindner

Eastern Research Group, Inc.

3508 Far West Blvd., Suite 210
Austin, TX 78731

April 2, 2015
Notice
This document contains copyrighted material. Credited images are the property of their listed
sources, who reserve all rights (except where credits indicate images released under Creative
Commons license).
 Table of Contents

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... vi

1.0 Summary of CCAC Green Freight Call to Action and Action Plan ................................ 1-1
1.1 Background .......................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Global Green Freight Call to Action.................................................................... 1-2
1.3 Global Green Freight Action Plan ....................................................................... 1-3
1.4 Technical Background Paper Overview .............................................................. 1-4
2.0 Global Goods Movement and Associated Impacts .......................................................... 2-1
2.1 Overview of Green Freight Opportunities in the Global Freight Sector ............. 2-1
2.2 Health, Logistics, Technology, and Economic Impacts .................................... 2-10
2.2.1 Health ..................................................................................................... 2-10
2.2.2 Traffic Congestion ................................................................................. 2-11
2.2.3 Safety ..................................................................................................... 2-11
2.2.4 Technology Advancement ..................................................................... 2-12
2.2.5 Fuel Costs............................................................................................... 2-13
2.2.6 Other Economic Impacts........................................................................ 2-13
2.3 Emission Standards and Policy .......................................................................... 2-14
3.0 Current and Developing Green Freight Programs ........................................................... 3-1
3.1 Detailed Program Summaries .............................................................................. 3-3
3.1.1 SmartWay Transport Partnership ............................................................. 3-3
3.1.2 Green Freight Europe ............................................................................. 3-11
3.1.3 Objectif CO2 (France) ............................................................................ 3-18
3.1.4 Green Freight Asia ................................................................................. 3-24
3.1.5 China Green Freight Initiative ............................................................... 3-29
3.1.6 Transporte Limpio (Mexico).................................................................. 3-35
3.1.7 Lean and Green (Netherlands) ............................................................... 3-40
3.1.8 Clean Cargo Working Group ................................................................. 3-49
3.2 Other Programs .................................................................................................. 3-56
3.2.1 EcoTransIT® World Initiative ............................................................... 3-56
3.2.2 Green Logistics Partnership (Tokyo) ..................................................... 3-58
3.2.3 Freight Best Practice (Wales) ................................................................ 3-59
3.2.4 EcoStation (Australia) ............................................................................ 3-59
3.2.5 Green and Smart Transport Partnership (Korea) ................................... 3-60
3.2.6 ECOSTARS Europe............................................................................... 3-61
3.2.7 Partnership on Sustainable Low Carbon Transport (SLoCaT) .............. 3-62
3.3 Other Resources ................................................................................................. 3-62
3.3.1 Smart Freight Centre .............................................................................. 3-62
3.3.2 European Standard EN 16258, “Methodology for Calculation and
Declaration of Energy Consumption and GHG Emissions of Transport
Services (Freight and Passengers)” ........................................................ 3-66
3.3.3 COFRET ................................................................................................ 3-67
3.3.4 Geospatial Intermodal Freight Transportation (GIFT) Model ............... 3-68
3.3.5 Network for Transport and Environment (NTM) .................................. 3-69
3.3.6 South Australian Freight Council (SAFC)............................................. 3-69
3.4 Freight Supply Chain Carbon Accounting and Reporting ................................. 3-70

i
4.0 Freight Vehicles and Operation Practices ........................................................................ 4-1
4.1 Trucking (Vehicles and Operational Practices) ................................................... 4-1
4.1.1 Truck Classification ................................................................................. 4-1
4.1.2 Global Freight Truck Market ................................................................... 4-3
4.1.3 In-Use Operating Characteristics ............................................................. 4-8
4.1.4 Truck Configurations ............................................................................. 4-15
4.1.5 Fleet Ownership/Contracting ................................................................. 4-18
4.2 Intermodal Options ............................................................................................ 4-19
4.3 Rail Freight Options ........................................................................................... 4-22
4.4 Marine Cargo Options........................................................................................ 4-25
4.5 Air Freight Options ............................................................................................ 4-32
5.0 Review of Current Truck Technologies and Operating Strategies .................................. 5-1
5.1 Factors Influencing Truck Fuel Consumption and Emissions ............................. 5-2
5.1.1 Fuel Consumption .................................................................................... 5-2
5.1.2 PM and NOx Emissions ........................................................................... 5-5
5.1.3 Recent Trends in Heavy-Duty Diesel Fuel Economy .............................. 5-7
5.2 Technologies for the In-Use Fleet........................................................................ 5-8
5.2.1 Aerodynamic Retrofits ............................................................................. 5-8
5.2.2 Rolling Resistance ................................................................................. 5-12
5.2.3 Driveline Efficiency Improvements ....................................................... 5-13
5.2.4 Idle Reduction ........................................................................................ 5-14
5.2.5 Exhaust Aftertreatment .......................................................................... 5-15
5.2.6 Fuel Strategies ........................................................................................ 5-19
5.2.7 Costs, Benefits, and Degree of Utilization for Retrofittable Strategies . 5-21
5.3 Technologies for the OEM Fleet........................................................................ 5-24
5.3.1 Engine Efficiency/Thermal Management .............................................. 5-25
5.3.2 Mass Reduction...................................................................................... 5-27
5.3.3 Driveline Efficiency ............................................................................... 5-28
5.3.4 Alternative Fuels/Advanced Power Sources .......................................... 5-30
5.3.5 Alternative Refrigerant Systems ............................................................ 5-32
5.3.6 Costs, Benefits, and Degree of Utilization for Non-Retrofittable
Strategies ................................................................................................ 5-32
5.4 Operational Strategies ........................................................................................ 5-33
5.4.1 Route Optimization ................................................................................ 5-33
5.4.2 Network Optimization ........................................................................... 5-38
5.4.3 Facility Optimization ............................................................................. 5-39
5.4.4 Packaging Reduction ............................................................................. 5-40
5.4.5 Load Optimization ................................................................................. 5-41
5.4.6 Intermodal Strategies ............................................................................. 5-42
5.4.7 Adaptive Cruise Control and Speed Reduction ..................................... 5-44
5.4.8 Driver Performance and Incentive Programs ......................................... 5-44
5.4.9 Cost, Benefits, and Degree of Utilization for Operational Strategies .... 5-45
6.0 Intermodal—Rail, Marine, and Air .................................................................................. 6-1
6.1 Intermodal Strategies ........................................................................................... 6-1
6.2 Rail Cargo Strategies ........................................................................................... 6-5
6.3 Marine Cargo Strategies .................................................................................... 6-12

ii
 6.4 Air Freight Strategies ......................................................................................... 6-18
7.0 Conclusions and Prospects for Harmonization ................................................................ 7-1
7.1 Summary .............................................................................................................. 7-1
7.2 Lessons Learned, Findings, and Recommendations ............................................ 7-3
7.2.1 Program Design ....................................................................................... 7-3
7.2.2 Implementation ........................................................................................ 7-4
7.2.3 Program Maintenance and Growth .......................................................... 7-5
7.3 Program Advancement, Expansion and Harmonization ...................................... 7-6
7.3.1 Common Indicators for Success .............................................................. 7-6
7.3.2 Prospects for Harmonization.................................................................... 7-7
7.3.3 Considerations for Developing Countries ................................................ 7-9
8.0 References .................................................................................................................. 8-1
8.1 Sources for Truck Strategies ................................................................................ 8-1
8.2 Sources for Rail Strategies ................................................................................... 8-2
8.3 Sources for Marine Strategies .............................................................................. 8-3
8.4 Sources for Air Strategies .................................................................................... 8-4
8.5 Other Links and Resources .................................................................................. 8-6
8.5.1 Websites of Green Freight Organizations ................................................ 8-6
8.5.2 Websites of Relevant Associations and Stakeholder Groups .................. 8-6
8.5.3 Other Resources ....................................................................................... 8-6
8.5.4 Region-Specific Articles and Other Resources........................................ 8-7
8.6 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 4
8.7 The CCAC Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicles and Engines Initiative: Green Freight ... 5
8.8 About Green Freight ............................................................................................... 5
8.9 The CCAC Global Green Freight Initiative: ........................................................... 8
8.10 Development of the Green Freight Action Plan: Barriers and Challenges ............. 8

Appendix A: Interview Questions for Green Freight Program Representatives

Appendix B: CCAC Stakeholder Proposal, Executive Brief, and Call to Action

List of Tables

Table 2-1. World’s Leading Economies by GDP ........................................................................ 2-3

Table 2-2. Extent of Physical Transportation Systems in the World’s Top Economies: 2008 ... 2-5
Table 2-3. Road Freight Sector Growth ....................................................................................... 2-6
Table 2-4. Rail Freight Sector Growth ........................................................................................ 2-7
Table 2-5. Air Freight Sector Growth .......................................................................................... 2-8
Table 2-6. United States and EU Heavy-Duty Emission Standards .......................................... 2-16
Table 2-7. Emission Standards in Other Countries (g/kWh) ..................................................... 2-17
Table 2-8. Diesel Sulfur Levels in Various Countries ............................................................... 2-17
Table 4-1. Annual Roadway Tonne-km Hauled, Selected Countries, 2009 ................................ 4-4
Table 4-2. Growth in Roadway Tonne-km Hauled, 2000–2009 ................................................. 4-5
Table 4-3. World Heavy-Duty Fleet Estimates (Millions of Vehicles) ....................................... 4-5
Table 4-4. Average Fuel Economy and Carbon Performance for Selected Countries ................ 4-9
Table 4-5. Empty Backhaul Rates by Truck Service Category, Brazil, 2013 ........................... 4-15
Table 4-6. Annual Rail Tonne-km Hauled, Selected Countries, 2010 ...................................... 4-23

iii
Table 4-7. Growth in Rail Tonne-km Hauled, 2000–2010 ........................................................ 4-24
Table 4-8. Annual Marine Container Shipments in TEUs, Selected Countries, 2010............... 4-27
Table 4-9. Growth in Marine Container Shipments, 2000–2010.................................................. 28
Table 4-10. Port Infrastructure Quality Index, 2013.................................................................. 4-30
Table 5-1. Costs and Benefits of the On-Road Retrofit Technologies for On-Highway Freight
Trucks ...................................................................................................................... 5-21
Table 5-2. Costs and Benefits of the Extended-Idle Reduction Strategies ................................ 5-23
Table 5-3. Costs and Emission Reduction Levels of Various Retrofit Aftertreatment Devices 5-24
Table 5-4. Costs and Fuel Consumption Reductions for the OEM Technologies ..................... 5-32
Table 5-5. Costs and Benefits of Various Shipping Optimization Strategies ............................ 5-45
Table 6-1. Fuel Consumption for Freight Transportation, 2010.................................................. 6-2
Table 6-2. Summary of Emissions—Grams per Ton-Mile—2009 .............................................. 6-5
Table 6-3. Table Summary of Rail Freight Technology Options .............................................. 6-11
Table 6-4. Table Summary of Marine Freight Technology Options ......................................... 6-17
Table 6-5. Table Summary of Air Freight Technology Options ............................................... 6-21
Table 7-1. Carbon-Intensity of Freight Travel by Mode, g CO2/Tonne-km ................................ 7-1

List of Figures

Figure ES-1. Asian Transportation CO2 Emissions by Type of Vehicle ....................................... vi

Figure 2-1. Value of World Goods Exports by Country: 2008.................................................... 2-2
Figure 2-2. World Merchandise Exports ..................................................................................... 2-4
Figure 2-3. Road Freight Sector Growth ..................................................................................... 2-7
Figure 2-4. Rail Freight Sector Growth ....................................................................................... 2-7
Figure 2-5. Air Freight Sector Growth ........................................................................................ 2-8
Figure 2-6. Projected Global Passenger and Freight Growth by Region, 2020–2050 (Tonne-km
per Capita per Year) ................................................................................................... 2-9
Figure 2-7. Fatalities in Truck and All Crashes ......................................................................... 2-12
Figure 2-8. Injuries in Truck and All Crashes ........................................................................... 2-12
Figure 2-9. Diesel Fuel Costs for Top 25 Economies by GDP ($/Liter) ................................... 2-13
Figure 2-10. Emissions Fraction Attributable to Pre-2010 Trucks (United States) ................... 2-15
Figure 2-11. Emissions Fraction Attributable to Pre-2010 Trucks (Hong Kong) ..................... 2-15
Figure 2-12. Global Fuel Sulfur Level Trends........................................................................... 2-18
Figure 3-1. Global Framework for Action (Putting Methodologies into Context) .................... 3-63
Figure 3-2. GLEC Approach...................................................................................................... 3-65
Figure 4-1. Weight Classifications Used in the United States ..................................................... 4-2
Figure 4-2. Global Medium and Heavy Truck Market Forecast ................................................. 4-6
Figure 4-3. African Medium and Heavy Truck Market Forecast ................................................ 4-7
Figure 4-4. Top Commercial Vehicle Technologies—Global Outlook....................................... 4-8
Figure 4-5. Class 6 Single-Unit Truck ....................................................................................... 4-10
Figure 4-6. Class 7 Dump Truck................................................................................................ 4-10
Figure 4-7. Class 8 Combination Cab-Over Tractor-Trailer ..................................................... 4-11
Figure 4-8. Average Fuel Economy of SmartWay Trucks by Class.......................................... 4-12
Figure 4-9. Average Fuel Economy of SmartWay Trucks by Operational Category ................ 4-13
Figure 4-10. Average Fuel Economy of SmartWay Trucks by Class........................................ 4-13
Figure 4-11. Average Fuel Economy of SmartWay Trucks by Operational Category.............. 4-14

iv
Figure 4-12. Average Percentages of Empty Miles Traveled by Operational Category ........... 4-15
Figure 4-13. Class 8 Rocky Mountain Double .......................................................................... 4-17
Figure 4-14. Empty vs. Non-Empty Miles Traveled for Private and “For Hire” Fleets ............ 4-18
Figure 4-15. Direct CO2 Emissions Intensity by Transport Mode (CO2 per km and per Tonne-
km) ........................................................................................................................... 4-19
Figure 4-16. World Container Traffic and Throughput, 1980–2011 (Millions of TEU) ........... 4-20
Figure 4-17. Example of Intermodal Transportation for Freight ............................................... 4-20
Figure 4-18. Rail Freight Ton-Miles and Track Miles .............................................................. 4-21
Figure 4-19. Inland Freight Transport Modal Split ................................................................... 4-22
Figure 4-20. Rising Marine Bunker Fuel Prices ........................................................................ 4-31
Figure 4-21. World Air Cargo Traffic ....................................................................................... 4-32
Figure 4-22. World Air Cargo Traffic: 20-Year Forecast.......................................................... 4-32
Figure 4-23. Jet Fuel Prices, 1990–2014 ................................................................................... 4-33
Figure 5-1. Typical Energy Demands of Various Losses of a Tractor Trailer Operating at
Highway Speeds......................................................................................................... 5-4
Figure 5-2. A Trailer Equipped with Side Skirts, Gap Fairings, and a Rear Boat Tail ............. 5-12
Figure 5-3. LNG Tank on a Heavy-Duty Truck ........................................................................ 5-31
Figure 5-4. Spatial Densities of Road Networks in World Regions .......................................... 5-37
Figure 5-5. Road Density in Russia, Brazil, China, and India ................................................... 5-37
Figure 5-6. Trailer on Flatcar Intermodal Transport .................................................................. 5-42
Figure 5-7. Container on Flatcar Intermodal Transport ............................................................. 5-43
Figure 6-1. Example of Intermodal Transportation for Freight ................................................... 6-2
Figure 6-2. AVANTE Electronic Cargo Tracking System .......................................................... 6-4
Figure 6-3. Rising Marine Bunker Fuel Prices .......................................................................... 6-12
Figure 6-4. Boom in Shipping Trade ......................................................................................... 6-13
Figure 7-1. Truck CO2 Emissions Reductions, U.S. EPA SmartWay Program, 2004–2013 ...... 7-2
Figure 7-2. Fuel Cost Savings, U.S. EPA SmartWay Program, 2004–2013 ............................... 7-3

v
 Executive Summary
Global freight, transported predominately by diesel engines, is a major and rapidly increasing
source of black carbon and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Diesel emissions are powerful
climate forcers, 1 as well as dangerous air pollutants with multiple impacts on health and
ecosystems. Freight transport in particular has relatively high environmental impacts compared
to passenger transport in terms of fuel use, black carbon, CO2 emissions, and other pollutants.
For example, as shown in the figure below trucks represent only 9 percent of vehicles on the road
in Asia, but contribute 54 percent of transport-related CO2 emissions. Globally, CO2 emissions
from freight transport are growing more quickly than emissions from passenger vehicles, with
heavy-duty vehicles expected to be the largest emitter of CO2 from all transportation modes by
2035.

Figure ES-1. Asian Transportation CO2 Emissions by Type of Vehicle

Clean Air Asia (2012)

The Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC) is overseeing a growing international partnership
to reduce short-lived climate pollutants. Through its Green Freight Initiative, the CCAC is
working to achieve substantial reductions of black carbon and CO2 emissions from heavy-duty
diesel vehicles and engines in the transportation sector. By supporting green freight programs
and strategies, governments and the private sector can simultaneously reduce climate impacts
and enhance the energy and environmental efficiency of global goods.

Multinational freight shippers, such as manufacturers, retailers, and other cargo owners, are
under increasing pressure from shareholders, customers, and insurers to reduce their carbon
footprints and mitigate the risks associated with higher fuel prices. Through participation in
green freight programs, shippers can help create a demand for greener freight services
worldwide, encouraging their multinational freight carriers and logistics providers throughout
their supply chains to adopt new efficiency strategies and emission reduction technologies.

1
Climate forcers include gases and particles that warm the atmosphere by trapping the earth’s outgoing radiation.

vi
Central to these efforts, green freight programs seek to provide both shippers and their carriers
with reliable and quantifiable information regarding fuel-saving and emission reduction
strategies. This information allows program participants to make more informed decisions in
order to reduce fuel costs, black carbon, greenhouse gases, and other pollutants in the most cost-
effective way. By laying the groundwork for benchmarking, reporting and incentivizing these
reductions, green freight programs facilitate the adoption of clean fuel standards, emission
control technologies, and fuel efficiency improvements for both in-use and new vehicle fleets.

Many countries, regions, and private sector associations are in various stages of developing and
implementing green freight programs. By coordinating and collaborating, government agencies
can make their efforts more consistent and more economical. Performance benchmarking, tools,
and metrics are all ways to formalize collaboration. The result will be a pathway for protecting
public health, reducing short-lived climate forcers, and enhancing energy security and
sustainable economic development.

The CCAC is developing a Global Green Freight Action Plan, with input from the private sector
and other stakeholders, to provide a roadmap for the advancement and harmonization of green
freight programs globally, with the aim of reducing black carbon and CO2 emissions as well as
fuel consumption. The Action Plan will also provide methodologies and tools that will promote
the sharing of performance benchmarking data and encourage the adoption of proven
technologies and strategies. In addition, the Action Plan will define an information exchange
platform structure for the dissemination of best-practices, successful strategies, technology
recommendations, and emission estimates.

Several key findings can be drawn from this analysis:

• Truck transport generally dominates all other domestic freight modes, while marine vessels
carry the vast majority of international freight.
• The carbon-intensity of freight movement, as measured in g CO2/tonne-km, varies widely by
mode. Therefore, switching from high- to low-carbon-intensity modes can have a substantial
impact on overall fuel consumption and emissions where the transport network and
infrastructure allows.
• As an alternative to mode switching, a variety of technologies and operational strategies are
also available to improve the fuel efficiency and reduce emissions associated with in-use
freight trucks, including aerodynamic retrofits, idle reduction, low-rolling-resistance tires,
alternative fuels, telematics, and improved logistics, among many others.
• Adopting packages of these strategies can frequently reduce fuel consumption by 10 percent
or more, depending upon site- and fleet-specific factors.

Green freight programs can play a role in spurring technological advances in engine,
tractor/trailer, and tire design. For example, the use of aerodynamic truck and trailer treatments
such as gap reducers can reduce fuel consumption by 5 percent or more. In addition, the
pervasiveness of computer- and GPS-based freight tracking systems allows for significant
improvements in operational efficiency, such as the reduction of empty back-hauls. Green freight
programs can help to bring those innovations to market at scale, which drives down costs.

vii
The type of fuel used for freight movement also has a significant impact on black carbon and
CO2 emissions. Diesel and marine bunker fuel have high energy densities and dominate global
freight transport. While switching from diesel to gaseous fuels such as natural gas, or electricity,
can dramatically reduce black carbon emissions, these options are frequently limited to niche
applications. However, the widespread provision of ultra-low-sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuel enables
the introduction of new emission control technologies such as diesel particulate filters. Green
freight programs can promote the adoption of these measures by packaging them with fuel-
saving strategies such as aerodynamic retrofits or idle reduction technologies. In this way, the
resulting fuel savings can help cover the incremental costs associated with black carbon control
measures. One objective of the CCAC initiative is for all countries to adopt ULSD standards, as
well as the implementation of diesel vehicle emission standards equivalent to advanced (EuroVI)
levels.

Green freight programs around the world have developed a variety of approaches to promote the
adoption of energy-saving and emission-reducing strategies. The focus of these programs, the
types and numbers of partners included, and their data collection, performance benchmarking,
and reporting methodologies depend on the transport modes addressed, the pollutants and
performance metrics of interest, as well as the geographic regions involved. Many of these
programs have consistently demonstrated potential for significant emission reductions in a wide
variety of locations and operating conditions. The most successful green freight programs are
based on the business case for fuel savings; they incentivize investments in fuel savings
technologies and operational strategies, resulting in substantial cost savings to operators. In this
way the programs generate a “win-win” outcome, with both financial and environmental
benefits.

Although the green freight programs evaluated in this report differ in a number of substantive
ways, several common features were found that lead to program success:

• Extensive stakeholder involvement in all aspects of program design, deployment and

operation is crucial to long-term success. Although the business-to-business nature of green
freight programs presents unique challenges, these can be overcome through strong
stakeholder commitment and participation in developing a program vision, quantification
methodology, and measurement methods, as well as balancing concerns for transparency
with confidentiality and data security.
• Programs should have representatives from across the entire supply chain, including
shippers, carriers, and logistics providers, as well as key affiliates such as trade associations
to foster mutual trust between partners and program administrators.
• Successful programs integrate both “push” (carrier-driven) and “pull” (shipper-driven)
elements to varying degrees, reflecting the strategic and market value of performance
measurement and evaluation for carriers, as well as the importance of reliable carbon
footprinting and benchmarking for shippers.
• Programs can be successful under a variety of administrative structures, with active
leadership coming from industry, government, and/or other research organizations/NGOs.
The appropriate structure will depend upon the data needs and preferences of the region,

viii
 transport modes, and target participants. The key is to provide industry with a trusted,
impartial arbiter ensuring that performance data are reliable and secure.
• Programs should be provided with consistent, reliable funding (commensurate with program
goals and commitments) and qualified, trained staff in order to ensure sustained
communication with partners, effective data management, reliable program performance
assessment, and successful outreach and recruiting.

While green freight programs will continue to have substantial positive impacts domestically and
regionally, global harmonization is critical to continued expansion and greater emissions
reductions. Until programs are harmonized or aligned across modes with standard metrics,
programs will be limited in their ability to reach and fully inform the market, help shippers and
carriers improve their efficiency, and foster additional emission reductions.

Although many challenges lie ahead, these goals are attainable, and there has already been
significant progress in regional harmonization efforts. As these efforts continue over time, the
above challenges will likely be addressed in ways not currently foreseen. The CCAC Partners are
currently responding to the Green Freight Call to Action in a variety of creative ways, leveraging
both public and private resources to expand the adoption of cost-effective CO2 and black carbon
reduction strategies across all freight sector modes and regions of the globe. Working together,
these stakeholders are well-positioned to develop a successful roadmap for the next steps of
green freight program expansion and integration.

ix
 1.0 Summary of CCAC Green Freight Call to Action and Action Plan
1.1 Background

The Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC) is overseeing a growing international partnership
with the primary goal of enhancing global, regional, and national public-private efforts to reduce
short-lived climate pollutants. This effort includes a number of programs that cover heavy-duty
diesel vehicles and engines, brick production, the municipal and solid waste sector, household
cooking and domestic heating, oil and natural gas production, alternative hydrofluorocarbon
technologies, and the agriculture sector.

As part of its initiative with heavy-duty diesel vehicles and engines, the CCAC is working to
achieve substantial reductions of black carbon and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the
transportation sector through its Green Freight Initiative. The movement of freight throughout
the world, especially via heavy-duty diesel engines, is a major and rapidly increasing contributor
of these substances to our environment. While important to economic development and global
trade, diesel emissions are powerful climate forcers as well as dangerous air pollutants with
multiple impacts on health and ecosystems. To address this concern, one objective of the
initiative is for all countries to adopt lower-sulfur diesel standards of 50 ppm or lower (with the
ultimate target being 10 ppm), as well as the implementation of diesel vehicle emission standards
equivalent to EuroVI levels. 2

The strength of national economies is becoming more dependent on international trade, raising
the significance and impact of having an efficient and competitive freight transport sector. The
continued growth in the globalization of supply chains means that an energy-efficient and
sustainable global freight industry is essential to economic growth and sustainable development
across the world. Inefficient freight movement, especially in developing countries, can prove to
be a bottleneck to economic growth, while also impacting the environment. Improving the
energy and environmental efficiency of goods movement represents an opportunity for both cost
savings and emissions reductions.

Freight transport has relatively high environmental impacts when compared to passenger
transport in terms of fuel use, black carbon, CO2 emissions, and other pollutants. In Asia, for
example, trucks represent only 9 percent of vehicles on the road, but contribute 54 percent of
transport CO2 emissions. Globally, CO2 emissions from freight transport are growing at a faster
rate than emissions from passenger vehicles. In particular, heavy-duty vehicles are expected to
be the largest emitter of CO2 from all transportation modes by 2035. (In Asia, for example,
heavy-duty vehicles will produce more than 2,500 million tons of CO2 emissions per year by
2035—far more than any other type of on-road transportation, even though those other types
outnumber heavy-duty vehicles. 3) Therefore, improving the energy and environmental efficiency
of the freight transport sector is a critical element of reducing global black carbon and CO2
emissions. By supporting green freight programs and strategies, governments and the private

2
Climate and Clean Air Coalition (2013). Initiatives. Retrieved from
http://www.unep.org/ccac/Portals/50162/HLA/norway/docs/CCAC%20Initiatives%20Factsheet%20-%20EN.pdf.
3
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2012). Reducing Black Carbon Emissions in South Asia. Retrieved from
http://www2.epa.gov/international-cooperation/opportunities-reduce-black-carbon-emissions-asia.

1-1
sector can simultaneously reduce climate impacts and make the global goods movement more
sustainable.

Multinational freight shippers, such as manufacturers, retailers, and other cargo owners, can
create the demand and drive for greener freight services worldwide by sourcing goods and
materials throughout their global supply chain (often in developing economies) and distributing
goods from producers to consumers. These firms are under increasing pressure from
shareholders, customers, and insurers to reduce their carbon footprint and the risks associated
with higher fuel prices. This market pressure can be applied to multinational freight carriers and
logistics providers, as well as national and local carriers, to drive new efficiencies and emission
reductions from their freight supply chains.

However, in order for market forces to work efficiently, performance benchmarking and freight
efficiency data is required for informed decision-making, as shippers can better optimize their
carrier and modal choices when they have reliable data about their emissions characteristics.
Here government agencies and other stakeholders can assist by providing the market with
information about proven successful technologies and other strategies to reduce the emissions
intensity of freight, which can help bring these high-potential opportunities to scale.

1.2 Global Green Freight Call to Action

The CCAC “Green Freight Call to Action” endorsed by CCAC Partners at the High Level
Assembly in Warsaw, Poland, on November 21, 2013, commits CCAC Partners to collaborate
with stakeholders to develop a Global Green Freight Action Plan by December 2014 (see
Appendix B). At this meeting, the Partners in the CCAC declared their determination to improve
the energy efficiency and environmental performance of freight operations worldwide. The goal
of this initiative is to implement the Global Green Freight Action Plan through worldwide
public-private partnerships; a cornerstone of this effort will be a common blueprint for countries
and regions that aim to establish, or are already implementing, green freight programs.

In a number of countries, including CCAC Partner countries, public-private partnerships through

green freight programs have demonstrated the capacity to improve the environmental
performance and energy efficiency of freight transportation, as well as enhance the energy
security of participating countries while reducing emissions of black carbon and CO2. Significant
efficiency gains and emissions reductions can be achieved by accelerating the adoption of
advanced technologies and operational strategies in multimodal goods movement, including
through modal shifts, for example from truck to rail. Such measures would also deliver
considerable air quality and near term climate protection benefits.

Many countries, regions, and private sector associations are in various stages of developing and
implementing green freight programs. By coordinating and collaborating, government agencies
can make their efforts more consistent and more economical. Performance benchmarking, tools,
and metrics are all ways to formalize collaboration. The result will be a pathway for protecting
public health, reducing short-lived climate forcers, and enhancing energy security and
sustainable economic development.

1-2
Recognizing existing efforts and opportunities, the CCAC Partners are committed to providing a
forum to promote cooperation among countries and between international organizations, as well
as a platform to engage the private sector that will expand and harmonize green freight programs
globally.

In making the Green Freight Call to Action, the CCAC Partners will collaborate with
stakeholders to develop and deploy a coordinated Global Green Freight Action Plan that shall be
implemented through public-private partnerships worldwide. The Action Plan will provide a
common roadmap and program templates that can help to harmonize and coordinate the
development of green freight programs, ease implementation, facilitate information sharing, and
incorporate a large knowledge base of previous efforts. It will also provide a platform for
companies to share best practices, promote innovation, and communicate sustainability
improvements on the multimodal transportation of freight.

Toward this end, the primary goal of this Green Freight Call to Action is to support, advance and
grow these programs to achieve fuel savings and efficiency gains, cost savings, and black carbon
and CO2 emission reductions. Inherent in achieving this objective will be securing a commitment
from CCAC Partners, the private sector and other key stakeholders around the world to work
together on developing and implementing the Global Green Freight Action Plan.

1.3 Global Green Freight Action Plan

The CCAC is developing a Global Green Freight Action Plan to provide a blueprint and roadmap
for the advancement and harmonization of Green Freight programs globally with the aim of
reducing CO2 and black carbon emissions. To achieve this goal, the CCAC is seeking the
participation of industry-leading multinational firms that ship or carry goods through a multi-
modal supply chain, CCAC member countries, development banks, and other stakeholders to
provide input, insight and guidance on the development of a Global Green Freight Action Plan. It
is hoped that freight logistics firms, carriers and retail shippers, manufacturers, and
representatives of other key economic sectors will participate in the process. Additionally,
government officials from CCAC countries will be engaged to provide political support for this
initiative. The Green Freight Steering Group will lead the process with government officials
from the U.S. and Canada, the International Council on Clean Transportation, World Bank,
Clean Air Asia, and Smart Freight Centre.

The process will consist of a series of roundtable meetings and conference calls that will allow
the participants the opportunity to provide leadership, input, insight and guidance on the
development and launch of the Green Freight Action Plan. The successful implementation of the
Action Plan will accelerate the adoption of advanced technologies and operational strategies in
multi-modal goods movement, initially targeting road freight. The Action Plan will outline
policies, technologies and strategies to foster accelerated and successful implementation of green
freight technologies while achieving reductions in black carbon and CO2 emissions, the latter of
which will inherently improve fuel economy. Additionally, the Action Plan will provide
methodologies and tools that will promote the sharing of performance benchmarking data and
encourage the adoption of proven technologies and strategies. Lastly, the Action Plan will define
an information exchange platform structure for the dissemination of best-practices, successful
strategies, technology recommendations and emission estimates that will help shippers optimize

1-3
supply chain performance and help carriers and logistics firms identify solutions to reduce black
carbon emissions and improve fuel economy by reducing black carbon and CO2 emissions for
their clients.

The CCAC Action Plan will help create political momentum globally for green freight and bring
together governments collectively at the global level to engage with private sector companies
and the various other initiatives with which they are involved. In addition, the CCAC Action
Plan will highlight the need for black carbon reduction initiatives to be included in new and
existing green freight programs alongside CO2 emission goals.

1.4 Technical Background Paper Overview

The purpose of this document is to provide a global overview of freight sector operations;
environmental impacts of freight emissions; available in-use technologies and strategies; and
program status and initiatives, while highlighting gaps in our knowledge with regard to
emissions data, program implementation status or specific regional conditions.
Recommendations are provided to address these knowledge gaps wherever possible. The
overarching goal is that this work will provide a foundation for the CCAC to move forward in
their development of an Action Plan.

The document is organized into the following chapters, which provide specific technical
background information to support the development and implementation of the Green Freight
Action Plan:

• Chapter 1 presents background information on the CCAC’s goals and initiatives.

• Chapter 2 provides an overview of the global freight sector, including growth trends by
region and mode, health and safety impacts, and fuel and emission standards, all of which
impact the opportunities for green freight program development.
• Chapter 3 provides an overview of existing green freight programs around the world,
highlighting commonalities and differences as well as identifying important information
gaps. The evaluation attempts to identify which programs and approaches have been
particularly successful in fostering freight industry participation and generating fuel savings
and emission reductions. Detailed characterization of these programs will help support the
goals of the Green Freight Action Plan by identifying common, successful program elements
that in turn can provide a framework for developing and harmonizing green freight efforts
worldwide.
• Chapter 4 provides an overview of freight truck, rail, marine, and aircraft fleets, and
describes how their characteristics influence the technologies and operational strategies that
can be applied to the different types of fleets.
• Chapters 5 and 6 identify a wide variety of strategies that are available to reduce the fuel
consumption and emissions associated with these vehicles and engines. All of the approaches
discussed in these chapters can be pursued through collaboration between governments,
private industry, and other stakeholders so that resources can be leveraged to their fullest
extent, and the goals of the Global Green Freight Call to Action can be realized.

1-4
• Chapter 7 summarizes the findings of the report, identifies elements common to green
freight program success, and discusses the prospects for harmonization across programs in
the future.

1-5
2.0 Global Goods Movement and Associated Impacts
2.1 Overview of Green Freight Opportunities in the Global Freight Sector

Opportunities for green freight initiatives exist throughout the world in developed and
developing economies; however, any given opportunity will be uniquely shaped by many factors
including a country’s current level of exports, economy, and existing infrastructure and
transportation systems. This initial discussion focuses on those three factors—though other
characteristics, such as population, political stability, and geography, also play key roles in
development and implementation of a green freight program).

The information in this chapter highlights some of the characteristics and trends in today's global
freight sector. In general, freight data are more readily available for countries with well-
developed and rapidly developing freight sectors. Accordingly, the following tends to highlight
information from such regions as North America, the EU, Russia, China, and Brazil.

In 2008, 51 percent of global exports by value were from 10 countries, with 26 percent alone
coming from the United States, Germany, and China. The top 25 exporting countries accounted
for 76 percent of all exports; of these 25, none were on the African continent and only Brazil was
in South America. Figure 2-1 illustrates this in more detail and also provides additional context
to help appreciate where the bulk of trade is occurring, as well as which countries or regions play
dominant roles. The importance of North America, Europe, Pacific Rim nations, and India is
clearly highlighted in the figure. Additionally, it can be seen that Middle Eastern countries such
as Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates also have considerable export activity—
chiefly due to their crude oil exports.

2-1
 Figure 2-1. Value of World Goods Exports by Country: 2008

U.S. Department of Transportation

Similar trends can be seen in gross domestic product (GDP): the United States, Japan, China,
Germany, and France, the world’s top five economies, accounted for 50 percent of global GDP
($30.1 trillion out of $60.9 trillion). Again, no African countries ranked in the top 25 in terms of
GDP, and Brazil (#10) is the only South American country. Table 2-1 provides a complete list of
the top 25 economies in 2008 as well as their ranking in 1995 and 2000, which allows one to see
how a country’s position has fluctuated over this 13-year period. China and Russia have moved
up in position, although China has made a slow and consistent move while Russia actually
moved down from 1995 to 2000 but then jumped 11 places in the next eight years. In addition,
the other “BRIC” nations, 4 India and Brazil, have stayed relatively static in comparison, which
again emphasizes the uniqueness across countries that are often grouped together.

4
Brazil, Russia, Indonesia, and China.

2-2
 Table 2-1. World’s Leading Economies by GDP

U.S. Department of Transportation

The World Trade Organization’s 2013 report provides some additional insight into the historical
flow of merchandise between countries. 5 The figure below illustrates the percentage of world
merchandise exports for 12 economies. The figure is structured so that the economies’ share of
world exports are ordered from smallest to largest in 2012. This allows one to more clearly see
how the share of world trade has shifted over the course of time. The graph clearly illustrates
globalization and the shift of export growth toward Asian economies over the last 50 to 60 years.

5
World Trade Organization (2013). International Trade Statistics 2013. Retrieved from
http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/its2013_e/its13_toc_e.htm.

2-3
 Figure 2-2. World Merchandise Exports
25
Brazil Australia and New Zealand
India Mexico
Canada United Kingdom
Italy France
Japan Germany (Federal Republic 1948-1983)
20 United States China

15
Percent

10

0
1948 1953 1963 1973 1983 1993 2003 2012

A nation’s existing infrastructure and transportation system is also an important factor to

consider for any program designed to improve freight operations by increasing efficiency and
reducing environmental impacts. Table 2-2 lists the top 25 countries ranked by total roadway
mileages. The table also includes data on railways, waterways, pipelines, and airports. It can be
seen that these are the same countries with the top 25 GDP rankings, although very few have the
same position in both tables. The relatively large area of the United States coupled with a lower
population density and higher urban population leads to relatively more freight activity, as goods
must be moved longer distances from where they are manufactured or imported to consumers.
Consequently, as can be seen in the table below, the United States has the world’s most extensive
freight network in terms of kilometers of paved roads, railways, waterways, pipelines, and
airports. In some categories this difference is dramatic— for example, the United States has
5,146 airports and the country with the next highest number is Indonesia, with 669. Although
airports themselves are not strongly correlated to the movement of freight, they are correlated
with the movement of people, and the ability of executives or sales personnel to easily visit each
other, clients, and potential customers may be an important precursor to the actual movement of
goods and freight.

2-4
 Table 2-2. Extent of Physical Transportation Systems
in the World’s Top Economies: 2008

U.S. Department of Transportation

Table 2-1 provided historical GDP data that allow the overall economic growth of a nation to be
assessed for the past 13 years. However, growth can also be measured in terms of road traffic, as
shown in the tables and figures below for the emerging market economies of Brazil, China, and
Russia. 6 These data illustrate the following:

• Road freight sector growth

o Data were not available for Brazil.
o China’s road freight traffic grew from 784 million tonne-kilometers in 2004 to more than
five billion in 2011 (a 554 percent increase).

6
BRICS (2012). BRICS Joint Statistical Publication 2012. Retrieved from
http://mospi.nic.in/mospi_new/upload/bricks_2012_24aug12/htm/.

2-5
 o Russia’s growth over the same time frame was much more modest, from 182 million to
223 million tonne-kilometers (a 23 percent increase).
• Rail freight sector growth
o Brazil increased from 170 to 278 million tonne-kilometers from 2002 to 2010 (a 61
percent increase).
o China increased from 1.9 to 2.9 billion tonne-kilometers from 2004 to 2011 (a 53 percent
increase).
o Russia increased from 1.8 to 2.1 billion tonne-kilometers from 2004 to 2011 (a 17 percent
increase).
• Air freight sector growth
o Brazil increased from 6.8 to 8.5 million tonne-kilometers from 2002 to 2008 (a 25
percent increase).
o China increased from 7.2 to 17.2 million tonne-kilometers from 2004 to 2011 (a 139
percent increase).
o Russia increased from 3 billion to 4.9 billion tonne-kilometers from 2004 to 2011 (a 63
percent increase).

Based on growth rates and relative economy sizes, it is clear from these data that these countries
provide opportunities within multiple modes of transportation for green freight initiatives to be
explored.

Table 2-3. Road Freight Sector Growth

Road (million tons-km) 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
784,090 869,320 975,425 1,135,469 3,286,819 3,718,882 4,338,967 5,133,316
China
10.87% 12.21% 16.41% 189.47% 13.15% 16.67% 18.31%
182,141 193,597 198,766 205,849 216,276 180,136 199,341 222,823
Russia
6.29% 2.67% 3.56% 5.07% -16.71% 10.66% 11.78%

2-6
 Figure 2-3. Road Freight Sector Growth

Road Freight
6,000,000

5,000,000
million km-tons

4,000,000

3,000,000
China
2,000,000
Russia
1,000,000

0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Year

Table 2-4. Rail Freight Sector Growth

Rail (million tons-km) 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
170,178 182,644 205,711 221,633 238,054 257,118 266,967 245,316 277,922
Brazil
7.33% 12.63% 7.74% 7.41% 8.01% 3.83% -8.11% 13.29%
1,928,880 2,072,600 2,195,441 2,379,700 2,510,628 2,523,917 2,764,413 2,946,579
China
7.45% 5.93% 8.39% 5.50% 0.53% 9.53% 6.59%
1,801,601 1,858,093 1,950,830 2,090,337 2,116,240 1,865,305 2,011,308 2,127,212
Russia
3.14% 4.99% 7.15% 1.24% -11.86% 7.83% 5.76%

Figure 2-4. Rail Freight Sector Growth

2-7
 Table 2-5. Air Freight Sector Growth

Air (million tons-km) 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
6,796 6,677 7,343 8,185 7,725 7,604 8,535
Brazil
-1.75% 9.97% 11.47% -5.62% -1.57% 12.24%
7,180 7,890 9,428 11,639 11,960 12,623 17,890 17,166
China
9.89% 19.49% 23.45% 2.76% 5.54% 41.73% -4.05%
3,003 2,830 2,927 3,424 3,692 3,558 4,715 4,950
Russia
-5.74% 3.43% 16.98% 7.80% -3.63% 32.54% 4.98%

Figure 2-5. Air Freight Sector Growth

Figure 2-6 presents projected future growth in global freight by major region, as well as
passenger transportation from 2020 through 2050, showing a general continuation of current
trends. The figure, expressed in terms of tonne-km per capita per year for freight, also clearly
indicates that the intensity of freight activity per person is strongly trending upward in all but the
OECD countries.

2-8
 Figure 2-6. Projected Global Passenger and Freight Growth by Region, 2020–2050 (Tonne-km per Capita per Year) 7

LAM: Latin America and the Caribbean

MAF: Middle East and North Africa
EIT: economies in transition
OECD 1990: countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in 1990

7
The IPCC analysis provides “high” and “low” intensity scenario projections for each region, as indicated by the solid and dashed lines, respectively. Source: Sims
R., R. Schaeffer, F. Creutzig, X. Cruz-Núñez, M. D’Agosto, D. Dimitriu, M.J. Figueroa Meza, L. Fulton, S. Kobayashi, O. Lah, A. McKinnon, P. Newman, M.
Ouyang, J.J. Schauer, D. Sperling, and G. Tiwari (2014). Transport. Figure 8.10 in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2014:
Mitigation of Climate Change.

2-9
 2.2 Health, Logistics, Technology, and Black Carbon Emissions
Economic Impacts
Black carbon is emitted directly into the
atmosphere as a part of PM2.5 emissions and it is
There are many important reasons for establishing a the most strongly light-absorbing component of
green freight program. The freight industry has far- particulate matter. There is not a set fraction of
reaching and complex environmental, social, and PM2.5 that is black carbon in a given sample;
economic impacts that accrue at the local level but however, an EPA study 10 estimated that in 2005
have global consequences as well. While it provides a the United States emitted 5.5 million tons of
PM2.5 and of that 12 percent was black carbon.
critical service to the world’s growing population, it Black carbon is a component of PM that comes
also accounts for a significant portion of total black from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels,
carbon and GHG emissions and other pollutants from biofuels, and biomass. Older, less efficient
the transport sector. In certain regions of the world, engines and higher-sulfur diesel fuels are
the freight sector’s contribution of GHG emissions significant sources of black carbon. It is very
effective at absorbing light and also reduces the
can be inordinately high. For example, in India, only reflectivity of snow and ice, which contributes to
5 percent of vehicles are trucks, yet they consume 46 increased temperatures and accelerated
percent of transport fuel and generate 63 percent of snowmelt. Black carbon is of particular concern
CO2 and 59 percent of particulate matter emissions due to its very high global warming potential—
(which includes black carbon). 8 by some estimate 680 times higher than CO2’s
on a mass basis. 11
As globalization and urbanization continues, developing economies grow, and standards of
living continue to rise, fuel consumption and emissions associated with freight movement will
rise as well. By the year 2050, medium- and heavy-duty freight trucks worldwide are projected
to consume 1,240 billion liters of fuel, a 138 percent increase over 2000 levels. 9

2.2.1 Health

Oxides of nitrogen and particulate matter, including black carbon, are key diesel pollutants that
are produced by the diesel engines that are the workhorses of the freight industry. Those
emissions contribute to serious public health problems, including premature mortality, and
contribute to the creation of ground-level ozone. These pollutants aggravate respiratory and
cardiovascular diseases, which can result in increased hospital admissions, emergency room
visits, and school absences; lost work days; and restricted activity days. Additionally, since 2002,
EPA has classified exposure to diesel exhaust as likely to be carcinogenic to humans. 12

Children, the elderly, and people with existing health conditions are disproportionately affected
by emissions generated by the freight industry because their cardiovascular, respiratory, and
immune systems are more vulnerable to pollutants. In addition, freight yards, ports, borders, and

8
Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (n.d.). The rise of green freight in Asia. Retrieved from
http://cleanairinitiative.org/portal/sites/default/files/Rise_of_Green_Freight_in_Asia_-_CAI-Asia_-_Sep_2012.pdf.
9
Ibid.
10
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2012). Basic information. http://www.epa.gov/blackcarbon/basic.html.
11
Hill, B. (2009). The Carbon Dioxide Equivalent Benefits of Reducing Black Carbon Emissions from U.S. Class 8
Trucks Using Particular Filters: A Preliminary Analysis. Retrieved from
http://www.catf.us/resources/publications/files/CATF-BC-DPF-Climate.pdf.
12
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2002). Health Assessment Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust. Retrieved
from http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/dieselfinal.pdf.

2-10
 other areas of concentrated truck/rail activity are often located near lower-income
neighborhoods, with their emissions disproportionately impacting these communities.

Given these realities, green freight programs can provide considerable benefits to public health
as economies grow and nations become more heavily populated and there is an increasing
reliance on diesel fuel to move freight and drive commerce.

2.2.2 Traffic Congestion

The freight industry demands space on roads for moving its products by truck. Freight movement
can exacerbate already congested roadways, particularly in urban areas, increasing the costs
associated with lost productivity. For example, recent estimates put the daily cost of traffic
congestion at $55 million per day in the Philippines. 13 More efficient freight operations, such as
reducing empty-miles, can both help reduce congestion and minimize freight-related
infrastructure needs and pollution. Furthermore, as urban populations and vehicle ownership
grow (estimates suggest that globally people living in cities will nearly double, to 6.3 billion, by
2050 and at the same time vehicle ownership will also increase, particularly in developing
countries 14), freight efficiency will become imperative to minimizing congestion and
transportation-related air pollution.

2.2.3 Safety

All on-road traffic poses safety risks, including accidents resulting in injuries and loss of life. As
overall traffic volumes increase, so do such accidents. Large, heavy-duty trucks can be
responsible for a significant and increasing proportion of overall accidents and fatalities. For
example, Figure 2-7 shows truck-related fatalities in Brazil from 2000 to 2009, with the majority
of deaths occurring outside the truck (pedestrians or in automobiles). During this time, the
fatality incidence rate associated with truck accidents increased substantially faster than the
increase in total fatalities. 15, 16, 17 To the extent that Green Freight programs improve routing,
reduce kilometers travelled, and reduce truck speeds, overall roadway safety should also
improve.

13
Remo, M.V. (2013). Traffic costs P2.4B daily. Philippine Daily Inquirer. Retrieved from
http://business.inquirer.net/130649/traffic-costs-p2-4b-daily. (P2.4 billion at 0.023 U.S. dollars per Philippine peso.)
14
Shell Foundation (2012). Scaling Solutions for Sustainable Mobility.
15
Federal Highway Administration (n.d.). Table VM-1. In Highway Statistics 2010. Retrieved from
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2010/.
16
Ibid.
17
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: FARS and GES data.

2-11
 Figure 2-7. Fatalities in Truck and All Crashes

Fatality Rates
per 100 million vehicle-miles traveled

All Vehicles Large Trucks and Buses

1.15
2009
0.122

1.11
2010
0.133

1.1
2011
0.136

Figure 2-8. Injuries in Truck and All Crashes

2.2.4 Technology Advancement

Green freight programs can play a role in spurring technological advances in engine,
tractor/trailer, and tire design, as well as cleaner fuel standards. Programs can also help to bring
those innovations to market at scale, which drives down costs. For example, EPA’s SmartWay
Transport Partnership program has promoted the use of aerodynamic truck and trailer treatments
such as gap reducers, which have become increasingly common on tractor-trailer rigs in the
United States and can reduce fuel consumption by 5 percent or more. In addition, the
pervasiveness of computer- and GPS-based freight tracking systems allows for significant
improvements in operational efficiency, such as the reduction of empty back-hauls. As truck
fleets in other countries continue to take advantage of new efficiency technologies and logistics

2-12
 strategies, their adoption will become easier and less costly elsewhere. Freight carriers and
shippers that do not adopt these measures soon are likely to operate at a disadvantage relative to
their competition.

2.2.5 Fuel Costs

Fuel prices have a significant impact on freight carrier profitability and competitiveness. They
also affect the cost of delivering products to shippers and, ultimately, to consumers. In the United
States, along with labor, fuel costs represent the highest portion of operating costs for truck
freight transportation. 18 In some countries that rely on fuel imports, fuel costs may be responsible
for up to two-thirds of total freight costs. 19 So a green freight program that delivers improved
freight operating efficiency and reduced fuel consumption will have a direct economic benefit to
freight carriers, shippers, and the public. The figure below illustrates diesel fuel costs for the top
25 economies as measured by GDP in 2008 from October 2012 to March 2014. These are the
same countries listed in Table 2-1 above. 20

Figure 2-9. Diesel Fuel Costs for Top 25 Economies by GDP ($/Liter)

2.2.6 Other Economic Impacts

Freight efficiency has the potential to keep local capital local and frees up financial resources for
alternative uses. Additionally, a green freight program can foster new local business

18
American Transportation Research Institute (2010). An Analysis of the Operational Costs of Trucking. Retrieved from
http://www.atri-online.org/research/results/ATRITRBOpCosts.pdf.
19
U.N. Centre for Regional Development (2011). Best Practices in Green Freight for an Environmentally Sustainable
Road Freight Sector in Asia. p. 9. Retrieved from http://cleanairinitiative.org/portal/sites/default/files/BGP-
EST5A_Green_Freight_Best_Practices_-_CAI-Asia_Dec2011.pdf.
20
Data obtained from http://www.globalpetrolprices.com/diesel_prices/ (accessed January 28, 2014).

2-13
 opportunities. This could occur through the improvement of roadways, ports, and/or airports,
which certainly provide local job opportunities. In addition to this economic activity spurred by
infrastructure development, additional jobs associated with installing and maintaining clean
diesel technologies can be created and sustained from the demand driven by a green freight
program.

2.3 Emission Standards and Policy

Emission levels and potential reductions associated with freight carriers are significantly
influenced by vehicle/engine sizes, fuel types, and the age distribution of the fleet. In general,
large, older diesel engines will have higher PM and NOx emissions than newer and/or smaller
diesels. On the other hand, engines relying on gasoline or gaseous fuels (e.g., CNG, LNG, or
LPG) will have lower PM and NOx emissions, although they are likely to be less fuel-efficient
than comparable diesel engines. Emerging markets often have a greater proportion of smaller,
lighter trucks such as urban delivery vehicles compared to heavier, long-haul tractor-trailer rigs
(partly due to the higher capital cost of heavier trucks), but because many of these trucks are
obtained through the used vehicle market they are often relatively older and higher-polluting.

In order to lower emissions many advanced emission control technologies first require the
widespread availability of clean fuel such as ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel (typically less than 50
ppm sulfur, although precise definitions vary by region). Sulfur levels below 50 ppm are
important because emission control systems are poisoned and rendered ineffective when exposed
to higher levels of fuel sulfur.

Once clean fuel is available in a region, the emission concerns that are inherent with a legacy
fleet can be addressed using retrofit technologies. The availability and prevalence of emissions
control technologies and fuel efficiency retrofits vary depending on the relative cost and quality
of fuel, as well as the freight industry’s stage of market development. Mature markets are more
interested in fuel efficiency retrofits and often have higher investment in efficiency and pollution
control technologies. In emerging markets experiencing significant growth, there is often less
concern with emission control technologies that may actually increase fuel consumption, and for
that reason PM and NOx retrofits may have low adoption rates in the absence of other market
incentives, such as packaging fuel saving technologies with emissions reduction technologies.
For example, diesel particulate filters can reduce fuel economy by 2 to 4 percent. 21 If adopted
alone, these technologies do not offer cost savings; however, if vehicle PM and NOx controls can
be bundled with integrated fuel efficiency improvement strategies, fleet managers can effectively
offset these costs through greater overall fuel savings.

Because of the slow turnover of the heavy-diesel truck fleet, it can take decades to see the full
benefit of adopting emission standards for new vehicle engines. Figure 2-10 22 clearly
demonstrates this feature of the heavy truck fleet, showing the fraction of NOx, PM10, and total
mileage attributable to pre-2010 model year long-haul diesel trucks in the United States. Over
the period shown (2010–2020), the mileage fraction associated with these older trucks drops

21
Cambridge Systematics (2010). NCHRP 25-25 (Task 59): Evaluate the Interactions Between Transportation-Related
Particulate Matter, Ozone, Air Toxics, Climate Change, and Other Air Pollutant Control Strategies.
22
Source: MOVES 2010b.

2-14
dramatically (from roughly 90 to 20 percent). However, due to their much higher emission rates,
these older vehicles are still responsible for the majority of emissions in 2020 (~50 percent of
NOx and ~85 percent of PM). This disproportionate relationship between truck age and the
fraction of emissions highlights the need for programs to address the emissions associated with
the in-use (“legacy”) fleet through green freight programs and other strategies. A similar figure is
provided for the Hong Kong medium and heavy-duty fleet.

Figure 2-10. Emissions Fraction Attributable to Pre-2010 Trucks (United States)

1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
Fraction of Total

0.6
0.5 NOx
0.4 PM10
0.3 Mileage
0.2
0.1
0.0
2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
Calendar Year

Figure 2-11. Emissions Fraction Attributable to Pre-2010 Trucks (Hong Kong)

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
Fraction of Total

NOx
0.6
PM10
0.5
VKT
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
Calendar Year

Generally, emission standards are more stringent in mature markets than emerging markets. The
United States, Japan, and Western Europe lead the way in limiting commercial vehicle
emissions. In 2001, in the United States, EPA signed emission standards for heavy-duty highway

2-15
 engines model year 2007 and later for PM (0.01 g/bhp-hr), NOx (0.20 g/bhp-hr), and NMHC
(0.14 g/bhp-hr). However, standards are not limited to mature markets: environmental demands
in emerging markets are rising in China, India, and Russia, particularly in large metropolitan
areas. Combining information on vehicle age distributions with the phase-in of emissions and
fuel economy standards will help identify which portions of the carrier fleet are particularly high-
emitting and/or have relatively poor fuel economy.

Table 2-6 summarizes the historical emission standards for heavy on-road diesel engines in both
the United States and the EU, clearly demonstrating the progressive tightening of NOx and PM
limits over time. Table 2-7 illustrates emission standards in various other countries. 23

Table 2-6. United States and EU Heavy-Duty Emission Standards

Heavy-Duty Diesel Truck Emission Standards, EPA and EU

Engine Dynamometer Testing over Transient Cycles
EPA, Converted to g/kWh
Year HC CO NOx PM
1994 1.74 20.79 6.71 0.13
1998 1.74 20.79 5.36 0.13

2004 NMHC CO NMHC + NOx PM

Option 1 n/a 20.79 3.22 0.13
Option 2 0.67 20.79 3.35 0.13

2007+ NMHC1 CO NOx PM

0.19 20.79 0.27 0.013

EU, g/kWh
Date, Stage NMHC CO NOx PM
2000, Euro III 0.78 5.45 5 0.1
2005, Euro IV 0.55 4 3.5 0.02
2008, Euro V 0.55 4 2 0.02
2013, Euro VI 0.164 4 0.4 0.01

Notes
a
Sales-weighted phase-in from 2007 (50%) to 2010 (100%).
b
Most engines from 2007 to 2009 meet family emissions limit of ~1.6–2 g/kWh NOx.
c
Note that additional steady-state standards also applied to Euro III–Euro V.

23
http://www.dieselnet.com

2-16
 Table 2-7. Emission Standards in Other Countries (g/kWh)
EU Euro I Euro II Euro III Euro IV Euro V Euro VI
NOx 8.00 7.00 5 3.50 2.00 0.4
PM 0.36 0.15 0.1 0.02 0.02 0.01

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
NOx EU III Euro IV Euro V
Australia
PM
NOx Euro II Euro III Euro IV Euro V
Brazil
PM
NOx Euro I Euro II EU III Euro IV Euro V
China
PM
NOx Euro I Euro II Euro III
India
PM
NOx 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.38 3.38 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.7 0.7 0.7 Euro VI
Japan
PM 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.18 0.18 0.027 0.03 0.027 0.027 0.01 0.01 0.01
NOx Euro I Euro II EU III Euro IV Euro V
Russia
PM
NOx 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Euro III Euro IV Euro V Euro VI
South Korea
PM 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.15
NOx Euro I Euro IV Euro V Euro VI
Turkey
PM

As noted above, to meet tighter emission standards, advanced control technologies typically
require ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel (e.g., less than 50 ppm sulfur). Many areas, including the
United States, Western Europe, and Japan, have transitioned to such fuels. In 2006, the United
States implemented a diesel sulfur standard of 15 ppm. While emerging market countries have
begun to reduce the sulfur content in their fuels, they have not yet reached ultra-low levels:
China and India have both set maximum sulfur levels for diesel at 350 ppm, and China has set
further targets for the coming years (50 ppm by 2014, 10 ppm by 2017). 24 Green freight
programs can generate market demand for the adoption of the aggressive fuel quality standards
needed to enable the use of advanced emission control technologies, as discussed above. Table
2-8 provides a snapshot of sulfur levels in diesel fuel for nine countries over 15 years. Figure
2-12 shows fuel sulfur trends from 2005 through 2014, indicating how countries have made
significant progress in implementing low-sulfur diesel standards.

Table 2-8. Diesel Sulfur Levels in Various Countries25

TransportPolicy.net

24
TransportPolicy.net (2014). China: Fuels: Diesel and gasoline. Retrieved from
http://transportpolicy.net/index.php?title=China:_Fuels:_Diesel_and_Gasoline.
25
TransportPolicy.net (2014). Global comparison: Fuels. Retrieved from
http://transportpolicy.net/index.php?title=Global_Comparison:_Fuels.

2-17
 Figure 2-12. Global Fuel Sulfur Level Trends

Diesel Sulphur
2005 and 2014

• 13 countries at 50 ppm & below

• At least 5 more by end 2014
• More countries have lowered
sulphur levels
• More cities at 50 ppm

UNEP

2-18
Green freight programs can play a significant role in promoting the adoption of tighter emission
standards and implementation of low-sulfur diesel fuel. All of the opportunities outlined in this
chapter can be pursued through collaborative efforts between governments, private industry, and
other stakeholders so that all resources can be leveraged to the fullest advantage and the goals of
the Global Green Freight Call to Action will be realized.

2-19
3.0 Current and Developing Green Freight Programs
Green freight programs around the world have developed a variety of approaches to promote the
adoption of energy-saving and emission-reducing strategies such as those described in the
preceding chapters. The focus of these programs, the types and numbers of partners included,
and their data collection, performance benchmarking, and reporting methodologies depend on
the transport modes addressed, the pollutants and performance metrics of interest, as well as the
geographic regions involved.

While these programs vary in many ways, many of them share elements including:

• Standardized data collection and performance benchmarking processes that are organized by
a neutral party who can ensure protection of sensitive data as well as data consistency,
integrity, and verification.
• Streamlined and consistent methods for fuel, CO2, and/or other emissions measurement and
reporting.
• Active participation of the private sector in developing internally consistent green freight
policies and programs.
• Active collaboration among stakeholders (shippers, carriers, and logistics service providers)
to share best practices and jointly scale up green freight efforts.
• Consistent branding, outreach, and marketing initiatives to core stakeholder groups, high-
profile recognition events, and if possible, leverage financial support.

Central to these efforts, green freight programs seek to provide reliable and quantifiable
information regarding fuel-saving and emission reduction strategies. These programs aim to
accelerate the adoption of operational strategies and technologies in goods movement. This
information allows program participants to make more informed decisions in order to reduce fuel
costs, greenhouse gases, black carbon, and other pollutants in the most cost-effective way. By
laying the groundwork for measuring and incentivizing these reductions, green freight programs
facilitate the adoption of clean fuel standards, emission control technologies, and fuel efficiency
improvements for both in-use and new vehicle fleets.

Some programs, such as the SmartWay Transport Partnership in the U.S. and Canada, as well as
other national initiatives in China, Australia, Mexico, France, and Korea, are based on public-
private partnerships. These publicly funded programs rely on the close cooperation of
government agencies as well as private sector stakeholders such as freight carriers, shippers, and
logistics companies. Other initiatives, such as Green Freight Europe and Green Freight Asia, are
led by the private sector and do not use public funding. Although the public-private partnerships
and privately led initiatives may share many goals and quantification methodologies, their
different funding sources and organizations can lead to important differences in how the
programs are implemented and managed.

This chapter provides an overview of the status of existing green freight programs around the
world, highlighting commonalities and differences as well as identifying important information
gaps. The evaluation also attempts to identify which programs and approaches have been

3-1
particularly successful in fostering freight
Voluntary Partnership Programs
industry participation and generating fuel
savings and emission reductions. Detailed A voluntary partnership program is a structured
characterization of these programs will help relationship between a government agency and
support the goals of the CCAC’s Global multiple private sector entities to address a public
Green Freight Action Plan by identifying policy problem. Such problems can include air
pollution resulting from economic activity, energy
common, successful program elements that security, or other issues not fully addressed by private
in turn can provide a framework for sector markets. Voluntary partnership programs are
developing and harmonizing green freight becoming a popular policy tool around the globe. They
efforts worldwide. are deployed in lieu of, or as a complement to,
regulatory programs to achieve environmental goals.
They can be effective tools because they can spark
Green freight programs were identified for
action without legislation, regulations, or civil
inclusion in this background paper through a penalties.
combination of Web searches and contacts
with experts in the field. Mr. Buddy Polovick In a voluntary program, participants, or partners,
(of the U.S. EPA’s SmartWay program) and commit to benchmarking, monitoring, and sharing
information as well as taking specific verifiable actions
Ms. Sophie Punte (of the Smart Freight
beyond “business as usual.” In exchange, the
Centre) in particular provided a number of government agency commits to help remove market
contacts with various green freight programs and other barriers, providing a reliable source of
for information requests. performance data and technical support, furnishing
public recognition, and supplying other market
To identify programs for detailed evaluation, incentives. Typically, participation in a voluntary
program is codified in either a memorandum of
we adopted the following criteria: understanding or a partnership agreement. Both
documents are legally binding agreements that either
• The initiative must be a voluntary party can terminate at any time, if the terms are
truck/rail/marine freight program, violated, without fear of fines or other penalties.
targeting carriers, shippers, and/or
logistics companies. Voluntary partnership programs can be used to provide
grants or subsidies for equipment retrofits, engine
• The program must be ongoing or under rebuilds/early retirement (scrappage), and
active development (i.e., beyond the alternative/clean fuel adoption to reduce emissions.
Examples of such programs include EPA’s National
“paper study” stage). Clean Diesel Program and the California Air Resources
• The program must involve both benefit Board’s Carl Moyer Program. Voluntary green freight
programs such as SmartWay can be successful in
quantification methods and calculation collecting standardized, reliable activity and fuel
tools (planned or existing). consumption data from freight carriers and making
them available to their customers (shippers).
The above selection criteria excluded a wide
variety of general grant programs, such as Successful participants in partnership programs will
often find themselves “ahead of the curve” in terms of
EPA’s National Clean Diesel Campaign, as
meeting vehicle, fuel, and operational efficiency targets
well as programs not specific to freight if and when regulatory standards are adopted.
movement (e.g., the Carbon Disclosure Conversely, the data and knowledge obtained during
Project). While such programs can be the course of a well-run partnership program, such as
complementary to global green freight voluntarily submitted data on partner actions, facilities,
and resources, can also be used to inform successful
initiatives, they generally do not provide
regulatory programs and more effective environmental
enough specific information to facilitate full- policies down the line.
scale green freight program development and
harmonization.

3-2
 3.1 Detailed Program Summaries

The subsections below describe eight green freight programs in detail. The information available
on these programs varied significantly from program to program; this information came from
standard Web and literature searches, and (when certain important information could not be
gathered from those sources) from program contacts obtained from EPA and the Smart Freight
Centre.

Each summary begins with an overview of the program and its primary objectives, followed by a
table containing general information, data on partner participation levels, an overview of key
program components, any benefit estimates, and miscellaneous additional information. The
overviews conclude with a short assessment of program strengths with respect to breadth, depth,
precision, comparability, and verifiability. 26

3.1.1 SmartWay Transport Partnership27, 28, 29, 30

The SmartWay Transport Partnership was officially launched by

the U.S. EPA in 2004. EPA and Natural Resources Canada
(NRCan) worked to expand the program to Canada by establishing joint administration of the
SmartWay program under a letter of agreement dated July 2012. Under this agreement EPA and
NRCan have fully harmonized their data collection, emission calculation, and database
functionality for data sharing to create one seamless program, with the same partner recognition
and logo qualification requirements in each country. 31 Accordingly, SmartWay now covers all
U.S. and Canadian domestic truck, rail, intermodal, and barge freight transport. The integration
process between these two agencies has been successful and may serve as a template guiding
future program harmonization efforts. As SmartWay develops reciprocal agreements with other
countries developing compatible programs, the emission data from those countries could
potentially be included in a global SmartWay database.

SmartWay is the most extensive, mature green freight program in operation today. With over
3,100 shippers and carriers, the program covers roughly 30 percent of total freight miles travelled
in the United States, and its overall design has influenced other green freight programs as
discussed below. The SmartWay Tools and accompanying support database were designed to
form the basis of a global freight transportation carbon analysis system. Specific performance
data provided by Carrier Partners are processed to generate carrier-specific performance metrics
(e.g., grams per mile and grams per ton-mile for EPA, grams per kilometer and grams per tonne-

26
Program summary information was reviewed by program representatives, but not independently verified by ERG.
27
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2014). SmartWay. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/smartway/.
28
Natural Resources Canada (2014). SmartWay. Retrieved from
http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/efficiency/transportation/commercial-vehicles/smartway/7615.
29
Personal communications: Buddy Polovick, U.S. EPA, January–June 2014.
30
Personal communications: Jennifer Tuthill, Natural Resources Canada, January–June 2014.
31
Small but important differences between the programs include different Partnership Agreements reflecting the
differing legal frameworks and privacy issues in each country; the use of metric system reporting units and optional
French language text in the NRCan Tools; and assorted differences in information provided to Partners through
program Web pages.

3-3
 kilometer for NRCan), which are in turn used by shipper and logistics partners to help improve
their own emission footprints.

Along with BSR’s Clean Cargo Working Group, the SmartWay Transport Partnership is the
longest continually operating green freight program. Its durability and overall success are
attributable to a number of factors, most notably the broad and deep leadership and commitment
from its Partners. The 15 Charter Partners, including national and international carriers, shippers,
and trade organizations, provided EPA with key institutional knowledge of the freight industry
and helped legitimize the program from its inception. Over the last decade, SmartWay has
developed a particularly effective public-private partnership model, with a very broad range of
Partners across multiple modes as well as a wide variety of affiliates. SmartWay’s Shipper
Partners include some of the largest corporations in the world, and in key economic sectors such
as retail, manufacturing, consumer products and food and beverage; accordingly, these Partners
exert great influence on carrier participation and overall program visibility.

SmartWay also has an effective incentive and rewards system in place. Most importantly,
Shipper and Logistics Partners’ use of the publicly available carrier performance rankings is a
highly effective means of incentivizing carrier participation in the program, as well as promoting
continual improvement. In addition, the program has well-known, recognizable logos, clear logo
qualification criteria, and an Excellence Awards program. Logos are available for Partner
participation, 32 as well as for the use of verified tractor and trailer technologies. SmartWay has
made access and retrieval of Partner logos and program registration documents very easy
through the use of company-specific, secure “Partner Portals.” In the future it will be possible to
provide partners with company- and fleet-specific performance and benchmarking “business
intelligence” reports through the portal, giving program participants the ability to compare their
efficiency levels with other similar participants. For example, truckload dry van Partners could
compare their performance to the full distribution of other truckload dry van Partners.
Alternatively, shippers could compare their chosen carriers’ performance with that of shippers of
identical or similar commodities/freight modes. Summary “Performance Report Cards” tailored
for each partner are also under development.

Another key to SmartWay’s continued growth and success is the provision of broad
implementation support, including development and maintenance of outreach and education
materials, fuel savings and payback estimates for technology investments and operational
changes, online driver training, and a variety of other partner services. Adequate, consistent
funding over multiple years has been crucial to delivering high-quality, value-added services to
program participants. Both EPA and NRCan currently provide for full-time partner account
manager (PAM) support, as well as contractor support for tool and database development and
maintenance. PAMs are assigned specific Partners and establish long-term working relationships
with their Partner contacts, facilitating effective communication and promoting loyalty to the
program over time.

32
Partner logos are available for any participant submitting a complete, approvable tool on time each year.

3-4
 Program Element U.S. EPA NRCan
General Information/Program Organization
Program Cheryl Bynum Cara Scales
administrator/ EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality Chief, SmartWay Program
contact agency/ Transportation and Climate Division Natural Resources Canada
consortium funding SmartWay and Supply Chain Programs Center 613-793-0276; cara.scales@NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca
source 734-214-4844; bynum.cheryl@epa.gov
Program goals Reduce transportation-related emissions by creating incentives to Reduce energy use in the Canadian freight transportation sector.
improve freight supply chain energy and environmental Increase the accessibility of the SmartWay program to Canadian firms
efficiency. by offering it in French and English and in metric units.
Description SmartWay covers freight transport throughout the United States and Canada, and currently includes truck, rail, multi-modal, and barge
transportation modes. Shippers and logistics companies are also included. Future modes will include oceangoing marine and air cargo.
Start year Charter Partners joined in 2002; official launch 2004. Official launch September 2012, with the introduction of the Canadian
version of the SmartWay Truck Tool. Other modes were phased in
between 2012-2015.
Pollutants quantified Pollutants: CO2, NOx, PM10, PM2.5. Performance metrics (English units for EPA, metric for NRCan): g/mile, g/ton-mile, g/1,000 cubic
and performance foot-miles, g/utilized 1,000 cubic foot-miles.
metrics used
Annual funding Varies due to budgetary allowance. Budget includes contractor Varies due to budgetary allowance. During the period of the Canadian
range support and all programmatic costs including PAMS, but does launch and implementation (2011, 2012, 2013), the program received
not include federal employee salaries/benefits. approximately $3M (Canadian dollars) for contractor support and
program costs including federal employee salaries/benefits.
State of Fully developed “2.0” stage. Investigating methods for including larger numbers of small (owner-operator) fleets.
development
Partners
Number of partners Total: 2,884
(as of June 15, 2014)
• Truck: 2,114
• Rail: 20
• Multi-modal : 18
• Logistics: 481
• Shipper: 248
• Barge: 3

3-5
 Program Element U.S. EPA NRCan
Other key 226 affiliates as of June 15, 2014. The following types of organizations can become SmartWay affiliates:
stakeholders/
affiliates • SmartWay nonprofit affiliates are trade and professional associations, non-governmental organizations, academic institutions, and
governmental agencies that educate their constituents about the SmartWay program.
• SmartWay truck/trailer dealerships promote and sell tractors and trailers that have been SmartWay-designated by the U.S. EPA,
and/or promote and sell SmartWay-verified add-on technologies.
• SmartWay leasing companies promote and lease SmartWay-designated vehicles, tractors, or trailers to dealerships and/or multiple
franchises.
• SmartWay truck stops/travel plazas educate customers about ways to reduce long duration idling.
Program Components
Data collection / Annual fuel consumption and mileage reported by carriers; shippers and logistics companies report carrier-specific mileage and tonnage,
evaluation process which is matched with carrier-specific g/mile and/or g/ton-mile (g/km and or g/tonne-km in Canada) performance factors to calculate
emission footprint.

The NRCan truck tool also collects information on the specific fuel-saving and emission control strategies currently employed by
partners’ fleets, although this is not used for calculation.
Quantification CO2 benefit based on fuel consumption estimates combined with fuel factors by fuel type; NOx and PM benefits based on reported
methodologies mileage combined with MOVES 33 g/mile (or g/km) emission factor by truck class, fuel type, and engine model year. Separate emissions
calculated for truck refrigeration units using NONROAD model emission factors. Annual emission reductions calculated at the partner
level based on the incremental change in calculated gram per ton-mile (or km) emissions multiplied by the current year’s total ton-miles.
Data collection tools Excel forms using VBA programming. Tools downloaded through program Web pages.
Branding and Logos available for Partners in good standing, trucks and trailers meeting program specifications. Annual Excellence Awards based on
marketing strategies performance relative to peers and supplemental qualitative application for some categories. Outreach includes targeted advertising and
recruiting to key sectors such as retail, food and beverage, and consumer products.
Technology program Administered by the U.S. EPA, SmartWay’s Technology program develops test protocols, reviews strategies, and verifies the
details performance of vehicles, technologies, and equipment that have the potential to reduce greenhouse gases and other air pollutants from
freight transport. The program establishes credible performance criteria and reviews test data to ensure that vehicles, equipment, and
technologies will help fleets improve their efficiency and reduce emissions. For SmartWay Verified Technologies, EPA has evaluated the
fuel-saving benefits of various devices through grants, cooperative agreements, emissions and fuel economy testing, demonstration
projects, and technical literature review. As a result, EPA has determined the following types of technologies provide fuel-saving and/or
emission-reducing benefits when used properly in their designed applications: aerodynamic technologies, idle reduction technologies,
low-rolling-resistance tires, and retrofit technologies. Within each of these categories, EPA has verified specific products.
Financial assistance Previously sponsored a loan program; currently directs interested N/A
mechanisms parties to alternative grant opportunities such as DERA funding.

33
EPA’s Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator model (MOVES2010b)—see http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/.

3-6
 Program Element U.S. EPA NRCan
Partner account Eight for EPA; four for NRCan. Responsible for welcoming new partners into the program, informing partners about tool submittal
managers deadlines; answering questions and troubleshooting tool completions; uploading and reviewing/validating tools; and working with
Partners to document unusually extreme data entries, correct entry errors or other issues with tools, and upload approved tools.
Data management Oracle database with a ColdFusion interface; EPA and NRCan databases linked so PAMs and program administrators from one program
system can view the other program’s data.
Data quality Best practices guidance document on compiling data for tool submittal:
assurance measures http://www.epa.gov/smartway/forpartners/documents/dataquality/420b13005.pdf.

NRCan has developed a verification checklist and guidance for its partner account managers to use in the tool validation process.
Measurement/Impact
Estimated aggregate 51.6 MMTCE reduced since 2004 (combined program benefit). NRCan’s SmartWay Transport Partnership is evaluated upon:
benefits (annual
pollutant reduction, • Increased fuel efficiency in the freight trucking sector based on
fuel savings, etc.) year-over-year submissions of participants.
• Energy saved annually by March 2016 (as measured by
comparing fuel efficiency of participants with that of non-
participants).
Further Information
Further information Considering addition of black carbon to pollutants list. Will develop oceangoing vessel and air cargo tools next.

EPA and NRCan signed a letter of agreement in June 2012 to allow NRCan to administer EPA’s SmartWay program in Canada.
NRCan produces a benchmarking report and an energy efficiency toolkit for all of its partners to encourage and provide opportunities for
them to decrease their fuel use.

3-7
 SmartWay’s internationally recognized verification and designation programs have driven
innovation in the market by providing carriers with a reliable assessment of fuel efficiency
technology options. Financing support through SmartWay and other mechanisms has also
facilitated technology adoption in the market. The collection of performance data through these
testing programs was also critical to the development of the EPA Heavy-Duty Vehicle GHG
standards rule, which will further drive efficiency improvements across the on-road freight fleet
in the future.

SmartWay has also developed a slate of user-friendly, effective tools for quantifying emissions
performance. The SmartWay tools have great breadth, depth, precision, comparability, and
verifiability, as discussed below. The tools are discussed in the context of specific criteria used
by industry experts to evaluate carbon footprinting methodologies used by freight programs. 34

Breadth: The program currently covers truck, rail, intermodal, and barge freight transport, and
includes tools for quantifying freight vehicle emissions from carriers as well as shipper and
logistics companies. The SmartWay Truck Tool also explicitly accounts for emissions associated
with trailer refrigeration units. The program plans on expanding in breadth to include oceangoing
marine and air freight modes in the future. The Shipper Tool also allows shippers to calculate the
impact associated with operational changes such as packaging improvements or modal shifts
upon emissions and performance levels, although validation and verification procedures for the
inputs and calculations are not well-established.

Depth: The SmartWay Tools calculate carbon (CO2), NOx, and PM inventories and efficiencies
for fleets based on mileage and weight metrics. All emissions are direct combustion (tank to
wheels 35), and do not account for upstream or other lifecycle emissions. Other pollutants of
concern such as methane, N2O, and black carbon are not calculated at this time, although the
tools could be modified to report these as needed.

Precision: The SmartWay Tools develop relatively precise emissions and emission performance
metrics at the carrier-specific level. CO2 emissions are based solely on fuel factors (in g/gallon or
g/liter), and are calculated based on fleet-specific fuel consumption estimates. NOx and PM
emissions are based on mileage-based emission factors developed using EPA’s MOVES model. 36
The Truck Tool considers the following factors when estimating fleet-average emission rates:

• Fuel type (diesel/biodiesel blend, gasoline/ethanol blend, 37 CNG, LNG, LPG, electric,
hybrid)
• Vehicle weight class distribution (8,501 to > 60,000 pounds gross vehicle weight)

34
Craig, A.J., E.E. Blanco, and C.G. Caplice (2013). Carbon Footprint of Supply Chains: A Scoping Study. Retrieved
from http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/169329.aspx.
35
“Tank-to-wheels” emissions result from combustion of fuel in the vehicle’s engine, as opposed to other measures
such as “well-to-wheels” which include emissions associated with fuel extraction, refining, and distribution, as well
as combustion.
36
Refrigeration unit NOx and PM emissions are developed using fuel consumption estimates and outputs from EPA’s
NONROAD model.
37
Biofuel consumption is tracked separately within SmartWay, which can facilitate the introduction of life-cycle
emission calculations in the future if desired.

3-8
• Engine age distribution
• Road type distribution (percent urban vs. rural)
• Average speed distribution (< 25 mph, 25–50 mph, > 50 mph—urban only)
• Idle hours (short vs. long duration)

Total NOx and PM emissions are calculated by multiplying the g/mi factors by total miles
(including empty miles). The Truck Tool also provides substantial precision with respect to
performance metrics, combining calculated emissions with mileage and ton-mileage totals to
obtain g/mile and g/ton-mile values (or g/km and g/tonne-km for NRCan tools). These values are
grouped by operation and body type, including truckload dry van, less than truckload, drayage,
and other categories. Carriers are then grouped into five performance ranking bins for each
operation/body type category. For example, the top-performing truckload dry van carriers may
range between 1,300 and 1,700 g CO2/mile, with each of these assigned the midpoint value of
1,500 g/mile for reference by shippers and logistics companies. Individual performance bins
must have a minimum number of partners (e.g., five or more) to help protect the identity of
individual carrier companies. This “binning” approach represents a compromise between fully
carrier-specific performance reporting (as desired by many decision-makers at shipping
companies) and confidentiality, i.e., partial transparency (desired by the carriers themselves).

Similar approaches are used to calculate emissions for rail, intermodal, and barge carriers,
although performance metrics are not broken out at the same level of detail as truck carriers for
reporting to shipper companies. (Logistics company performance is also calculated for use by
shippers and other logistics companies, but their performance metrics are calculated based on the
weighted average performance of their selected carriers, rather than the mix of specific vehicle
characteristics and activity levels like the other carrier types.) Intermodal carriers are reported
using a single, separate grouping, as are barge carriers, while rail carrier performance is reported
as a single industry average at this time. Given an adequate number of partners, the performance
bins used for reporting may be refined further in the future (e.g., breaking out logistics
companies by size grouping).

The performance level for non-SmartWay carriers is set relative to the lowest-performing
SmartWay carriers. In this way shippers are incentivized to use SmartWay carrier partners
whenever possible.

Comparability: The SmartWay emission and performance metric calculation methodology has
remained the same for truck carriers and shippers since 2010, with additional tools added for rail,
multi-modal, logistics, and barge companies in subsequent years. The SmartWay Tools provide a
consistent means of estimating emission footprints and performance levels for individual fleets
and companies over time using the “Year-to-Year” comparison report, as well as through various
database reports. The Carrier Performance Rankings provide sortable performance metric listings
for all carriers in the program, for current as well as archived reporting years. SmartWay also
strives to develop consistent mileage, payload, and volume reporting to facilitate comparison of
performance metrics across modes. For example, the Rail Tool provides performance outputs in
terms of both railcar and truck-equivalent miles in order to allow consistent comparison across
both modes.

3-9
Verifiability: Since the SmartWay program relies on self-reported fleet characterization and
activity data, the potential exists for inaccurate or biased reporting. SmartWay has developed a
number of validation routines and reports to help identify inaccurate data inputs by either the
Partner or at the administering agency before approval of the submitted data. The SmartWay
Tools employ a variety of validation checks for external consistency, comparing inputs for
mileage, fuel consumption, average payload, idle hours, and a range of other parameters against
industry averages and distributions. The year-to-year report functions also allow partners to
evaluate inputs for temporal consistency (compared to the previous year).

Although regular third party audits of data inputs are not required, the standard Partnership
Agreements allow for audits if requested. SmartWay has also developed a guidance document
summarizing best practices for data collection and quality assurance for all partners (see
http://www.epa.gov/smartway/forpartners/documents/dataquality/420b13005.pdf ). To verify the
integrity of SmartWay Partner data submissions, EPA also invites a sample of SmartWay
partners from a cross-section of freight industries to participate in data verification interviews.

SmartWay also conducts a number of specific activities every year to ensure the integrity of the
program data reported. These range from comprehensive reviews and cross-checking SmartWay
Partner data before acceptance to the use of a Partner Excel-based reporting system. This
reporting system has rigorous internal data quality assurance controls, including reasonableness
checks and annual data comparison reports. One unique feature of these checks is the “cross-
reference” validation, wherein the mileage attributed to specific carriers by shipper and logistics
companies is compared with the total distance reported by the carriers themselves. Using this
function SmartWay has identified and corrected numerous reporting errors from shippers and
logistics companies reporting carrier mileage levels that were orders of magnitude higher than
reported by carriers (typically data entry errors or problems associated with allocating less than
truckload shipments).

Finally, SmartWay is particularly well-positioned for harmonization with other green freight
programs. Notably it has served as a template for other programs such as Green Freight Europe
and Green Freight Asia, and has successfully integrated with another country (Canada). In
addition, the program is designed to be fully “trans-modal” (i.e., it can eventually cover all
modes of freight). More effective quantification and verification of logistic/operational strategies
would further facilitate harmonization with other programs.

U.S.-Canada Program Integration

U.S. and Canadian freight transportation occurs in the context of an integrated North American marketplace.
American shippers (Walmart, Chrysler, Safeway, and many others) have been preferentially contracting with
truck carrier companies that are SmartWay Partners. Before 2012, Canadian firms needed to register for the
SmartWay Transport Partnership through the U.S. EPA in order to compete for the business of American
companies (only about 10 percent of the existing 3,000 U.S. SmartWay Partner companies are Canadian).
However, EPA’s SmartWay tools are only available in English and use American measurement units (U.S.
gallons, short tons), which puts an extra burden and makes the program inaccessible to Canadian firms who
work in metric and/or in French. Additionally, there was a significant missed opportunity: companies that do
business solely or primarily within Canada were not benefitting from the opportunity to participate in a similar
network. For these reasons, NRCan and EPA signed a letter of agreement in 2012 that focuses specifically on
joint delivery of the SmartWay Transport Partnership for five years (to 2017).

3-10
 3.1.2 Green Freight Europe 38, 39

With over 180 participating companies, the Green Freight Europe (GFE)
program provides a standardized system for reporting activity, calculating
emissions and efficiency performance metrics, and industry-average
benchmarking for road freight carriers, shippers, and logistics operations in
Europe. The program also provides a platform for sharing industry best practices and
technological innovations among its participants. Under development since 2009 and officially
launched in 2012, the program design was largely inspired by the SmartWay program and
incorporates many similar features, such as the use of carrier-specific performance metrics by
shippers in calculating carbon footprints for their supply chains. GFE actively seeks cooperation
with related programs to promote harmonized carbon accounting for the global freight sector.

Although similar to SmartWay, GFE is designed to address the specific needs of Europe, such as
differing truck classifications. The program is also organized in a different fashion from
SmartWay, relying solely on private organizations and member fees for funding. Annual fees
vary depending upon company size, with sponsors and knowledge partners (e.g., academic
research institutions) contributing funds and/or in kind contributions. The program is managed
on behalf of its members by a neutral secretariat including the Dutch Shippers’ Council (EVO)
and the European Shippers’ Council, and is guided by a steering group with several specialized
working groups.

The key elements of the GFE program are summarized below.

• Carriers provide GFE with primary data (e.g., fuel, kilometers, fleet profile), enabling the
calculation of their carbon emission performance.
• Carriers receive a score and a benchmark against similar operations.
• Carriers commit to improving the fuel efficiency of their fleet over time.
• Shippers provide GFE with operations data (e.g., shipments, carriers used), enabling the
calculation of the carbon emission performance of transportation operations contracted with
GFE carriers.
• Shippers commit to improving their carbon emission performance over time.

The GFE program is still under active development; the following summary describes intended
program design features as of this writing.

38
Green Freight Europe (2014). Green Freight Europe. Retrieved from http://www.greenfreighteurope.eu/.
39
Personal communications: Peter van der Sterre, Managing Director, Green Freight Europe, December 2013–May
2014.

3-11
 Program Element Green Freight Europe
General Information/Program Organization
Program Peter van der Steere
administrator/ Managing Director
contact agency/ pvandersteere@greenfreighteurope.eu
consortium funding
source Daniel Jaestch
Contact for D-A-C-H
djaetsch@greenfreigheurope.eu, +31 65 51 52 702

Andrew Traill
Contact for UK-IRE
atraill@greenfreighteurope.eu, +44 77 56 03 9379

http://www.greenfreighteurope.eu/

Facilitated by neutral secretariat (European Shippers’ Council and Dutch Shippers’ Council), on behalf of GFE members. Funded
primarily by annual membership fees.
Program goals Ultimate goal: Reduce carbon emissions from road freight sector in Europe
• Establish a standardized way of monitoring and report of carbon emissions, compliant to the upcoming CEN standard on
transportation and the GHGP.
• Reduce efforts, costs, inconsistency in monitoring and reporting.
• Increase comparison, data quality, awareness.
• Collect primary data.
Description The program covers road freight only; may be expanded to rail, barge (inland navigation), marine, and air. The program drives reductions
of carbon emissions by:
• Establishing a platform for monitoring and reporting of carbon emissions, to assist in the procurement of transportation services and
based on existing standards.
Promoting collaboration between carriers and shippers in driving improvement actions and monitoring progress.
Establishing a certification system to reward shippers and carriers who fully participate in the program.
A platform to share best practices, promote innovations, and communicate sustainability improvements on European road freight.
Regional or national networks are established together with national shippers or transport councils or other stakeholders acting as local
agents. The current focus is on specific countries: United Kingdom/Ireland, Germany, Austria, Czechoslovakia, BNL, France, Spain,
Portugal, and Poland.
Start year March 2012

3-12
 Program Element Green Freight Europe
Pollutants quantified CO2e, including CO2,weighted by DEFRA GWPs. Performance metrics reported in g/tonne-km for truckload and LTL (refrigerated and
and performance ambient), and bulk. g/package metric for mail/parcel carriers. May add PM and NOx in future.
metrics used
Annual funding Annual participant fees range from free to €6,000 depending on company size.
range
State of Initiation phase
development
Partners
Number of partners 150 members as of September 2013
Other key Advisory body (to be established) will include public agencies, academic/research institutions, industry associations, and NGOs.
stakeholders/ Associated members in “Carrier Shop” include manufacturers, technology vendors, and financial institutions.
affiliates
Program Components
Data collection / Quantitative data: vehicle and fuel type, fuel consumption, distance, and tonnage for owned/private fleets; shipment/load info, carriers
evaluation process used for contracted fleets (GFE and non-GFE carriers).

Qualitative data: use of eco-driving training or other best practices.

Quantification Emissions CO2e based on fuel consumption; calculations broken out by owned, subcontracted GFE, and subcontracted non-GFE fleets.
methodologies Also broken out by service type (truckload and LTL—refrigerated and ambient—and bulk).

Qualitative gold/silver/bronze (public) ranking.

Data collection tools CO2 Monitoring and Reporting Tool (operated by a third party, the Energy Savings Trust): company fills out a spreadsheet with annual
figures for road transport, submits results via XML files to central database through secure Web server. Partner-specific emissions,
performance, and benchmarking reports also available through Web.
Branding and Logo qualification and use rules under development
marketing strategies
Technology program Verified technologies (work to begin in 2014)
details
• GFE will identify and endorse proven technologies and practices and share them among members.
• GFE will publish registers of verified technologies that will enable its fleet operators to reduce their CO2 emissions.
o Using U.S. EPA SmartWay as a basis—aerodynamics, anti-idling, low-rolling-resistance tires, truck manufacturers, retrofit
technologies, fuel management systems, telematics, alternative fuel conversions.
o Using European programs (e.g., Swiss FEON–VERT program) as a basis.
• Set standards for the technologies that GFE members indicate a need for assurance with respect to performance.
• A scientific advisory board to support this process and verify the independent research.

3-13
 Program Element Green Freight Europe
Financial/other Carrier shop
assistance
Verified technologies will be offered to GFE members at a discount, including:
mechanisms
• Technologies
• Financing products (loans and grants)
• Insurance
• Services (consultancy) and training
This working group makes an in-depth inventory of requirements of carriers through a round table and or survey. The first aim of the
carrier shop is to offer products to carriers that they need at a discount.
Partner account EST provides program support, having worked out the methodology and developed the platform guided by GFE members. EST supports
managers companies in the data submitting process and produces the reports.
Data management Centrally operated Quickbase database, exported to a secure server that makes calculations and reports to be downloaded by the
system members. Managed by an independent and neutral third party (EST).
Data quality All data undergo quality assurance evaluation by EST.
assurance measures
Measurement/Impact
Estimated aggregate Not currently available
benefits (annual
pollutant reduction,
fuel savings, etc.)

3-14
 Program Element Green Freight Europe
Further Information
Further information A multimodal working group has been established. It focuses on mapping different initiatives (sea, rail, barge, air) and developing a
strategy for alignment or development of own platforms.

A platform for best practice sharing will be developed this year including the option to get in contact with other members (forum or chat
in combination with social media).

Signed a memorandum of understanding with the Lean and Green Program to:

• Exchange knowledge and best practices on sustainable logistics.

• Create and support a common framework and definition for logistics for measuring and combining CO2 emissions, network
performance, and carrier performance, allowing for absolute comparison in peer groups, using primary operational data, based on
EN 16258. The framework includes a practical interpretation (and application) of the EN 16258 rules and describes how companies
should deal with existing gaps in the standard.
• Create a joined proposition (and preferably a joined membership) with a clear individual branding of both programs throughout the
European network. Lean and Green will have a clear focus on front-running companies and being the incubator for best practices on
improving environmental performances throughout freight transport. Green Freight Europe will focus on monitoring and reporting
and knowledge dissemination (best practice sharing) to European companies.
• Explore further collaboration and integration of both programs, respecting their separate identities.
• Explore the potential of one overarching European organization on sustainable logistics including Lean and Green, Green Freight
Europe, and other initiatives.

3-15
Like the SmartWay program, GFE members include some of the world’s largest carriers,
logistics companies, and shippers, capable of helping to drive the technology market and
leveraging program participation from smaller companies. (In fact, many global companies are
participants in two or more of the green freight programs discussed in this chapter.) In addition,
the fact that partners join GFE voluntarily and contribute annual fees for its operation clearly
demonstrates a strong commitment to the success of the program. The program appears to be
expanding rapidly, growing from roughly 100 partners in 2012 to a target of 250 by the end of
2013.

Again, like SmartWay, GFE has a designed very effective incentive and reward structure. It
handles data sharing in a more proprietary fashion than SmartWay does, with carriers sharing
their performance information through direct agreement with their shippers rather than through
public listings. By promoting data sharing agreements between shippers and carriers, the
program fosters direct, transparent communication about baseline fleet performance as well as
specific strategies that both parties can adopt to improve their performance. The calculated
emissions, performance, and benchmarking reports in particular provide great added value for
partners. An example report indicating efficiency per tonne-km is provided below.

Green Freight Europe

The “Carrier Shop” component of the program has the potential to provide significant support for
GFE participants through identification of verified technologies, discounts and financing options
for technology purchases, insurance arrangements, and consulting and training services.

3-16
 The quantification procedure used in the GFE Carbon Monitoring and Reporting Tool provides
accurate, precise emissions and performance estimates for use by its partners, as described
below.

Breadth: The GFE program currently covers ground truck freight transport, although rail,
marine, and air transport may be included in the future. A single tool covers activity for owned
truck fleets, activity subcontracted to GFE carriers, and activity contracted to non-GFE carriers.

Depth: The GFE platform uses a centralized database to calculate CO2e as well as tonne-km and
per-package efficiency metrics based on participant inputs. The platform treats all emissions as
direct combustion (tank to wheels), and does not account for upstream or other lifecycle
emissions. CO2e estimates include CO2, CH4, and N2O, aggregated using DEFRA’s GHG
conversion factors. Other pollutants of concern such as NOx and PM are not calculated at this
time, although the platform may report these in the future.

Precision: Unlike the binned SmartWay performance data, which fall within a range for any
given carrier, the GFE efficiency metrics represent exact values. The GFE calculation
methodology itself allows users to choose between three different levels of precision: carrier-
specific (primary) data, averages by vehicle type, and industry averages. The precision
associated with specific inputs can vary as well. For example, vehicle type can be input at a
general level (e.g., HGV truck) or at a specific level (diesel rigid HGV with a gross vehicle
weight between 7.5 and 17 tonnes). Tonne-km efficiency metrics are calculated for truckload,
less-than-truckload, and bulk carrier service types, while per-package metrics are estimated for
mail and parcel carriers. Load levels and types can also be provided to improve the precision
associated with tonne-km calculations. The vehicles’ emission standards (Euro levels) can also
be provided. Carriers are encouraged to provide the most detailed, primary activity data possible
for their operations, as more precise data inputs will receive a higher relative weighting in the
performance scoring calculation. 40 Final scoring assignments are qualitative, including gold,
silver, and bronze.

Comparability: GFE provides standardized calculation methods and tools for establishing
consistent performance comparisons across all participating companies. The performance
database created provides Europe-wide CO2 benchmarks for the road transport freight sector.

Verifiability: Although GFE performance data are not made available to the public, participants
can allow access to others within the GFE program. Nevertheless, all data undergo monitoring
and compliance evaluation. In addition, all participants declare that their data submittal is
accurate to the best of their knowledge, and agree to submit supporting documentation and/or
allow a third party audit if requested, similar to the terms of the SmartWay Partnership
Agreements.

The GFE program is designed to be “trans-modal,” and may incorporate rail, marine, and air
modes. GFE is also actively working with the Lean and Green Program (see Section 3.1.7) to
develop and integrate quantification of logistic and operational strategies in the carbon

40
Details regarding the weighting calculation to be determined.

3-17
 monitoring and reporting framework. As such it is particularly well-positioned to facilitate
harmonization with other programs in the future.

3.1.3 Objectif CO2 (France) 41, 42

Objectif CO2 is a green freight initiative to reduce CO2 emissions from road
carriers and shippers in France. The program was developed in 2008 by the
Ministry of Ecology and the ADEME, which is a public agency for the
Environment and Energy Management. Participating companies may join
for free, and develop a personalized action plan to reduce CO2 emissions
over three years. The first step in the action plan is develop the baseline CO2
emissions for the company’s fleet based on the current fuel consumption,
number of vehicles, and annual distance traveled. Then the companies identify specific actions to
implement based on a guideline document provided by Objectif CO2. Action areas involve
changes to the vehicle, fuel consumption, driver behavior, and operational/logistic measures. The
companies must choose at least one action to implement in each of these areas. They then
estimate the potential CO2 emissions reductions to be realized by these actions. All of the data
are entered into a centrally located Web tool at www.objectifco2.fr. The participants then report
annually during the next three years using the same Web tool.

Almost 1,000 truck carriers companies have joined the Objectif CO2 program to date, which
includes 113,000 vehicles (about 23 percent of the French fleet) and over 125,000 drivers. The
projected potential emission reductions include over 760,000 tons of CO2 reduced per year and
260 million liters of fuel saved.

The following table highlights important aspects of the Objectif CO2 program.

41
Objectif CO2 (2014). Objectif CO2: Les Transporteurs s’Engagent. Retrieved from http://www.objectifco2.fr/.
42
Personal communications: Gérald Lalevée, Department of Transport and Mobility, ADEME, January–March 2014.

3-18
 Program Element France Objectif CO2
General Information/Program Organization
Program Gérald Lalevée
administrator/ Department of Transport and Mobility
contact agency/ ADEME
consortium funding gerald.lalevee@ademe.fr
source
The program is run and financed jointly by ADEME (the French public Environment and Energy Management Agency) and the French
Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development, and Energy.
Program goals Objectif CO2 is a voluntary program to reduce CO2 emissions and fuel consumption of the road freight transport operators (road carriers
operating for third parties and shippers with their own-account fleets).
Description The program is free to join for transport companies based in France. A company must sign a charter with ADEME and the regional
representative of the Ministry of Ecology to commit itself for three years to develop and implement its personalized action plan and
achieve its target for reducing fuel consumption (and thus CO2 emissions). The company’s objective is to improve their CO2 efficiency
using a specific action plan based on a range of solutions organized around the vehicles, fuel, drivers, and operational and logistic
measures. At least one measure must be implemented from each of these four areas. Performance targets are established for both CO2/km
and CO2/t-km.
Start year December 2008
Pollutants quantified Well-to-wheel CO2 emissions are quantified with efficiency indicators expressed in g CO2 /km and g CO2/t-km by vehicle category (4
and performance categories by gross vehicle weight) and activity type. Metrics also available for based on number of packages if appropriate. A study is
metrics used being conducted to evaluate the feasibility of including additional pollutants (PM and NOx).
Annual funding Around €800,000 since 2008
range
State of Fully implemented, under periodic evaluation/improvement
development or
program maturity
Partners
Number of partners 955 truck carriers
(as of January 27,
2014)
Other key The four French carrier trade organizations are extensively involved in the program and are represented on the national steering
stakeholders/ committee. They represent all carrier sizes and all types of activities. The program has partnerships with the main professional training
affiliates organizations, vehicle manufacturers, and solution providers.

3-19
 Program Element France Objectif CO2
Program Components
Data collection / Each company uses the online Web tool to:
evaluation process
• Perform self-assessment and review prerequisites for participation.
• Enter operational data (types and numbers of vehicles, fuel consumption, tonnage, distances, number of drivers) to establish a
baseline.
• Evaluate and identify potential action plan elements with the help of “action forms” giving details for implementing 54 different
actions organized around the vehicle, driver, fuel, and logistical organization.
• Specify the action plan, using a Web tool to estimate fuel savings, payback, and emissions benefits, and to establish CO2 efficiency
indicator targets (g CO2 /km and g CO2/t-km).
• Monitor and report annual progress.
Depending on the company’s situation and the actions selected, other information may also be collected including:

• The number of refrigeration units

• The number of eco-driving-trained drivers
• The proportion of subcontracted activity
• The use of non-road modes (rail, maritime, inland marine, and air)
The database is used to evaluate the program as a whole.
Quantification Annual company fuel consumption is combined with emission factors to calculate CO2 emissions on a well-to-wheel basis. These factors
methodologies are consistent with Article L 1431-3 of the French transport code on CO2 regulations for transport activities. The full guide is
downloadable at http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/Information_CO2_ENG_Web-2.pdf.

Fuel types include diesel, biodiesel, gasoline, LNG, hybrid, and electricity. CO2 emissions are combined with distance traveled and
tonnage hauled (or number of packages) to develop performance metrics.

The Web tool enables companies to benchmark different indicators allowing for comparison across vehicles, drivers, vehicle types, and
activity types. Vehicle types include rigid small trucks (3.6–12 tonnes GVW), rigid large trucks (>12 tonnes), and semi-trailer trucks.
Data collection tools The online Web tool is hosted at www.objectifco2.fr. The tool enables the company to define its action plan and its global CO2 emission
reduction target. It enables the company to calculate the potential fuel and CO2 emission savings and simulate the time to return on
investment according to the actions chosen. The tool must be used throughout the company’s three-year period of commitment to the
program. In this way, monitoring is made possible using the defined environmental efficiency indicators and the various actions selected
by the company.

3-20
 Program Element France Objectif CO2
Branding and Today, companies that are partners (having signed the charter) can use the program logo on their vehicles, websites, and invoices during
marketing strategies their three-year commitment. Every six months, a newsletter is released showing carrier feedback. Carrier trade associations and
transport professional press write frequent articles about the program.

One of the top priorities for 2014 is to develop a labeling system in order to bring better visibility to the engaged carriers in the program.
This label will indicate which carriers achieve a high CO2 performance level.
Technology program The action forms are designed to be a decision-making resource and a reference for program partners. The forms are intended to inform,
details in an independent and unbiased manner, transport operators on all solutions that are available on the market, and which will have a
positive impact on fuel consumption and CO2 abatement issues.

Action forms are organized around four elements:

• Vehicle—options relating to the vehicle and trailer (accessories, engine options, tires, etc.).
• Fuel—actions involving alternative fuels and advanced power train technologies (biofuels, hybrid and electric vehicles, etc.).
• Driver—opportunities to enhance driver’s behavior (Eco-Drive, good practice for the temperature-controlled transport sector).
• Organization of transport flows—actions involving the optimization of the loading process, the utilization of other alternative modes
of transport, and raising the awareness of customers and road transport subcontractors.
Financial assistance Financial assistance may be available from ADEME for companies that use consultants to assist them in assessing options for their action
mechanisms plans as well as for implementing and monitoring the plans.

Energy Savings Certificates (ESCs) encourage the introduction of energy-efficient technologies. Carriers can use ESCs to generate an
alternate source of funding. Under this system the government requires all entities selling energy, called “obligated parties” (e.g.,
electricity, gas, heat, cooling, fuel providers) to achieve a specific level of energy savings. ESCs can be used as credits by the obligated
parties to meet their fuel use reduction targets. ESCs are generated, under certain conditions, to any energy user that achieves a verifiable
energy savings. Energy sellers can satisfy their obligations by holding certificates of same value, by generating certificates obtained
through further actions taken by the operators themselves, or by buying from other operators who have generated ESCs.

Processing and validating ESC certificates is now the responsibility of the Pôle National des Certificats d’Economies d’Energie (PNCEE)
created in October 2011. To simplify the ESC registration process, a standard operation form has been created in order to identify the
eligibility conditions and the quantification of energy savings for current operations. Among the transport forms, some correspond to the
Objectif CO2 program. Transport operators become involved in the ESC program through Eco-Drive training, the use of energy-saving
lubricants, optimized tractor or the use of rail-road Intermodal transport unit.
Partner account The program is monitored and overseen by the Ministry of Ecology and ADEME. At the national level, two people are responsible for
managers program strategy development, marketing, development of tools, and managing relations between the Ministry of Ecology and the carrier
trade organizations. Each of the 26 regions of France has at least one person who can be directly in contact with companies interested in
becoming program partners. These staff are responsible for informing companies about the tools; answering questions and
troubleshooting tool completions; and validating data, action plans, and company targets. At the regional level, there are about 10 full-
time staff equivalents.

3-21
 Program Element France Objectif CO2
Data management MySQL database and Linux CentOS operating system
system
Data quality The regional committees verify and validate the accuracy of each company submittal. The Web tool’s user manual is available for use by
assurance measures partners. Regional committees use market data references and their experience to validate company data and their commitments. The
future labeling system will improve data quality through independent and certified verifications.
Measurement/Impact
Estimated aggregate The program involves more than:
benefits (annual
pollutant reduction, • 113,000 vehicles (23 percent of the French fleet)
fuel savings, etc.) • 125,000 drivers
With the potential of :

• 760,000 tonnes of CO2 avoided per year

• 260 million liters of fuel saved
• 9.3 percent efficiency improvement, on average, over the three years of commitment
In April 2014, public statistics and operational data on the program will be available.
Further Information
Further information Similar freight transport programs are under evaluation for shippers and local fleets.

3-22
The Objectif CO2 program has benefited from the strong leadership of the French carrier trade
organizations that were involved with the development of the program from the outset. These
partners are represented in the national steering committee that establishes the program's overall
strategy and components. In addition, each region of France has a regional steering committee
composed of local representatives of the national partners. These regional committees verify and
validate the accuracy of each company engagement.

The design of the Objectif CO2 program promotes very strong partner commitment at all stages
of the process. First, the online decision tool and action sheets help participants identify the most
feasible, cost-effective improvement strategies before committing to specific performance
targets. In addition, the action plan and signed charter agreement are highly visible statements of
each partner’s commitment to performing specific steps in order to meet their performance
targets. The annual reporting updates help partners monitor their progress and adjust their
strategies if needed, making it easier to keep their commitments. Finally, participants commit to
the program for a minimum of three years.

The Objectif CO2 program has an excellent implementation support system. In addition to the
easy-to-use Web-based data entry platform, the program offers user-friendly action forms
containing detailed assessments of 54 potential technological and operational improvement
strategies. Each form clearly explains the basic principles of the measure, applicable vehicle
types, any relevant regulatory issues, technical feasibility, estimated efficiency improvement and
fuel savings, availability of Energy Savings Certificates, cost and payback period, opportunities
and constraints for implementation, and monitoring guidance.

The precision of the monitoring and reporting system is particularly valuable to partners’
improvement efforts, allowing for detailed evaluation of fuel and cost savings for each action
adopted. Progress can also be evaluated down to the vehicle and driver level given adequate
monitoring processes. Finally, implementation is also facilitated by the potential availability of
financial assistance for consulting services to help develop and monitor action plans. The
extensive resources supporting implementation also tend to drive innovation in the marketplace,
promoting the accelerated adoption of a wide variety of vehicle, fuel, behavioral, and operational
improvement strategies. The transparency of the publicly available action plans will also allow
program administrators to assess the penetration of these technologies into the marketplace over
time.

The quantification procedure used in the Objectif CO2 program provides accurate, precise
emissions and performance estimates for use by its partners, as described below.

Breadth: The program covers ground truck freight transport as well as associated logistics and
operational functions. Benefits can be estimated for modal shifts, although modal averages are
used for non-road modes rather than fleet-specific factors. A single tool is used for third-party
carriers and private fleets.

3-23
 Depth: The program calculates well-to-wheel CO2 emissions. 43 Other pollutants of concern, such
as NOx and PM, are not calculated at this time.

Precision: g/km, g/tonne-km and g/other delivery unit (e.g., g/package or g/palette) efficiency
metrics are calculated based on participant inputs (e.g., vehicle types, fuel consumption, mileage,
weight moved). Four vehicle types are differentiated: light commercial vehicles, small and large
rigid trucks, and semi-trailers. The tool also distinguishes between refrigerated and non-
refrigerated trucks. Fuel consumption is multiplied by the fuel-specific emission factor in order
to estimate CO2 emissions. Emission factors are well-to-wheel.

Comparability: The Web tool provides standardized calculation methods for establishing
consistent performance comparisons across all participating companies. A carrier engaged in the
program will be able to compare its performance level with the levels of average carriers in the
same activity category using the Web tool and its personal access code. This function will be
offered soon and will be developed at the same time as the labeling system.

Verifiability: All data undergo monitoring and compliance evaluation. The regional committees
verify and validate the accuracy of each company submittal. Companies can use the Web tool’s
user manual to help ensure accuracy. Regional committees use market data references and their
experiences to validate companies’ data and their commitments. The future labeling system will
improve data quality using independent and certified verifications.

3.1.4 Green Freight Asia 44, 45, 46

Green Freight Asia (GFA) is a nonprofit organization funded

and led by its member companies. Its key objective is to help
lower fuel consumption across Asia-Pacific-sourced road
freight movements, reduce CO2e emissions and air pollution
from these movements, and lower shipping costs across the
entire supply chain. Emissions estimates and performance metrics will be based on tank-to-
wheels CO2e, although PM and NOx evaluation may be added in the future. Although GFA does
not intend to develop its own CO2e calculation and accounting methodology, it is committed to
contribute to global alignment of these methodologies.

The GFA program is currently funded by membership fees. Its membership is composed mostly
of carriers and shippers. GFA’s primary goals include:

• Educating all Asia-Pacific-based stakeholders (governments, manufacturers, logistics

companies, and consumers) about sustainable supply chain practices.

43
Well-to-wheel emissions include emissions associated with fuel extraction, refining, distribution, and combustion
within the vehicle.
44
Green Freight Asia (2013). Welcome to Green Freight Asia. Retrieved from http://greenfreightasia.org/.
45
Personal communications: Robert Earley, Program Manager, Clean Air Asia, December 2013–April 2014.
46
Personal communications: Stephan Schablinski, Green Freight Asia, December 2013–April 2014.

3-24
• Creating a business-to-business green freight label certification and renewal process
indicating a company’s degree of commitment to, and actual adoption of, sustainable supply
chain practices.
• Aligning with other green freight programs and national initiatives to harmonize, avoid
overlaps, and collaborate with other regional and global environmental NGOs.

The GFA program is currently in the design phase. Available program details are summarized in
the table below.

3-25
 Program Element Green Freight Asia (GFA)
General Information/Program Organization
Program Stephan Schablinski
administrator/ stephan.schablinski@greenfreightasia.org, M: +65 97723713
contact agency/
consortium funding Green Freight Asia is incorporated as a not-for-profit organization in Singapore. GFA is currently funded through membership fees. The
source first five subscribers provided startup funding for the first financial year. These founding members are DHL, HP, IKEA, Lenovo, and UPS.
Program goals GFA’s key objectives are to help lower fuel consumption for freight movement in the Asia-Pacific region, reduce CO2e emissions from
these movements, and lower shipping costs across the entire supply chain. GFA hopes to educate all Asia-Pacific-based stakeholders
(governments, manufacturers, logistics companies, and consumers) about sustainable supply chain practices and create a business-to-
business green freight label certification and renewal process that indicates a company’s degree of commitment to, and actual adoption of,
sustainable supply chain practices.
Description GFA is a nonprofit organization funded through member fees dedicated to reducing fuel consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and
operating costs in the Asia-Pacific region. The initial focus is on road freight. The GFA program is composed mostly of carriers and
shippers at this time. Currently in the design phase, it intends to incorporate many of the features of the U.S. EPA SmartWay program,
including collecting and scoring performance data from carriers, providing these data to shippers for evaluation, and creating a green
freight labeling and certification process.
Start year 2012 as a consortium known as the Green Freight Asia Network. Emerged from the informal network in 2013 as Green Freight Asia. Full
rollout planned for 2015.
Pollutants quantifiedCO2e. Specific metrics to be developed.
and performance
metrics used
Annual funding range N/A
State of development Design phase. Rollout of GFA labeling scheme planned for second half of 2014.
or program maturity
(pilot/demonstration,
initiation, expansion)
Partners
Number of partners 25 partners total. Member companies include DHL, HP, IKEA, Lenovo, UPS, Heineken, Infineon, P&G, ANTS, Logistics Chengdu.
Other key Clean Air Asia
stakeholders/ Smart Freight Center
affiliates Green Transformation Lab

3-26
 Program Element Green Freight Asia (GFA)
Program Components
Data collection / Design in progress. Draft elements include:
evaluation process
1. Collect primary data (e.g., fleet composition, fuel consumption, freight volumes) and other information about the adoption of green
technologies and sustainable supply chain practices from carriers. Shippers to provide information about the composition of their
carrier base as well as their adoption of sustainable supply chain practices and level of commitment.
2. Evaluate data for CO2e and fuel efficiency and the commitment of companies to adopting green supply chain practices.
3. Assign a GFA label stage and record score in database.
Quantification Design in progress. Draft elements include:
methodologies—
1. GFA label to be made available to carriers and shippers.
performance
2. Shippers will be entitled to use the GFA label if they meet certain criteria (e.g. award a certain amount of freight transport business to
benchmarking,
green-freight-label-certified logistics companies).
scoring, rating, and/or
3. Carriers will also be entitled to receive the GFA label if they meet specific criteria (e.g., disclosure of fleet statistics, degree of
ranking
adoption of CO2e/fuel-reducing technologies and practices such as driver training and fuel-efficient technologies).
Data collection tools Design in progress. Likely design to be similar to SmartWay and Green Freight Europe:
(types: online/Excel
1. Data collection via collection spreadsheet or online
forms/other)
2. Data processing and analytics in IT application/database
Branding and The Green Freight Asia brand represents the adoption of cleaner and more efficient road freight transportation practices that reduce
marketing strategies greenhouse gases and improve air quality. The Green Freight Asia brand is represented by the Green Freight Asia logo.

The Green Freight Asia label identifies companies and organizations that are committed to adopting sustainable freight practices and
supporting the implementation of green freight programs and initiatives throughout Asia, with a vision to increase the fuel efficiency of
freight, improve air quality, and minimize CO2e emissions while reducing other transportation-related emissions.

Details can be found in the GFA logo and GFA label use guidelines.
Technology program Uncertain—design in progress
details (verification
offered, certification,
labeling)
Financial assistance Uncertain—design in progress
mechanisms
Partner account Uncertain—design in progress
managers (number,
responsibilities—e.g.,
how do they
administer
partnership process)

3-27
 Program Element Green Freight Asia (GFA)
Data management Uncertain—design in progress
system (relational
database, other)
Data quality At design stage—external auditing /verification planned
assurance measures
Measurement/Impact
Estimated aggregate Uncertain—design in progress
benefits (annual
pollutant reduction, Qualitative program benefits include:
fuel savings, etc.)
• Develop strong, single voice—an independent industry group that will help address, educate, and inform all stakeholders.
• Provide information pipeline—on changing metrics and measurement standards.
• Create a fair and level playing field—buyers and sellers working toward a common goal.
• Be a catalyst for change—through reduced consumption and emissions.
• Create recognition—for each company’s sustainability leadership.
• Connect environmentally conscious buyers and sellers.
• Certify green freight carriers and shippers so they can inform and grow their customer base.
• Provide support and guidance on how to lower fuel costs and reduce CO2e.
• Provide incentives to greening supply chains.
• Help companies navigate regulations, identify partners, and avoid pitfalls.
Further Information
Other program details Green Freight Asia also organizes workshops, conferences, etc., to share best practices among all GFA members. GFA holds conferences
twice a year.

3-28
 At this early stage, GFA is focused on establishing brand recognition among manufacturers and
shippers, and on demonstrating the efficacy of efficiency improvement technologies and
strategies under day-to-day operating conditions. Gathering actual fuel consumption data and
pledges to meet specific improvement targets will follow in later stages of program development.

3.1.5 China Green Freight Initiative 47, 48

The China Green Freight Initiative (CGFI) is multi-stakeholder

program, launched in April 2012, which operates under the
supervision of a steering group made up of representatives
from Chinese government ministries. Currently funded by the
nonprofit Energy Foundation, the program is managed and implemented by the China Road
Transport Association (CRTA), the Research Institute of Highway, and Clean Air Asia.

China’s freight industry is growing rapidly along with its overall economic growth. The average
annual growth of freight volume in China from 2008 to 2012 was about 14 percent per year.
However, the adoption of green freight practices in the transport industry in China is still in its
very early stages. The CGFI was formed to address the need for a national program to improve
the fuel efficiency and reduce the emissions from the rapidly growing road freight industry in
China.

Two pilot programs in China led the way for the formation of the CGFI. The first was funded by
the World Bank and implemented by Clean Air Asia. It was carried out in Guangzhou in 2008–
2010 and targeted improving fuel economy and reducing CO2 emissions from trucks. As a part of
this pilot, technology was tested on 14 trucks in three truck fleets; a driver training course and
truck sector surveys were also conducted. This pilot showed that improvements in technology
and driving can help reduce emissions from diesel trucks, and it caused interest from the
provincial government in a broader program.

The second pilot, called the GEF Guangdong Green Freight Demonstration Project, is being
carried out in Guangdong Province. It is funded by the Global Environment Facility and
implemented by the World Bank. This pilot began in September 2011 and is scheduled to be
completed in May 2015. As a part of this pilot, green truck technology demonstrations will be
conducted for at least 1,200 trucks and training for more than 1,200 drivers. In addition, the pilot
project will focus on green freight logistics demonstrations (market studies for different
methodologies such as drop-and-hook), capacity building (supporting green freight policy
research, as well as training for government officials and other key people in the industry), and
project implementation support. The main goal of this project is to reduce the road freight
emissions in the Guangdong Province by 10 percent.

The CGFI is now in the initial design and development phase (Phase 1 of 3). During the first
year of the program, the focus was on setting up the organizational structure of the CGFI. The
organization includes a steering committee composed of the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry

47
Clean Freight and Logistics (2011). Green Freight China Program. Retrieved from
http://www.greenfreightandlogistics.org/programs/green-freight-china-program-2/.
48
Personal communications: Robert Earley, Program Manager, Clean Air Asia, January–April 2014.

3-29
of Environmental Protection, the National Development and Reform Commission, the Ministry
of Public Security, and the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology. There is also an
expert group that provides technical guidance and input.

After development of the organization, the CGFI’s intent is to focus on including “avoid” (avoid
empty weight trips, change logistics to reduce the number of trips), “shift” (shift to other forms
of transport for goods), and “improve” (improve truck technology, fuel improvements, and
improvements to driver behavior) strategies used in many green freight programs. Specifically,
the CGFI intends to focus on green management strategies through logistics and planning, the
use of green truck technologies, and implementing training to promote green driving. They will
accomplish this in the road freight industry by developing emissions standards and fuel
consumption limits, carrying out pilot projects and demonstrations, providing training, and
developing consistent, recognized branding.

3-30
 Program Element China Green Freight Initiative (CGFI)
GENERAL INFORMATION / PROGRAM ORGANIZATION
Program Mr. Peter Zhang
administrator/ China Road Transport Association
contact agency/ zhangguanghe@crta.org.cn
consortium funding
source Managed and implemented by the China Road Transport Association (CRTA), the Research Institute of Highway, and Clean Air Asia.
Program goals This initiative will support the relevant government agencies and freight carriers in China in their goal to achieve sustainable
development within the freight industry through implementation of green management, green technology, and green driving. Specific
goals include:
• Green freight management—to promote efficient management of fleets that reduces travel distances and empty miles through the
development of a green carrier standard. Priority strategies currently promoted under CGFI are drop-and-hook methods and the
application of information technology for logistics improvement.
• Green technologies—to promote the adoption of green technologies for freight trucks through the development of green truck
standards and issuance of a catalogue of green technologies and energy saving products.
• Green driving—to promote eco-driving through the development of an eco-driving standard.
Description The initial focus of the CGFI is road freight given the rapid growth of ground freight usage in recent years and the neglect of the
management of energy savings and emissions reduction in the freight sector. Potential partners submit detailed information on each
vehicle in their fleet as well as organizational and management details. Program administrators rank submissions by Green Leaf level (1
to 5) based on the degree to which green vehicle, fuel, and operational strategies are adopted. Detailed performance monitoring and
reporting procedures are specified to ensure emission reductions.
Start year April 2012
Pollutants quantified No pollutant quantification. Program focuses on verifying technologies (for emission and fuel consumption standards) and operational
and performance procedures (such as drop-and-hook logistics strategies).
metrics used
Annual funding Funding from the Energy Foundation—2012 and 2013 levels at $200,000 U.S. per year. Funding levels expected to decline in 2014.
range
State of development Currently implementing Phase 1 of program focusing on development and testing of green freight carrier standards and green freight
or program maturity vehicle standards.
(pilot/demonstration,
initiation, expansion)
Partners
Number of partners Uncertain—design in progress
Other key Research Institute of Highways of the Ministry of Transport
stakeholders/ Clean Air Asia
affiliates U.S. EPA SmartWay program

3-31
 Program Element China Green Freight Initiative (CGFI)
Program Components
Data collection / Green freight carrier standard and green freight vehicle standard have been developed. 20 pilot carriers tested the practicability of the two
evaluation process draft standards and submitted the self-assessment of their performance level (designated Leaf 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5) based on the draft standards.
Quantification CO2 may eventually be calculated based on reported fuel consumption. Fuel types referenced include diesel, natural gas, and electricity.
methodologies— Performance metrics such as g/km and g/t-km not discussed at this time.
performance
benchmarking, Vehicle-specific inputs in the application include weight and average payload, engine emission and fuel efficiency standards, use of GPS,
scoring, rating, and description of other fuel efficiency and emission reduction technologies/strategies.
and/or ranking
Draft evaluation and assessment benchmarks and relative weighting factors developed for Green Leaf Level scoring for carriers.
Evaluation categories include operational strategies, vehicle benchmarks, technological requirements, and driving practice requirements.
Data collection tools None at this time
(types; online/Excel
forms/other)
Branding and The CRTA will be responsible for certification and labeling of green carriers and green vehicles, and the evaluation and assessment
marketing strategies process will be completed by CGFI’s expert group.
Technology program CGFI is waiting to see the result of the Guangdong Green Freight Demonstration Project. The Research Institute of Highways will
details (verification develop the catalogue of verified green technologies and energy savings products in the 2014–2015 timeframe. Verification/certification
offered, certification, process uncertain—design in progress.
labeling)
Financial assistance None at this time. Government financial incentives for green carriers and green vehicles could be offered in the future.
mechanisms
Partner account In development
managers (number,
responsibilities—
e.g., how do they
administer
partnership process)
Data management In development
system (relational
database, other)
Data quality In development
assurance measures

3-32
 Program Element China Green Freight Initiative (CGFI)
Measurement/Impact
Estimated aggregate In development—estimates will require specific verified technologies with quantified benefits.
benefits (annual
pollutant reduction,
fuel savings, etc.)
Further Information
Other program N/A
details

3-33
The CGFI has the potential to encourage active fleet participation for CRTA member truck
fleets. Specific incentives and participation rates will be determined after establishment of the
green carrier and green vehicle standards, branding, and logo qualification requirements. The
program also has the potential to drive innovation across several areas of the market,
encouraging a wide variety of technology and operational changes in order to obtain high Green
Leaf ratings. Credit may be given for adoption of the following strategies:

• Organization and vehicle dispatching

• Drop-and-hook freight
• Use of advanced logistics services
• Purchase of vehicles meeting the latest national fuel efficiency standards
• Positioning and navigation equipment
• Use of assorted fuel efficiency technologies (e.g., low-viscosity lubricants, lightweighting)
• Use of alternative fuels (e.g., natural gas, hybrids, electric)

Breadth: The initial phase of the CGFI program will focus on ground truck freight transport,
although other mode of transport including waterborne, air, and rail transport may be included in
the future. Partner types include truck carriers as well as logistics providers, and possibly
shippers. Trucks included in the program are limited in a variety of ways including requirements
to meet specified national efficiency and emission standards as well as minimum payload
utilization ratios.

Depth: CO2 may eventually be calculated based on reported fuel consumption. Fuel types
referenced include diesel, natural gas, and electricity. Other pollutants such as NOx and PM, and
other performance metrics such as g/km and g/t-km, are not under discussion at this time.

Precision: Partners may be required to submit a large amount of vehicle-specific information

with their applications and monitoring reports. This could allow future performance metrics to be
broken out in a variety of ways:

• By truck class (N1, N2, and N3—weight categories)

• By vehicle type (e.g., box trucks, tankers, flatbeds, containers)
• By fuel type (diesel, natural gas, hybrid, electric)
• By efficiency technology/technologies adopted (e.g., low-rolling-resistance tires, idle
reduction equipment)
• Presence of GPS

Data collection under the green freight carrier standard may also provide extensive opportunities
for quantifying the benefits associated with a variety of logistic and management strategies (e.g.,
drop-and-hook adoption).

3-34
 Comparability: The voluntary green vehicle and green carrier certification processes being
standardized under CGFI could provide a reliable basis for comparing truck carrier and logistics
company performance. The Green Leaf certification levels will be introduced in phases. During
the 2012–2014 period, Level 1 corresponds to a “passing” basic level of performance, while
Level 3 certification indicates outstanding performance. Criteria will be reassessed for the 2015–
2016 period, with the best performers assigned a Level 5 rating. The final scoring criteria will
include clear quantitative assessments for the different evaluation categories (vehicle and other
technologies, management strategies, and driver training/performance requirements).

Verification: Data collection procedures for the CGFI have not yet been established, and specific
calculations and data processes have yet to be determined. For this reason a definitive assessment
regarding performance quantification and verification cannot be made at this time.

3.1.6 Transporte Limpio (Mexico)49, 50

The Transporte Limpio initiative in Mexico is a nation-wide, free,

voluntary program created in 2010 by the SEMARNAT (Secretary of
Environmental and Natural Resources) and the SCT (Secretary of
Communications and Transport) to make freight and passenger
transport more efficient, lower costs, and reduce emissions. The program has three types of
participants: truck carriers, shippers, and technology vendors. Goals are achieved through
strategies and technologies that reduce fuel consumption. Some of the measures promoted by
Transporte Limpio include training operators in technical-economic driving (eco-driving),
improving the aerodynamics of trailer truck and trailers, energy diagnostics, reduction of empty
kilometers traveled, single-wide and low-rolling-resistance tires, automatic tire inflation systems,
usage of lightweight materials, advanced lubricants, alternative fuels such as natural gas, retrofit
emissions control devices, intermodal operations, and use of hybrid vehicles.

Transporte Limpio uses a version of the FLEET model similar to that used during the first phase
of the SmartWay program (through 2009). The model has been adapted to score and rank
Mexico’s participants once they have completed a questionnaire characterizing their fleets. Truck
carriers and shippers use the same methodology for data collection, but their evaluation scores
are differentiated. The data are collected using Excel-based tools for the questionnaire and the
FLEET model. The pollutants quantified for the participants of Transporte Limpio are CO2, PM,
and NOx. Participation in the program allows the carrier to estimate the environmental impact
generated by its fleet, reduce emissions through the use of recommended strategies and
technologies, reduce operating costs, become preferred carriers, and improve its public image by
being recognized as a company committed to the environment. About 150 companies with more
than 18,000 trucks have participated in the program between December 2008 (when it started as
a pilot) and 2013.

The following table highlights the key aspects of the Transporte Limpio program.

49
Reyna-Bensusan, N. (2013). Mexico’s strategies to reduce black carbon from heavy duty diesel vehicles.
50
Personal communications: Rodrigo Perrusquia Máximo, Chief, Departamento de Gestión Ambiental del Sector
Transporte, SEMARNAT, January–May 2014.

3-35
 Program Element Mexico Transporte Limpio
General Information/Program Organization
Program Judith Trujillo Machado
administrator / Subdirectora del Sector Transporte
contact— Dirección General de Gestión de la Calidad del Aire y RETC
agency/funding SEMARNAT
source judith.trujillo@semarnat.gob.mx
+55 56243717

SEMARNAT (Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources)

SCT (Secretary of Communications and Transportation)
Program goals Transporte Limpio is a nationwide, voluntary, free program, created to make the freight and passenger transport more efficient, lower
costs, and reduce emissions.
Description Transporte Limpio has three types of partners: truck carriers, shippers, and technology suppliers. Goals are achieved through the
implementation of strategies and technologies that reduce fuel consumption. Partners complete questionnaires regarding their fleets and
specify select improvement strategies. The strategies selected are used to calculate an overall performance score.

When joining the program partners commit to the following:

• Complete the questionnaire provided by the SEMARNAT within first 30 days of joining the program.
• Within the first six months after joining the program, develop an action plan with strategies to improve the environmental
performance in a course of three years.
• Update the questionnaire annually and send to SEMARNAT.
Start year 2010
Pollutants quantified CO2, PM, and NOx
and performance
metrics used
Annual funding < 3.0 million pesos
range
State of Pilot phase complete; program has been implemented and is in an expansion mode.
development or
program maturity

3-36
 Program Element Mexico Transporte Limpio
Partners
Number of partners As of December 2013:
• Total: 148
• Carriers: 122
• Shippers: 12
• Vendors and/or promoters of technology: 14
• Number of trailer trucks for which performance has been evaluated in 2013: 18,722
• Companies with an action plan: 37
Other key Not available
stakeholders/
affiliates
Program Components
Data collection / Data inputs differentiate straight and combination trucks, fuel type (diesel, gasoline, CNG, LPG, LNG, biodiesel, ethanol), and short- and
evaluation process long-haul operation. Average and total miles, gallons, payload, and idle hours also collected by truck/tool/operation type. Truck counts
provided by truck weight class and engine model year for NOx and PM calculation.
Quantification Once the company fills out and sends in the questionnaire with the annual operation of its fleet, SEMARNAT performs an evaluation
methodologies running the FLEET model (the first-generation U.S. EPA SmartWay model, adapted to account for differing emission standards in
Mexico), which generates a score according to the reduction of emissions of each company. Control strategies are entered into the tool.
Controls include training operators in technical-economic driving (eco-driving), idle reduction, aerodynamic improvements, tire
technologies, weight reduction, improved lubricants, engine upgrades, speed management systems, and intermodal shifts. Finally PM and
NOx control retrofits are input (e.g., diesel particulate filters).

The carrier tool calculates baseline fleet emissions and performance metrics (g/km, g/tonne-km), as well as the emissions savings
associated with the current control strategies used. Benefits associated with control strategies may be assessed individually for financial
and planning evaluations. Benefits associated with action plan measures are calculated in the same way. The emission savings are
combined in a weighted formula to calculate an overall performance score. This composite carrier fleet score is then used by shippers in
determining their carriers’ overall performance.

Shipper tool calculates footprints just based on modal averages, not carrier performance.
Data collection tools Two Excel tools are used—one for the fleet characterization questionnaire and the FLEET model.
Branding and Logo developed
marketing strategies Facebook page: Transporte Limpio
Web page: in construction
Technology program No verification or labeling at this time
details
Financial assistance Not available
mechanisms

3-37
 Program Element Mexico Transporte Limpio
Partner account None provided
managers
Data management Uncertain
system
Data quality Uncertain
assurance measures
Measurement/Impact
Estimated aggregate The 150 companies (with more than 18,000 vehicles) participating in 2012 obtained an average fuel savings of 15 percent. 2,587,921 tons
benefits (annual of CO2 reduced cumulatively from 2008 to 2012.
pollutant reduction,
fuel savings, etc.)
Further Information
Further information As part of the activities in 2013, Transporte Limpio, with the support of Mercedes-Benz, carried out eight driver training courses in eco-
driving for van type vehicles and four training courses for teachers from the CECATIs and companies located in the northern region with
the support of the Border Environment Cooperation Commission through the Clean Air Institute and with resources from SEMARNAT.

The new strategies and guiding principles of the Transporte Limpio program going forward include the creation of a national training
network for technical-economic driving, a certification design, updating of the transport emissions assessment tool, and identifying
synergies with other entities related to the Sector.

Also in 2013, Transporte Limpio conducted three workshops for the “Elaboration of Energetic Diagnosis for Freight Companies.” The
objective was to raise awareness among freight managers regarding the importance of the efficient use of fuel and its relationship to
competitiveness. The attendees were trained in energy diagnosis for their company. This allows the carrier to do a simple self-diagnosis
of energy use and identify fuel saving and emission reduction opportunities.

3-38
The Transporte Limpio program requires strong commitment, with carrier’s partners developing
and submitting a three year Action Plan for their fleets, along with annual updates to monitor
their progress.

The program provides effective implementation support through funding from the Mexican
government and partnership with companies such as Mercedes Benz as well as guidance from
the U.S. EPA SmartWay program. The program’s FLEET model also gives partners a powerful
evaluation and planning tool for developing their action plans, allowing carriers to assess the
likely costs and benefits of a wide range of specific control options.

Although the FLEET model does not allow shippers to calculate quantitative emission footprints,
the program’s scoring system does give shippers and carriers a clear incentive to improve their
performance. The FLEET model also provides a clear, consistent methodology for quantifying
program benefits in terms of mass emission reductions. The link between technology and
operational strategy adoption and emission reductions is made particularly transparent through
the FLEET tool’s benefit assessment capability. In addition, the requirement for the development
of three-year action plans based on the adoption of proven technologies and strategies drives
innovation in the market place over a sustained period.

The FLEET tool developed by the SmartWay program and modified for use in Mexico provides
a proven methodology for quantifying fuel savings and emissions benefits in an accurate,
consistent fashion.

Breadth: At this time, the program is restricted to truck carriers and shippers.

Depth: The program quantifies tank to wheels carrier emission reductions for CO2, NOx, and
PM, as well as performance metrics for carriers based on mileage and weight metrics.

Precision: The FLEET tool calculates precise emissions and emission performance metrics at the
carrier-specific level for trucks. CO2 emissions are based solely on fuel factors (in g/liter),
adjusted to account for the specific energy content of Mexican fuels, and are calculated based on
fleet-specific fuel consumption estimates. NOx and PM emissions are based on mileage-based
emission factors developed using the FLEET model. The Truck Tool considers the following
factors when estimating fleet-average emission rates:

• Fuel type (diesel/biodiesel blend, gasoline, ethanol blend, CNG, LNG, LPG, electric, and
hybrid)
• Vehicle weight class distribution (based on gross vehicle weight)
• Engine age distribution
• Idle hours (short vs. long duration)

The tool calculates total NOx and PM emissions by multiplying the g/km factors by total
kilometers. The FLEET Tool also provides substantial precision with respect to performance
metrics, combining calculated emissions with km and tonne-km totals to obtain g/km and
g/tonne-km values. Shipper performance ratings are qualitative, based on weighted average
rankings of their carriers.

3-39
 Comparability: The Transporte Limpio calculation tools provide a consistent means of
estimating performance levels for individual fleets and companies. The weighted average
composite index factors for carriers also provide shippers with a consistent process for ranking
the overall emissions performance of their carrier options.

At this time the Transporte Limpio program does not provide emission footprinting capability for
shippers and as such is not harmonized directly with other programs such as SmartWay and
Green Freight Europe. However, the program uses many of the fundamental data collection
elements used by these other programs (carrier fuel consumption, distance and weight data). In
addition, having adopted the FLEET model system previously employed by the U.S. EPA, the
program is well situated to use the lessons SmartWay learned in converting from its “1.0” system
to its “2.0” system.

Verifiability: Data quality and verification measures for the Transporte Limpio program have not
been identified at this time.

3.1.7 Lean and Green (Netherlands)51, 52

Lean and Green is a European private, member-funded

network of more than 300 companies, municipalities,
and institutions in a program administered by Connekt,
a Dutch nonprofit organization. The program is
currently supported by five licensee organizations in
Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxemburg, Germany, and Italy, to be expanded in the near future to
Austria and Switzerland. The program began in 2007. In the Netherlands alone it has over 250
partners including truck carriers, shippers, logistic service providers, and municipalities. The 115
companies who have reported their emissions savings have realized a 22 percent reduction of
CO2 emissions.

The Lean and Green network has multiple components, of which Lean and Green Logistics is the
oldest. Recently Lean and Green added personal mobility (focusing on sustainability
improvements), and “Lean and Green solutions” components. Lean and Green Logistics is a
community-driven program of companies that strive for continuous improvement. This process
of continual improvement is depicted below, with the ultimate goal being “zero emissions.”

51
Connekt (2014). Lean and Green. Retrieved from http://lean-green.nl/en-gb/.
52
Personal communications: Lia Hsu, Project Manager, Connekt/ITS Netherlands, March–April 2014.

3-40
Connekt

The Lean and Green community members:

• Acknowledge the efforts and the improvements made by members of the community.
• Innovate by sharing best practices, developing new means of cooperation, and testing new
technologies.
• Improve their performance data to strengthen evidence-based decision-making and track their
progress.

The Lean and Green community encourages its members to communicate with their peers to
exchange experiences. Together they discuss how their complex international supply chains can
be improved. Improvement targets have been categorized by the community in five levels (one to
five stars), of which the first two levels have been fully defined. The remaining levels have been
conceptually characterized but will be defined rigorously in the future.

Award and first star: The Lean and Green Award and first star assists members in focusing their
initial improvement efforts, in helping organizations gain experience in identifying and reducing
waste, and in measuring the relative effects of their adopted strategies. The recipient must
develop an action plan to reduce its CO2 emission by 20 percent within five years, relative to its
reference measurement. Strategies include a combination of improving driver performance,
increasing utilization rate, and improving trip coordination, among others.

3-41
Companies eligible for the Lean and Green Award are subject to four specific requirements:

• A CO2 baseline measurement, presented in both absolute and relative emissions (e.g. CO2 per
tonne-km).
• The CO2 reduction target is fixed and represents at least 20 percent in five years compared to
the baseline measurement.
• There is an approved plan of action, meeting the prescribed format, which describes how the
reduction objective is to be achieved.
• The results are monitored through twice-annual reporting.

The scope of the action plan can range from local (e.g., a specific well-defined division or
smaller company in a specific country) to European (multinational companies). Local action
plans are supported by local licensees, multinational action plans by the combined Lean and
Green Logistics support network.

To monitor progress, members report their CPIs (critical performance indicators), which are
numerical indicators expressing the results of their measures. These measures and reports are
audited by an independent third party, TNO (the Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific
Research). If the member is in compliance with the criteria, the Lean and Green Award is
granted and the Lean and Green Logo may be displayed on trucks and external publications. If
the targets of the action plan are met, subject to external audit and verification, the member is
award the first star, which also may be displayed on trucks and external publications.

Award of second star: The second star (first awarded in May 2014) challenges the members to
improve through cooperation in the logistics value chain(s). In addition to the criteria set for the
first star, recipients of the second star must meet qualitative criteria on innovation and
cooperation, and demonstrate that they can measure and calculate two Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs) with acceptable accuracy, given the defined methodology. The KPIs are the
Network Performance Indicator, or NPI (CO2 per unit) and the Transport Performance Indicator,
or TPI (CO2 per unit.km, CO2 per move for terminals or cross docks, and CO2 per unit-day for
storage).

The two KPIs focus on communication between parts of the supply chain, analyzing supply
chains in total or by component, and on comparing and benchmarking. The KPIs also encourage
using a common acceptable methodology to gather data and to calculate these indicators with
acceptable accuracy.

The performance quantification methodology is derived from the European standard EN 16258,
as well as COFRET implementation guides, and has been tested by Lean and Green members.
The methodology and the scope of the second star include all modes of transport
(sea/river/air/rail/road), warehousing, storage, and terminal/docking activities.

The third star is reserved for absolute peer-to-peer benchmarking in specific subsectors, where
members can demonstrate that they meet and surpass absolute levels of NPI and/or TPI. The
fourth and fifth stars are designed to be stepping stones on the path to Zero Emission Logistics,
as some of the members already have this goal set in their strategy.

3-42
The program hosts a specific development program (Lean and Green Barge) at the request of the
Dutch Ministry of Transport to accelerate the development of Lean and Green in the large Dutch
barge sector. The goal of the program is to develop cooperation between shippers to obtain a
high enough freight volume and shipment frequency to be able to use barges, and to develop
accurate data on CO2 barge emissions in order to calculate and track the use of barges in their
action plans. Currently the data quality for transport by barges (and rail) is much lower than for
transport by road or air. The initial program has succeeded in attracting of over 75 shippers,
building a database of over 400,000 TEU of transport movements, and establishing more than 10
lanes. The data accuracy model is being tested and will be made available to members in 2014.

The following table highlights the key aspects of the Lean and Green program.

3-43
Program Element Lean and Green Logistics
General Information/Program Organization
Program Lia Hsu
administrator— Program Manager
agency/funding hsu@connekt.nl
source
Operated by Connekt and (currently) five licensees in Europe.
Funded by member fees. (For example, in the Netherlands, the initial fee is €2,000; annual renewal is €600 to €1,800.)
Program Goals Lean and Green Logistics encourages businesses, municipalities, and institutions to continuously improve their logistics processes. Its
vision is that improving the sustainability and reducing the footprint of their members’ logistics processes is aligned with improving their
competitiveness, increasing value, and reducing waste. Each member can make progress at its own level and learn from its peers. There
are five levels (one star to five stars), with the highest level aiming at Zero Emission Logistics.
Description Lean and Green Logistics encourages businesses (freight forwarders, logistics service providers, shippers, and carriers) and government
bodies (municipalities) to continuously improve their sustainability by taking measures that are Lean (add value, reduce waste) and
Green (reduce environmental impact, consumption of nonrenewable resources). The common goal is continuous improvement by
accepting challenges, cooperating in the logistics chain, and learning from peers.

The entry-level challenge (award and first star) confirms the program target. The participant then develops an action plan with the goal of
reducing its CO2 emissions by at least 20 percent in five years. (Inclusion of PM emission reductions is under development and is being
piloted in Germany.) Companies eligible for the Lean and Green Award are subject to four criteria including CO2 baseline development,
specifying an emission reduction target, development of an action plan to meet the target, and periodic monitoring and reporting of
progress. Strategies specified in the action plan must be applicable to at least five customers, and contact information for these customers
must be submitted for verification purposes. The scope of the action plan can range from local to European, and can include every step in
a supply chain.

To monitor progress, partners report their CPIs (critical performance indicators), which are numerical indicators expressing the results of
their measures. These measures and reports are audited by an independent third party, such as TNO in the Netherlands and TUV in
Germany. If the partner is in compliance with the criteria and the action plan is accepted, the Lean and Green Award is granted and the
Lean and Green logo may be displayed on trucks/barges, etc., and used in external publications. When the target of the action plan is met,
the member receives the first star, which may be displayed on vehicles and used in external publications.

The second star challenges the members to improve through cooperation in the logistics value chain(s). In addition to the criteria set for
the first star, they have to meet qualitative criteria on innovation and cooperation, and demonstrate that they can measure and calculate
two Key Performance Indicators with a minimal acceptable accuracy. The KPIs are the NPI (CO2 per unit) and the TPI (CO2 per unit.km,
CO2 per move, or CO2 per unit-day). The methodology and the scope of the second star include all modes of transport
(sea/river/air/rail/road), warehousing, storage, and terminal/docking activities. The scope of the second star is Europe (not localized).

The third star is reserved for absolute peer-to-peer benchmarking, where members can demonstrate they meet and surpass absolute levels
of NPI and/or TPI. The fourth and fifth stars are designed to lead to Zero Emission Logistics.

3-44
 Program Element Lean and Green Logistics
Start year 2007
Pollutants quantified CO2: CO2 per unit, CO2 per unit.km, CO2 per move, CO2 per unit-day
and performance Euro norms for other emissions
metrics used
Annual funding €175,000–€725,000
range
State of Mature, implemented at the multinational level
development or
program maturity
Partners
Number of partners Partners in the Netherlands:
• Truck carriers: 102
• Shippers: 73
• Logistic service providers: 99
• Municipalities: 16
As of May 2013, 31 members had attained the Lean and Green Star designation.
Other key Partners in Germany (GS1 Germany), Belgium (Flanders Institute for Logistics and Logistics in Wallonia), Luxembourg (Ministry of
stakeholders/ Transport), Italy (Freight Leaders Council).
affiliates

3-45
 Program Element Lean and Green Logistics
PROGRAM COMPONENTS
Data collection / Action plan (award, first star).
evaluation process
The submitted action plan contains the key elements for emissions and performance quantifications. The action plans include:
1 Introduction.
2. Description of the company—a qualitative and quantitative description of the organization.
3. The scope—that portion of the logistic activities to which the target applies. Non-logistic activities are not taken into account.
4. The CO2 savings target—the planned CO2 reduction in five years, versus the base year (not earlier than 2007). At least 20 percent.
Expressed as relative CO2 emissions performance (CO2 per unit).
5. The CO2 baseline measurement—the absolute and relative CO2 emissions in the base year, based on volume data, distance, fuel
consumption, etc., expressed in either CO2 per unit, CO2 per unit.km, and/or total CO2.
6. The saving measures—the total set of activities that will lead to the planned CO2 savings.
7. The critical performance indicators (CPIs)—the numerical indicators that measure the results.
8. Monitoring/anchoring—a description of the way in which the target(s) and results are monitored.
9. External publication—a description of the way in which the target, the efforts, and the results are communicated to the public.
10. Dashboard—a schematic summary of the baseline measurement, measures, and CPIs over the course of time.
The submitted documents for the second star consist of additional information including:
1. Measurement of KPIs (NPI, TPI) in compliance with uniform calculation methodology (based on EN 16258).
2. Minimum levels of data accuracy for KPI calculation.
3. For carriers, documentation of compliance with a minimum target on Euronorm (average 4.5).
4. Demonstration of two measures on cooperation and innovation to reduce CO2.
5. Demonstration of one measure on sustainable logistics (beyond CO2).
6. For shippers, demonstration of how carriers are encouraged to become more sustainable.
A second (or third/fourth/fifth) star is valid for one year and must be renewed every year through document submission.
Quantification Partner strategies or “solutions” specified in the action plan focus on logistic improvements such as use of vehicle tracking, ITS and
methodologies advanced dispatching/communication systems, implementation of driver training programs, and adoption of clean fuels such as LNG and
gas-to-liquids (GTL). Mass emission reductions and performance metrics are calculated with the baseline evaluation as well as with the
action plan and monitoring reports. Calculation methods for pollutants other than CO2 will be established in the future.

The methodology for CO2 reduction calculation and allocation is derived from the European standard EN 16258 and COFRET
implementation guides. A data accuracy model is used to assess the quality of the results based on the primary data sources and the
selected methodology. A minimum accuracy level is needed to be acceptable.

3-46
 Program Element Lean and Green Logistics
Data collection tools Performance monitoring data for the award and first star can be submitted via online portal or through the GFE database (under
development). Submitted data are confidential. Action plans are also submitted digitally. (Data for the second star are submitted by mail.)

A wide variety of Excel-based support tools are also offered, including:

• An Emissions Scan tool to calculate the impact of logistics strategies, including mode shifts on CO2, NOx, PM, and SO2 emissions.
• A Green Order tool that estimates the CO2 impacts associated with specific product orders.
• A Green Tender tool to provide guidance on choosing sustainable logistics services, including details regarding Euro emission
standards, environmentally friendly fuels, and empty kilometers travelled.
• An Environmental Barometer that provides a global environmental impact and cost overview for shippers and carriers, including a
CO2 per product estimate.
• A Quick Scan that serves as a screening tool for carriers and shippers, using inputs regarding kilometers travelled, tonnage hauled,
and engine power to assess the CO2 emission impact associated with various operation activities.
• A Bike Messenger Calculator that identifies package delivery types where bike delivery can be competitive with van delivery.
• Standardized emission factors, developed in cooperation with other agencies and government bodies for the Netherlands.
Branding and Recognizable logos are available for both the Lean and Green Award and the Lean and Green first star, as well as the European second
marketing strategies star. The criteria for qualifying for the logos are clear and well-documented.
Technology program Not applicable
details
Financial assistance No subsidies are available
mechanisms
Partner account Not provided
managers
Data management Not provided
system
Data quality Audits of action plan and second star submittals are carried out by an independent auditor, such as TNO or TUV.
assurance measures Audits of progress results are performed by an independent auditor, selected by the member from a list of accepted auditors.
Measurement/Impact
Estimated aggregate The 115 companies that have reported their savings have realized a 22 percent reduction in CO2 emissions.
benefits (annual
pollutant reduction,
fuel savings, etc.)

3-47
 Program Element Lean and Green Logistics
Further Information
Further information Lean and Green Logistics has developed a logistic emission calculation handbook that provides a standardized methodology for
calculating emissions associated with logistic activities, consistent with the Greenhouse Gas Protocol. Lean and Green Logistics has also
developed a uniform calculation and allocation methodology for NPI and TPI calculations for all parts of the logistic chain, and a data
accuracy model.

The new Lean and Green Barge program promotes cooperation between shippers to obtain a high enough freight volume and frequency
to be able to use barges (Lean) and to develop accurate data on CO2 emissions by barges to be able to calculate and track the use of
barges in action plans for stars one and two. The program has succeeded in attracting of over 75 shippers, building a database of over
400,000 TEU of transport movements, and getting more than 10 lanes active. The data accuracy model is being tested in practice and will
be made available to members in 2014.

Lean and Green signed a memorandum of understanding with Green Freight Europe to:

• Exchange knowledge and best practices on sustainable logistics.

• Create and support a common framework and definition for logistics for measuring and combining CO2 emissions, network
performance, and carrier performance, allowing for absolute comparison in peer groups, using primary operational data, based on
EN 16258. The framework includes a practical interpretation (and application) of the EN 16258 rules and describes how companies
should deal with existing gaps in the standard.
• Create a joined proposition (and preferably a joined membership) with a clear individual branding of both programs throughout the
European network. Lean and Green will have a clear focus on front-running companies and being the incubator for best practices on
improving environmental performances throughout freight transport. Green Freight Europe will focus on monitoring and reporting
and knowledge dissemination (best practice sharing) to European companies.
• Explore further collaboration and integration of both programs, respecting the own identities, will be worked out.
• Explore the potential of one overarching European organization on sustainable logistics including Lean and Green, Green Freight
Europe, and other initiatives.

3-48
 Entry-level participants in the Lean and Green Program demonstrate notable commitment to the
program as evidenced by their adoption of a specific five-year action plan, including twice-
yearly monitoring reports audited by a third party. The program also has an effective reward and
incentive system, using clearly defined logos indicating different performance levels: the Lean
and Green first star designation for members that have met their targets, the second star level for
advanced members, and the three- to five-star levels moving toward zero emissions. The Lean
and Green program also features particularly strong implementation support, offering partners
assistance, advice, and information on best practices.

Breadth: Lean and Green Logistics characterizes emissions and performance metrics for truck
carriers, logistics companies, and shippers. The recently implemented Lean and Green Barge
effort expands the program to inland barge carriers. Participants include private businesses as
well as municipalities and institutions seeking to improve their freight logistics performance.

Depth: The Lean and Green Program currently quantifies CO2 emissions and performance.
Performance metrics include CO2 per unit, CO2 per unit.km, CO2 per move, and CO2 per unit-
day.

Precision: Quantitative emissions reduction calculations are based on primary operational data
like fuel consumption data, distances driven, and units transported. The calculated emission
factors used are established in cooperation with other agencies and applicable government bodies
(e.g., the European standard EN 16258).

Comparability: The program offers a variety of assessment tools (e.g., Quick Screen, Emissions
Scan), designed to help the wide variety of users assess the costs and environmental impacts for
a variety of measures in a consistent fashion. In addition, in November 2013, Lean and Green
signed a memorandum of understanding with Green Freight Europe. The memorandum indicates
that the parties “agree to create a common framework and definition for measuring and
combining CO2 emissions, network- and carrier performance.” This will allow the two groups to
compare and harmonize results among their partners.

Verifiability: The data calculation and processing system allows for the accurate determination of
CO2 reductions on a twice-annual basis. In addition, the requirement for independent third-party
audits of CPIs and monitoring submittals makes the program benefit estimates highly verifiable.

3.1.8 Clean Cargo Working Group 53, 54

The Clean Cargo Working Group (CCWG) is focused on improving

environmental performance in marine container transport using
standardized tools for measurement, evaluation, and reporting. The CCWG
was established in 2003 by BSR (Business for Social Responsibility) and
founding industry members. CCWG is composed of a member-elected

53
BSR (2014). Clean Cargo Working Group. Retrieved from http://www.bsr.org/en/our-work/working-groups/clean-
cargo.
54
Personal communications: Angie Farrag-Thibault, Associate Director, BSR Transportation and Logistics Practice,
January–May 2014.

3-49
steering committee and several working teams. BSR serves as the neutral secretariat, data
manager, and expert facilitator. Data from more than 20 of the world’s leading ocean carriers are
reported to CCWG, representing more approximately 85 percent of global ocean trade (based on
TEU capacity represented by CCWG carrier members in February 2014, as measured by
Alphaliner).

The CCWG provides tools to its members for measuring, evaluating, and reporting ocean carrier
performance for CO2, NOx, and SO2 emissions as well as environmental management system and
waste, water, and chemical practice implementation. Every year Clean Cargo carriers report on
vessel-specific data to BSR via a standard template. CO2 emissions factors (in g CO2/TEU-km)
are calculated for CCWG’s performance metrics system. CCWG carriers report data for each
vessel including capacity (in TEU), distance sailed, and fuel type through the annual CCWG
Performance Metrics data collection process. The aggregated data are provided to all members,
and shipping customers are given individualized carrier scorecards.

This reporting and dialogue enables shipping customers to calculate the environmental impacts
of transporting goods around the world and benchmark carriers’ performance. Having this
information helps shipping customers make informed buying decisions in their supply chains,
and approximately 95 percent of CCWG shippers use CCWG tools or data in procurement
practices. CCWG also consistently engages in dialogue with other initiatives and experts
working on these issues in the global transport industry to align approaches that can improve
information sharing and performance for shipping customers and cargo carriers across the full
transport supply chain.

In order to continually increase data transparency, as well as the availability of quality metrics,
CCWG annually publishes aggregated trade-lane emissions factors. CCWG’s annual emissions
factor publication indicates that average CO2 emissions per TEU-km for global ocean container
transportation have declined by more than 7 percent from 2011 to 2012 and by 16 percent since
2009. While changes in carrier representation or global trade conditions likely explain a portion
of these reductions, the continued performance improvement is also attributed to carrier fleet
efficiency and data quality, both of which have direct benefits for shipping customers.

The following table highlights the aspects of the CCWG program.

3-50
 Program Element Clean Cargo Working Group
General Information/Program Organization
Program Angie Farrag-Thibault
administrator— CCWG Project Director
agency/funding Associate Director, BSR Transport and Logistics Practice
source afarrag-thibault@bsr.org
+45 2120 5015

Nate Springer
CCWG Project Manager
nspringer@bsr.org
+1 415-984-3309

CCWG is a working group of BSR (www.bsr.org/cleancargo), funded by member dues.

Program goals The overarching objective is to achieve environmental performance improvement in marine container transport through measurement,
evaluation, reporting, and sharing of best practices. Project outputs include:

• Practical, standardized tools for measuring and reporting the environmental impacts of cargo transported by sea that allows
companies to make informed business decisions.
• Direct dialogue and best practice sharing between shippers, transportation providers, and other relevant stakeholders in the pursuit of
continuous environmental improvement.
The vision is for CCWG tools and methodology to become the industry standard where applicable.
Description CCWG is a business-to-business collaboration between leading shippers and global ocean carriers and logistics providers. CCWG is
dedicated to environmental performance improvement through measurement, evaluation, and reporting in maritime transportation
management.

Container carriers have been reporting their CO2 performance to their customers in a credible and comparable format, based on the
CCWG CO2 methodology—the only existing and broadly recognized industry standard for maritime container shipping—for the past
eight years.

Modes: maritime cargo containers

Geography: global
Membership: carriers, shippers, and freight forwarders
Start year 2003

3-51
 Program Element Clean Cargo Working Group
Pollutants quantified • CO2, SOx, NOx:
and performance o CO2—gCO2/TEU-km
metrics used o SOx—g SOx/TEU-km, average sulfur content of fuel (percent)
o NOx—percent below IMO curve
• EMS—percent of fleet certified with EMS equivalent to ISO 14001
• Waste/water/chemicals—score (18 indicators)
• Transparency—score (10 indicators)
Annual funding $250,000–$1 million (U.S. dollars).
range
State of Mature
development or
program maturity
Partners
Number of partners 2014 membership:
• Carriers: 23
• Shippers: 11
• Freight forwarders: 6
Approximately 85 percent of the global ocean container fleet by volume is represented by carriers in the CCWG. Shippers include IKEA,
Wal-Mart, Nike, Heineken, Kohl's, Ralph Lauren, Nordstrom, Electrolux, and others.
Other key Feeders and other ocean cargo modes
stakeholders/
affiliates
Program Components
Data collection / CCWG collects quantitative and qualitative data from its members to score and rank them. Every year Clean Cargo carriers report on
evaluation process vessel-specific environmental performance data to BSR via a standard template. The aggregated data are provided to shipping customers
via individualized annual carrier scorecards. All data collection is done with an online system.

3-52
 Program Element Clean Cargo Working Group
Quantification CO2 emissions factors (in g CO2/TEU-km) are calculated for the purposes of CCWG’s performance metrics system. CCWG carriers
methodologies report on the following data for each vessel through the annual CCWG Performance Metrics data collection process:

• Nominal capacity (in TEU)

• Number of reefer plugs (used to calculate separate CO2 emission factors for reefer containers)
• Distance sailed
• Fuel consumed (heavy fuel oil and marine diesel/marine gas oil reported separately)
• Time frame of data
The calculation methodology for dry containers uses this information to calculate vessel CO2 emissions data based on International
Maritime Organization (IMO) guidance for emissions and carbon contents of fuels (Ref. T5/1.08 MEPC/Circ.471). A general description
of this calculation for dry and reefer containers is as follows:

CO2 emissions = (actual fuel consumption × CO2 conversion factor) ÷ (nominal capacity × actual distance sailed)

Vessel metrics and benefits aggregated and reported publicly at a trade-lane-specific level, based on g CO2/TEU-km (broken out by dry
and reefer containers)
Data collection tools Standardized measurement and reporting tools are online-based and include:

• The Environmental Performance Survey (EPS), which covers a series of qualitative questions on carriers’ environmental focus areas.
• The Environmental Performance Metrics (EMS), which enables container shipping customers to benchmark carriers’ performance
on a broad range of environmental impacts (e.g., CO2, SOx, and NOx; chemical use; and waste) of the carriers’ operated fleets
(including charter vessels). The EMS is updated every year with the latest performance data for each CCWG carrier.
• The Intermodal Carbon Calculator, a CO2 emissions calculation Excel tool that covers the whole transportation supply chain. This
tool requires users to enter actual or estimated distance for each mode and calculates emissions using the latest publicly available
modal average emissions factors from sources such as DEFRA and the U.S. EPA. Updated versions are issued annually, and training
decks are available.
• The Verification Protocol, which enables carriers to have their CO2 and SOx performance data verified independently based on a
standardized framework.
Branding and Website: http://www.bsr.org/en/our-work/working-groups/clean-cargo
marketing strategies
CCWG and partners publish five to seven blogs, reports, and press releases each year. Members speak at various conferences, and
CCWG holds one or two webinars throughout the year.

Clean Cargo has a logo, available upon request.

Technology program CCWG collects best practices in CO2, NOx, and SOx emissions management and reductions from carriers that it shares with members.
details These include lists of technological measures and management practices that carriers use across their fleets or for pilot testing.

3-53
 Program Element Clean Cargo Working Group
Financial assistance N/A
mechanisms
Partner account Four, who manage day-to-day administration of CCWG. This includes annual data collection, planning and logistics for two member
managers meetings per year, Steering Committee and other working committees, and some recruitment, marketing, and member support activities.
Data management The system is online and spreadsheet-based, and all spreadsheets and data are protected.
system
Data quality Nine out of 23 carriers were verified by third parties against standard methodology in 2013. External audits are conducted to verify the
assurance measures data and calculations. In order to continually increase data transparency, as well as the availability of quality metrics, CCWG annually
publishes aggregated trade-lane emissions factors, available at www.bsr.org/cleancargo.
Measurement/Impact
Estimated aggregate CCWG’s 2013 publication indicates that average CO2 emissions per TEU-km for global ocean transportation routes have declined by
benefits (annual more than 7 percent from 2011 to 2012 and by 16 percent since 2009. While changes in carrier representation or global trade conditions
pollutant reduction, likely explain a portion of these results, the continued performance improvement is also attributed to carrier fleet efficiency and data
fuel savings, etc.) quality, both of which have direct benefits for shipping customers.

2012–2014 program indicators and benefits include:

• Data were collected on ~3,000 container vessels, accounting for 1.74 trillion TEU-km traveled.
• 21 of 25 trade lanes demonstrated annual CO2 reduction in 2013.
Further Information
Further information Through in-person meetings, webinars, case studies, and other means of interaction, Clean Cargo promotes the sharing of best practices
between shipping customers, freight forwarders, and ocean transport providers. Recently, Clean Cargo published a report titled How
Clean Cargo Shippers Use, Integrate, and Benefit from Ocean Transport Emissions Data. See http://www.bsr.org/en/our-insights/report-
view/clean-cargo-shippers-transport-emissions.

From CCWG: “Our membership continues to grow, and we have expanded our scope both geographically and across industries.
Throughout 2012 and 2013, we made significant strides in our core activity of environmental performance data measurement, reporting,
and verification. Looking forward, we are improving the reporting systems to allow for more flexibility in supplier performance analysis
and industry performance benchmarking, as well as tools for members to integrate the data within operations and business partner
relationships.”

3-54
 The CCWG program exhibits extremely strong leadership, as evidenced by the participation of
the majority of the world’s leading cargo lines. BSR also provides an effective, impartial third
party for coordinating the collection, calculation, performance scoring, and auditing of partner
data.

Shipper partners demonstrate strong commitment to the program, assuring that they will
integrate the carrier scorecard data and other analysis tools into their freight service procurement
systems. Shippers also commit to train staff and to share how they use CCWG data with their
carriers.

By providing carrier-specific scorecards to shippers and freight forwarders, the CCWG provides
an effective incentive for communication between carriers and shippers and for continual carrier
improvement. Partner companies share best practices, and shipping customers can directly
engage with their transportation providers to build appropriate environmental expectations into
supplier relationships. Shipping customers use CCWG as a resource to keep abreast of the latest
developments in methodology alignment across the transport supply chain, enabling them to use
resources more effectively.

Carrier-specific performance information at the company and trade-line level provides customers
with a highly transparent performance assessment, often verified by an independent third-party
audit. While individual scorecard information is confidential, CCWG publishes aggregated
average performance metrics by trade lane each year.

The program provides strong implementation support with a suite of calculation and assessment
tools for its partners, along with four staff assigned to assist with data submittal, recruitment, and
other program-related activities. BSR also recently surveyed shipper partners to obtain feedback
on how program data are being used and the value CCWG brings to their companies.

The CCGW program uses its standardized calculation tools and methods to develop clear,
reliable program benefit estimates over time. According to CCWG, it is a “credible and
comparable format, based on the CCWG CO2 methodology—the only existing and broadly
recognized industry standard for maritime container shipping—for the past eight years.” The
CCWG tools generate accurate CO2 emissions factors and associated metrics using actual fuel
consumption and distance traveled. Precision for emissions calculations will improve further
when recently collected average utilization factor data are made publicly available. 55
Performance for NOx is assessed relative to IMO curves, but is limited to engines built/converted
after 1999. Details on emissions and performance quantification are discussed below.

Breadth: The program focuses primarily on oceangoing container vessel emissions, including
trade-lane and port movements, for propulsion and auxiliary engines. A separate tool is offered
to characterize intermodal CO2 emissions at a modal-average level of detail.

Depth: Program tools estimate CO2, NOx and SO2 emissions. CO2 emissions are based on total
fuel consumption and fuel carbon content, consistent with IMO standards, rather than lifecycle

55
Currently, emissions factor estimates are based on the rated capacity of the vessels, assuming 100 percent utilization
of cargo space.

3-55
 factors. SO2 emissions are derived from fuel sulfur content, and NOx emissions are based on
IMO curves.

Precision: Emissions estimates are very specific, developed at the carrier/trade-lane level.
Twenty-five distinct trade lanes are characterized and emissions performance for CO2 and SO2
are presented for each (in g/TEU-km). Emissions performance (in g CO2/TEU-km) is also
differentiated across dry and reefer containers. Emissions performance for NOx is presented for
each carrier in terms of a relative score rather than an activity-based metric, although specific
information regarding the percentage reduction below standard benchmarks is provided as well.

Comparability: The CCWG protocol is generally recognized as providing the industry standard
emissions factors for use in carbon footprinting for oceangoing container vessel activities.
Calculation methods are aligned with IMO procedures and the GHG Reporting Protocol, and
allow for consistent scoring across carriers.

Verifiability: CCWG’s encouraged use of third-party audits of carrier data as well as transparent
sharing of trade-lane-specific performance information promotes high-quality, reliable emissions
and efficiency estimates.

Finally, the CCWG protocol is particularly well-positioned for harmonization with other green
freight programs at a global scale. It has established itself as the primary, trusted source for
emissions factors used in carbon footprinting for container vessels. Its CO2 estimation
methodology is consistent with WRI’s distance-based methodology for supply chain emissions
characterization, as well as IMO’s Energy Efficiency Operational Index guideline. Its members
are also likely to be supportive of harmonization, with the recent shipper survey finding that
some member companies have a strong desire to use CCWG tools and procedures to characterize
emissions and benchmarks for all freight modes for global supply chain assessments. Finally,
CCWG is actively engaged with other industry initiatives to coordinate calculation
methodologies and tools across the entire shipping industry and intermodal supply chain.

3.2 Other Programs

The following programs usefully illustrate different aspects of green freight program
development, but do not meet the selection requirements (presented above) for full programmatic
evaluation for various reasons. Abbreviated summaries are provided for these programs below.

3.2.1 EcoTransIT® World Initiative 56, 57

EcoTransIT World Initiative (ETWI) is an independent industry-driven platform for carriers,

logistics service providers, and shippers dedicated to maintaining and developing a globally
recognized tool and methodology for carbon footprinting and environmental impact assessments
in the transport sector. ETWI was established in 1998 by five European railway companies,
specifically to help quantify the environmental impact of freight movement by various modes.

56
EcoTransIT (2014). EcoTransIT World. Retrieved from http://www.ecotransit.org/.
57
Personal communication: Andrea Dorothea Schoen, Senior Manager, Carbon Controlling and Consulting, March
2014.

3-56
 The Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IFEU) from Heidelberg, the Öko-Institut
from Berlin, and the Rail Management Consultants GmbH (RMCon/IVE mbH) from Hanover
developed the EcoTransit Tool to quantify emissions.

ETWI provides an open platform dedicated to work on globally harmonized methods of

assessing carbon footprints and environmental impacts in transportation. ETWI aims to:

• Increase transparency on the environmental impact of the freight transport.

• Promote the integration of environmental criteria in supply chain management.
• Encourage demand for environmentally friendly logistics services.
• Help transport providers meet their stakeholders’ demands in a broadly accepted manner.
• Ensure continuous improvement of the existing EcoTransIT World (ETW) calculator tool 58
to best comply with customer needs and to be in line with international standardization
requirements.
• Ensure that the tool maintains the state-of-the-art assessment of environmental impacts
covering every transport mode, every leg of global transport chains, and every geographical
region in compliance with existing and upcoming standards ensuring that the ETW and its
methodology will meet the requirements of its users including confidentiality and security of
data.

The ETW calculator quantifies the environmental impact of freight transportation in terms of
direct energy consumption (fuel use) and emissions during the transport of products. It also
calculates the indirect energy consumption and emissions related to production, transportation,
and the distribution of energy required for operating vehicles. Calculations are performed for
CO2e, CO2, SO2, NOx, NMHC, PM, as well as total energy consumption (on a well-to-wheel,
well-to-tank, and tank-to-wheels basis). The tool compares the energy consumption and
emissions of freight transported by rail, road, ship, and aircraft. It also takes into account the
intermodal transport services and the different technical standards of the vehicles. In addition,
the tool allows the user to select from an array of influencing factors to customize it for each
company’s individual conditions.

The tool calculates environmental impacts of any transport chain across the world. This is
possible due to an intelligent input methodology, large amounts of GIS data, and an elaborate
basis of computation. Data and methodology are scientifically founded and transparent for all
users. The input parameters and the process of analysis illustrate the tool’s precision:

• For each mode of transport, a GIS details the routes taken by goods.
• The computations integrate any trans-shipments at frontier crossings, or those occurring in
piggybacking.

58
The ETW calculator tool is hosted by IVE mbH.

3-57
 • The volumetric weight of the transported cargo allows a precise assessment of the size of the
trains.
• The type of loading locations (rail station, harbor, airport, roadway platform) enables
accurate modeling to reflect local circumstances.

Responding to the needs of companies on a European scale, the conditions of each country such
as energy combinations and topology are included in the calculations. Accordingly, EcoTransIT
can be used for routes traversing Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia,
Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.

ETW is unique as it is global (including all transport modes, all geographies), complete
(calculating all GHGs and other pollutants), and flexible (users can calculate with real measured
values or provide default values). The result of each calculation is presented in the form of
diagrams and compares the energy consumption and emissions of different environmental
pollutants, differentiating between selected modes of transports. This allows the user to select the
routes and transportation mode with the lowest environmental impact.

The state-of-the-art emission calculator tool is available as a free-of-charge Internet version or a

specifically customized version. Results are used for reporting and benchmarking purposes. All
key parameters—load factor, vehicle type, emission class, empty trip factor, speed reduction, etc.
—are transparent in the extended mode of the online version and can be adjusted to the user’s
actual business and transport structure. The overall methodology report is free, available, and
published at http://www.ecotransit.org/basis.en.html.

3.2.2 Green Logistics Partnership (Tokyo) 59

The Green Logistics Partnership (GLP) is a logistics benchmarking program for truck carriers
operating in the Tokyo area. The GLP is led by the Tokyo Metropolitan Government Bureau of
the Environment, and has been developed in close cooperation with the Tokyo Trucking
Association. The program continues long-standing teaming efforts between government and
industry to reduce freight truck emissions, dating back to the adoption of local in-use PM
standards and retrofit requirements in the early 2000s.

The program commenced with two years of data collection on in-use freight trucks between 2010
and 2012 to establish CO2 performance baselines. Data collected included monthly fuel
consumption and distance traveled at the vehicle-specific level, although payload data were not
collected. Fuel economy distributions were developed and differentiated based on vehicle weight
range (six weight classes), age, and operation types (nine categories including dry vans, reefers,
dump trucks, and containers)—39 categories in total. (A rough characterization of drive cycle
can also be inferred based on the area of registration.) A total of 34,000 vehicle months were
collected over this period, resulting in an extraordinarily robust data set for establishing relative
carrier performance.

59
Personal communication: Dan Rutherford, International Council on Clean Transportation, January–April 2014.

3-58
 Under the second phase of program implementation (April 2012–March 2013), km/liter
performance distributions were finalized for the various operation type/weight class
combinations (fitted to normal bell curves) for 115 participating companies. Performance ratings
of one, two, or three stars were then assigned to each vehicle evaluated based on the relative
placement on the curves. Freight companies were then assigned overall ratings based on simple
averages across their entire truck fleets. After the initial assessment, seven companies earned
three-star ratings, 43 earned two stars, and 65 earned one star. Company ratings are publicly
posted on the Bureau of the Environment’s website.

The third phase of program implementation (currently underway) involves integration with the
nonprofit Green Purchasing Network, or GPN (http://www.gpn.jp) broad umbrella organization
and currently has 2,749 members including businesses, governments and NGOs. The GLP is also
in discussion with other local government agencies in other areas of Japan, evaluating
opportunities for program expansion.

3.2.3 Freight Best Practice (Wales) 60

Freight Best Practice promotes operational efficiency within freight operations in Wales. The
program was first developed and deployed in England in the mid-1990s, and focuses on fuel-
saving measures, developing skills, equipment and systems improvements, performance
management, and multi-modal transport. The primary goal of Freight Best Practice is to help
freight operators reduce fuel consumption, lower operating costs, increase profit margins, and
lower CO2 emissions. Freight Best Practice has assembled a free information framework directed
toward all carriers in the industry. While some information is geared toward drivers, the majority
is aimed at transport managers and includes a series of guides to aid in benchmarking carrier
performance across a range of sectors (e.g., food, next-day parcel delivery, and pallet networks).
The program also provides information on best-in-class performers. The publications are
accompanied by a software tool (the Fleet Performance Management Tool, or FPMT) to assist in
benchmarking the fleet. The FPMT is a PC-based tool, complete with user manuals that allow
operators to track fleet performance week by week for 22 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for
each industry sector included.

3.2.4 EcoStation (Australia) 61, 62

EcoStation was a joint initiative between the Victorian Environment Protection Authority (EPA
Victoria) and the Australian federal government. The program was outsourced to the Victorian
Transport Association (VTA), who represented the interests of over 800 members throughout
Australia, composed of approximately 2.9 million trucks ranging from light commercial to heavy
articulated vehicles. The partnership was established through a sustainability covenant: a
voluntary agreement between the parties to explore creative ways to reduce environmental
impacts and increase resource efficiency. EPA Victoria elected to end its funding of the program

60
Freight Best Practice (2014). Freight Brest Practice. Retrieved from http://www.freightbestpractice.org.uk/.
61
EcoStation (2014). Ecostation: Saving fuel, money and the environment. Retrieved from
http://www.ecostation.com.au/.
62
Personal communication: Rob Perkins, Project Director, Victorian Transport Association, March 2014.

3-59
 approximately two years ago, causing a suspension of activities until new funding sources can be
established.

EcoStation served as a comprehensive resource center for the freight industry to assist individual
companies in maximizing their transport efficiencies and minimizing their environmental impact,
and was based largely on the SmartWay Transport program. By becoming members of
EcoStation, companies agreed to measure, reduce, and report their emissions to EcoStation.
EcoStation provided the necessary tools (e.g., driver training and fleet assessment) and technical
guidance to assist its members in quantifying and developing strategies to improve fuel use and
reduce emissions. EcoStation’s initiatives focused on reducing freight emissions across the entire
supply chain and included driver training and education, alternative drivetrains and fuel types,
improved tires and aerodynamics, improved auditing systems that allowed operators to test
scenarios for changes to the fleet, changes to traffic infrastructure and road management, supply
chain improvements, and bringing the industry together to share their knowledge on emissions
reduction.

The pilot program for EcoStation was launched in September 2009 and involved 27 foundation
partners. The program developed the key tools and services required to implement and quantify
fuel efficiency measures suitable for the Victorian freight industry, including the Excel-based
EcoStation Fleet Assessment Tool. The tool’s baseline module calculates fuel efficiency and the
GHG emissions of the given fleet, and the scenario module predicts changes in fuel efficiency
and emissions based on specific interventions selected by the user. The interventions include fuel
efficiency actions, changes to driving behavior and freight practices, alternative fuels, and
alternative drivetrains. The pilot program also tested the EcoStation freight partnership process
and options for a cost-effective and efficient service, and identified and selected key
environmental performance and recognition indicators that are relevant to both freight customers
and operators.

3.2.5 Green and Smart Transport Partnership (Korea) 63, 64, 65

The Korea Energy Management Corporation (KEMCO) is the implementing agency for the
Green and Smart Transport Partnership. The Partnership currently has 24 participating
companies. KEMCO’s goal is to enhance energy security and mitigate climate change by
reducing national energy consumption and GHG emissions. The goals of its partners are to
reduce fuel consumption, improve sustainable development, and better understand their freight
practices.

The Green and Smart Transport Partnership is a voluntary program open to any company, and
relies on a cooperative agreement between KEMCO and program partners. Upon joining the
Green and Smart Transport Partnership, a partner analyzes its current status by assessing and

63
Korea Energy Management Corporation (2013). Green & Smart Transport Partnership. Retrieved from
http://cleanairinitiative.org/portal/sites/default/files/presentations/PM-2-korea_2_-
_GreenSmart_Partnership_CGFI.pdf
64
Personal communication: Kyung Wan, Manager, Transportation Energy Team, Korea Energy Management
Corporation, January 2014.
65
Personal communication: Seong Woo Park, Korea Energy Management Corporation, June 27, 2013.

3-60
 tracking fuel consumption and GHG emissions and assesses its freight operations. The program
provides tools to help partners make these assessments. Once the initial baseline analysis is
complete, the program helps partners identify improvement opportunities for fuel efficiency and
system logistics, as well as support for technology improvements and potential financing sources
for implementing the suggesting measures.

Once the improvement measures are implemented, each partner continues to measure and report
its fuel consumption and emissions estimates, as well as the method of verification it used for
these estimates. Information collected through the Partnership will be shared with other
companies, developing a network for data sharing, best technology identification, and
establishing best practices. Participation in the program allows partners to fully understand their
freight operations and carbon footprints. Measures implemented through participation in the
program include idle reduction, modal shifts, vehicle replacements, fuel switching, and
aerodynamic modifications, among others.

KEMCO developed two baseline and monitoring methodologies for its partners to earn carbon
credits. Some fuel-efficient equipment qualifies for loans offered by KEMCO (i.e., eco-drive
systems and idle reduction systems). Partners that achieve outstanding performance win a prize
from the government and are recognized at conferences sharing best practices among the
partners. Green and Smart Transport continues to collaborate with other international programs
such as U.S. SmartWay, the Green Freight Asia Network, the China Green Freight Initiative, and
Green Freight Europe.

3.2.6 ECOSTARS Europe 66

ECOSTARS Europe provides guidance and advice to operators of vehicle fleets in an effort to
achieve more efficient and cleaner freight and passenger transport vehicle movements.
ECOSTARS rates the environmental and energy savings performance of vehicles and operation
practices for its recognition programs. ECOSTARS offers tailored support for its members,
customizing suggestions for efficiency improvements. ECOSTARS standards are developed by a
Europe-wide reference group. The goals of ECOSTARS Europe are:

• To increase the energy efficiency of freight distribution by giving recognition and publicity
to transport operators using sustainable practices in their procurement and management
processes.
• To encourage the faster introduction of vehicles using clean fuel technologies.
• To encourage the development of energy-efficient driving schemes and operational
management practices.
• To promote the auditing and certification of freight operators using a Europe-wide approach
to sustainable practices in freight operations.

66
ECOSTARS (2014). ECOSTARS fleet recognition scheme. Retrieved from http://www.ecostars-europe.eu/en/.

3-61
 3.2.7 Partnership on Sustainable Low Carbon Transport (SLoCaT) 67

SLoCaT is a broad effort targeting sustainable transport as a whole, rather than focusing solely
on freight movement. The Partnership was formed by the UN in 2009. It is a voluntary non-
governmental partnership currently representing over 80 organizations including UN and
bilateral development organizations, NGOs and foundations, academia, and the private sector.
SLoCaT promotes the adoption of global sustainable transport policies. The partnership focuses
on land transport in developing countries and includes freight and passenger transport. The initial
focus of the program will be on Asia, Latin America, and Africa.

The primary goal of the partnership is to provide access to global support for reducing the
growth of GHG emissions from land transport activities in developing countries by encouraging
sustainable, low-carbon transport. The four primary goals of SLoCaT are:

• The integration of sustainable, low carbon transport in climate negotiations, as well as

national and local climate policies and programs.
• The integration of climate considerations in regional, national, and local transport policies.
• The adoption of mainstream sustainable, low-carbon transport operations by international
development organizations.
• Contributing to sustainable development, especially providing access to goods and services
for lower-income groups.

3.3 Other Resources

3.3.1 Smart Freight Centre 68, 69, 70

The Smart Freight Centre (SFC) promotes a global freight sector that is more environmentally
sustainable and competitive by reducing emissions and improving fuel efficiency. SFC is a
nonprofit organization registered in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. It was established in response
to the growth in the global freight sector and to help overcome logistics/operational costs and
reduce environmental impacts. SFC is collaborating with global shippers, logistics providers,
freight forwarders, carriers, SmartWay, Green Freight Europe, Green Freight Asia, and other key
initiatives to develop a recognized, strategic, global framework for action regarding sustainable
growth and environmental responsibility. As a nonprofit organization with secure funding, SFC
is uniquely positioned to serve as an independent bridge between industry, government, and
other organizations establishing a global network across all stakeholder groups. Industry and
other stakeholders will benefit from SFC efforts to harmonize emissions footprint
methodologies, develop initiatives for regions/modes where there are gaps, and mobilize

67
SLoCaT (2014). Partnership on Sustainable Low Carbon Transport. Retrieved from http://www.slocat.net/.
68
Smart Freight Centre (2014). Smart Freight Centre. Retrieved from http://www.smartfreightcentre.org/.
69
Personal communications: Sophie Punte, Executive Director, Smart Freight Centre, January–February 2014.
70
Personal communications: Alan Lewis, Stakeholder Engagement Adviser, Smart Freight Centre, March–April 2014.

3-62
resources to priority areas. SFC is assembling an advisory group with representatives from key
partners and stakeholder groups.

SFC’s specific objectives include:

• Lead the development and deployment of a global framework for action.

• Lead the Global Logistics Emissions Council to align freight emissions methodologies and
integrate these into initiatives globally (a “pull” strategy).
• Remove barriers to the uptake of high-potential measures across the freight sector (a “push”
strategy).
• Strategically support industry-led initiatives (e.g., GFE and GFA), incubate new initiatives,
and align with other stakeholders and initiatives.

SFC’s generalized framework for action is presented in the figure below, which shows
complementary “push” and “pull” strategies for implementation.

Figure 3-1. Global Framework for Action (Putting Methodologies into Context)

Smart Freight Centre

SFC has developed the following key approaches and preliminary timetable for taking green
freight technologies and strategies to a global scale:

• Start with tires and telematics (rapid potential impact, supported by key players).
• Start with Asia (can be integrated into GFA’s labeling program).
• 2014—with a group of first movers, select specific technologies, create the model, and agree
on an implementation plan.
• 2015–2017—demonstrate and implement the model with the first movers.

3-63
• 2018 and beyond—implement the model across Asia and spread to other regions.

SFC is also collaborating with GFE to provide strategic support (e.g., regarding methodologies
and labeling, financing mechanisms, technology scale-up, and links with other initiatives). SFC
and GFE are meeting with leading GFE shipper members to present the business case for the
program and obtain their commitment to include CO2 from freight transport in their carrier and
modal selection process.

Global Logistics Emissions Council

Hosted by the SFC, the Global Logistics Emissions Council (GLEC) is an industry-led/-backed
initiative of leading shippers and companies involved in freight movement. The GLEC was
established in 2013 to align industry and government green freight initiatives in order to achieve
harmonized methodologies across the global multi-modal supply chain. Current members
include a variety of industry and government initiatives such as GFA, GFE, SmartWay (via
Edgar Blanco, MIT), CCWG, IATA/Air Cargo Carbon Footprint, EcoTransIT, Lean and Green,
and NTM. Company members include DB Schenker, DHL, Kuehne-Nagel, Maersk, and TNT.

The GLEC’s objectives include:

• A common industry vision statement regarding methodologies and broader green freight
strategies.
• Globally harmonized methodologies (i.e., a Global Framework for Freight Emissions
Methodologies) for measurement and reporting of emissions from freight movement
applicable to all modes, nodes (warehousing, transfer points, etc.), and global regions within
the transport supply chain.
• Alignment of industry-led/-backed initiatives across modes and global regions.
• Active engagement and communication with the entire global freight sector and other key
stakeholders (e.g., government, scientific/research institutes, NGOs, development agencies),
which includes positioning the work of the GLEC within a wider portfolio of programs
aimed at increasing freight sector efficiency.

The focus of the GLEC at this time is the development of a Global Framework for Freight
Emissions Methodologies that achieves widespread acceptance, followed by application to scale.
The development of an industry vision statement helps place globally harmonized methodologies
into the broader green freight context. Harmonization of methodologies can be expanded to other
areas over time (e.g., labeling schemes, support to carriers). The Global Framework builds on
existing methodologies and the outputs from the EU-funded COFRET project (see Section
3.3.3).

The planned timetable for the GLEC initiatives is as follows:

• Develop the Global Framework for Freight Emissions Methodologies for measurement and
reporting of emissions across modes, nodes, and global regions (2014–2016).

3-64
• Drive the acceptance and use of the Global Framework by industry, government, and other
players (e.g., through integration into tools; regional/national programs and labeling
schemes; policies; possible standardization through GHG Protocol, ISO, or other) (2014–
2016).
• Take the application of the Global Framework to scale across the global freight supply chain
to generate and communicate credible emissions data to customers, consumers, and investors
(2016 and beyond).
• Facilitate shipper and carrier incorporation of emissions into their decision-making on carrier
selection, reporting (e.g., Carbon Disclosure Project), and selection and implementation of
improvement measures.

The overall GLEC approach is summarized in the figure below.

Figure 3-2. GLEC Approach

Smart Freight Centre

The GLEC governance consists of the GLEC council itself, action groups, a secretariat hosted by
the SFC, and participation of industry and other stakeholder groups. The action groups include:

• The Multi-Modal Action Group, tasked with developing a set of principles where alignment
within and between modes is needed and feasible, and with pulling together the Global
Framework and roadmap based on input from Modal Action Groups and the Validation
Action Group.
• Modal Action Groups, which cover different modes (air, road/rail, inland waterways,
maritime, and transshipment centers). Tasks include aligning the methodology/ies within the
mode, identifying gaps and priorities, and developing a strategy to address gaps.

3-65
• The Supply Chain Application Group, which represents companies and operations across all
modes, and covers developed and developing countries/regions. Its tasks are to apply and
validate the Global Framework to a real case supply chain and provide feedback to the Multi-
Modal and Modal Action Groups on what works, what does not work, and gaps and proposed
solutions.

Shippers and companies involved with freight movement and industry associations can
participate in three ways:

• As active participants in the GFEC and/or the action groups. New members must sign a
commitment letter and undergo a briefing with the SFC to ensure that their participation will
facilitate the process.
• Through consultation, where the leads of each action group make direct contact with
companies to obtain ideas and input for the methodology, and send them draft outputs for
review.
• As observers, especially for companies that do not have time but want to be kept informed
about GFEC activities through regular updates.

The GLEC will consult and engage other stakeholders throughout the process, including
standardization bodies, government, academic and research institutes, non-governmental
organizations (NGOs), development banks, and development agencies. This engagement will
ensure the Global Framework is credible and usable to all stakeholders.

3.3.2 European Standard EN 16258, “Methodology for Calculation and

Declaration of Energy Consumption and GHG Emissions of Transport
Services (Freight and Passengers)”

European Committee for Standardization (CEN) members are bound to comply with EN 16258,
approved on November 8, 2012. CEN members are the national standards bodies of Austria,
Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy,
Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania,
Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, and the United Kingdom. The emission
quantification protocols for the GFE and Lean and Green programs are based on and consistent
with this standard.

The following description is from the introduction to the standard.

This standard sets out the methodology and requirements for calculating and reporting
energy consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in transport services. This first
edition of the standard is primarily focused on energy consumption and GHG emissions
associated with vehicles (used on land, water and in the air) during the operational phase
of the lifecycle. However, when calculating the energy consumption and emissions
associated with vehicles, account is also taken of the energy consumption and emissions
associated with energy processes for fuels and/or electricity used by vehicles (including for
example production and distribution of transport fuels). This ensures the standard takes a

3-66
 “well-to-wheel” approach when undertaking calculations, and when making declarations
to transport service users.

The philosophy, contents, and structure adopted in this standard seek to make it widely
applicable across the transport sector (encompassing all modes impartially) and accessible
to a very diverse user group. Within this sector, it is recognized that transport operations
vary hugely, from multi-national organizations operating multiple transport modes to
deliver transport services across the globe, through to a small local operator delivering a
simple service to one user. In addition, the potential user group for this standard is similarly
diverse, and the monitoring of transport energy and emissions within organizations can be
at different levels of maturity and sophistication. Consequently, this first edition of the
standard balances the desire for absolute precision and scientific rigor with a degree of
pragmatism in order to achieve ease of use, accessibility and encourage widespread use.

Use of this standard will provide a common approach and frameworks for the calculation
and declaration of energy consumption and emissions for transport services irrespective of
the level of complexity (e.g. a simple transport service can provide one customer with a
single journey, whereas a complex system can involve several legs, multiple vehicle types,
different transport modes and several companies within the transport supply chain). The
standard ensures declarations have greater consistency and transparency, and that the
energy and emissions are fully allocated to a vehicle’s load (passengers and/or cargo).

It is anticipated that future editions of the standard will have broader quantification
boundaries, to include additional aspects such as, transport terminals, trans-shipment
activities, and other phases of the lifecycle. Users of the standard that would now like to
use broader quantification boundaries, without waiting for a new edition of the standard
are advised to communicate such results separately from the ones calculated according to
this standard, and to give a transparent description of the methodology applied.

3.3.3 COFRET 71, 72

Begun in 2011 and funded by the European Commission, COFRET is a collaborative effort of
consultants, universities, and other research institutions to provide industry, shippers, receivers,
and logistics providers with information to reduce the uncertainty in calculating the carbon
footprint for freight transport. Other greenhouse gases including methane and N2O are also
addressed. COFRET has reviewed the strengths and weaknesses of existing methodologies and
tools for all modes and regions, as well as methodologies and tools under development, for
stakeholders to estimate their carbon footprint. COFRET is also assessing existing tools’
consistency with EN 16258 (see above), and attempting to address gaps/shortcomings in the EN
standard itself for possible inclusion in future editions of the standard. While new tools and
methods are not being developed, the research findings are collected and distributed through an
information clearinghouse on the COFRET website.

COFRET’s analysis takes the entire supply chain into consideration, and focuses on the need for
industry to harmonize its approach and methodologies for estimating CO2 emissions. Without

71
COFRET (2014). Carbon Footprint of Freight Transport. Retrieved from http://www.cofret-project.eu/.
72
Personal communication: Alan Lewis, Stakeholder Engagement Adviser, Smart Freight Centre, April 2014.

3-67
 this alignment, it is impossible to compare across different modes and routings, direct
comparisons cannot be made between providers, there can be no comparisons over time,
calculation of impacts for supply chains with multiple layers is difficult, and comparisons across
supply chains cannot be assessed.

The following COFRET deliverables have been approved by the European Commission and are
available for download:

• COFRET Deliverable 2.1, “Existing Methods and Tools for Calculation of Carbon Footprint
of Transport and Logistics.”
• COFRET Deliverable 2.2, “User Needs, Practices and Experiences in the Context of Carbon
Footprint Calculations in Supply Chain Configurations.”
• COFRET Deliverable 2.3, “Future Technologies and Innovations Relating to Freight
Transport Which Are Relevant for Carbon Footprint Calculation.”
• COFRET Deliverable 2.4, “Methodologies for Emission Calculations—Best Practices,
Implications and Future Needs.”

A report evaluating the effectiveness of EN 16258 and its applicability to the current freight
industry is also near publication, as is a comparison of the EN standard with other ISO and GHG
calculation protocols.

COFRET activities are scheduled to continue through May of 2014, although a six month
extension may be granted. The COFRET website/information clearinghouse will be maintained
after completion of other research activities.

3.3.4 Geospatial Intermodal Freight Transportation (GIFT) Model 73

The GIFT model was developed by the University of Delaware in collaboration with the
Rochester Institute of Technology to help policy makers understand the environmental,
economic, and energy impacts of various intermodal freight transportation modes. GIFT uses
transportation modes (highway, railway, waterway) connected by intermodal terminals (ports,
rail yards, truck terminals). Routes along the network are characterized not only by temporal and
distance attributes, but also by cost, energy, and emissions attributes (including emissions of
CO2, PM, SO2, VOCs, and NOx). Decision-makers can use the model to explore tradeoffs among
alternative route selection across different modal combinations, and to identify optimal routes for
objectives that feature energy and environmental parameters (e.g., minimize CO2 emissions).

73
Winebrake, J.J., J.J. Corbett, A. Falzarano, J.S. Hawker, K. Korfmacher, S. Ketha, and S. Zilora (2008). Assessing
energy, environmental, and economic tradeoffs in intermodal freight transportation. Journal of the Air Waste
Management Association 58(8): 1004–1013. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18720650.

3-68
 3.3.5 Network for Transport and Environment (NTM) 74

The NTM is a nonprofit organization founded in 1993. The NTM has worked to establish a
common methodology for calculating emissions, natural resource consumption, and other effects
of freight and passenger transport. The methodology was developed so that shippers can evaluate
the environmental impact of their freight movement. The NTM provides a standard calculation
method linking to relevant environmental data, and offers a suite of tools for supplier evaluation.

3.3.6 South Australian Freight Council (SAFC) 75

The SAFC was formed in 2002 with the merger of the South Australian Freight Council for Sea
Cargo and the South Australian Air Freight Export Council. The SAFC was expanded in 2003
with the merger of the South Australian Land Freight Export Council into the association. These
mergers allowed the combined council to offer truly multi-modal industry representation to
government, and to work on projects that enhance the effectiveness and competitiveness of all
sectors along the full logistics supply chain.

The SAFC has approximately 100 member organizations representing over 10,000 individual
companies. It focuses on identifying key freight logistics issues for South Australia, and
developing solutions. Its membership is composed of all industry sectors along the supply chain
(road, rail, sea, air, and storage, and the interaction between these modes), ranging from buyers
to users of freight to freight service providers and government. The SAFC’s primary goals are:

• To promote the welfare and development of the freight and logistics industry in South
Australia, including the movement of goods to urban, intrastate, interstate, and overseas
markets across all modes of transport.
• To facilitate improved efficiency and integration of freight transport improvements
throughout the freight logistics chain.
• To focus on “common interest” issues and identify solutions for the benefit of the
Association and South Australia.
• To identify constraints on competitive freight transport, generate innovative solutions, and
make recommendations to government and industry on their implementation.
• To provide a forum for the exchange of views within industry and between industry and
government on matters affecting the efficiency of freight logistics.
• To offer practical “strategic” advice to government.

74
NTM (2014). General methods and data; detailed methods and data. Retrieved from
http://www.ntmcalc.org/index.html.
75
SAFC (2014). About SAFC. Retrieved from http://www.safreightcouncil.com.au/aboutus.asp.

3-69
 3.4 Freight Supply Chain Carbon Accounting and Reporting

The emergence and growth of the green freight GHG Protocol Emissions Scope
programs described above—and of many others around
the world—coincides with a growing customer demand When businesses and organizations report
for supply chain carbon accounting and reporting. In their greenhouse gas emissions for the
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Protocol, they
addition to complying with regulations targeting PM,
account for both their direct emissions
NOx, and fuel economy, more and more the global (Scope 1 emissions) and indirect
freight industry is being asked to define its contribution emissions (Scope 2 and 3 emissions).
to customer carbon footprints and climate risk. Scope 1 emissions are direct emissions
Reporting CO2 emissions (“carbon reporting”) is from company-owned or company-
controlled sources. Scope 2 emissions are
becoming commonplace for various industry sectors
indirect emissions from the generation of
around the globe, often driven by customer interest in purchased energy, and Scope 3 emissions
product and service sustainability. Overall, indirect are all indirect emissions that occur in the
emissions, of which transportation is a major company’s value chain. When an
contributor, can represent as much as 86 percent of a organization hires a freight transport
company to move its products, those
company’s total emissions. As a result, corporate
76
transport emissions contribute to that
customers, shareholders, lenders, and insurers are organization’s Scope 3 emissions.
increasingly demanding greener freight options to
complement their overall corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives. CSR initiatives often
include carbon reporting goals through nonprofit organizations like the Carbon Disclosure
Project, which provides a platform for organizations to report their carbon performance. These
organizations assist corporations seeking to understand the sources of their greenhouse gas
emissions and decrease emissions through both operations and supply chain management,
including a freight transportation component.

To fulfill the reporting requirements of their sustainability initiatives, freight customers need to
quantify the environmental impact of their freight. The 2012 CDP Supply Chain Report indicates
that 39 percent of reporting supply chain member companies will begin deselecting suppliers that
do not adopt good carbon-management practices. So, as awareness of climate change issues
continues to increase worldwide among investors and consumers, reducing supply chain carbon
emissions through efficient freight choices is becoming an economic imperative. 77 To this end,
the accurate and verifiable carbon footprint quantification provided by green freight programs
can provide a strong complement to larger carbon accounting goals.

Many of today’s multinational firms and global suppliers are also interested in green freight
programs in particular, especially if they build in standardized carbon reporting requirements.
Multinational firms like Wal-Mart and IKEA that have global operations need to coordinate
freight logistics in multiple countries to get products delivered from factory to customer in the
most fuel efficient manner possible. Not only are they seeking to reduce costs, but they are

76
Mathews, H S., C.T. Hendrickson, and C.L. Weber (2008). The importance of carbon footprint estimation boundaries.
Environmental Science and Technology 42: 5839–5842. Cited in Carbon Disclosure Project (2012). CDP Supply
Chain Report 2012: A New Era: Supplier Management in the Low-Carbon Economy. Retrieved from
https://www.cdp.net/CDPResults/CDP-Supply-Chain-Report-2012.pdf.
77
Carbon Disclosure Project (2012). CDP Supply Chain Report 2012: A New Era: Supplier Management in the Low-
Carbon Economy. Retrieved from https://www.cdp.net/CDPResults/CDP-Supply-Chain-Report-2012.pdf.

3-70
driving the demand for tools to accurately measure and reduce their carbon footprint throughout
their entire supply and delivery chains worldwide.

Customers, clients, and shareholders are increasingly demanding transparency, accountability,

and disclosure. Supply chain sustainability efforts create real business value through new
products and services, premium pricing opportunities, and enhanced corporate reputations.
Because carbon is a leading indicator of operational efficiency, addressing carbon reduces
operating costs, improves a company’s ability to compete globally, and reduces climate and
supply chain risk. For example, the Carbon Disclosure Project findings from 2013 reported that
90 percent of members report business risks from climate change and 73 percent of members
report cost savings from emission reduction activities.

Making carbon footprint information publicly available, as the Carbon Disclosure Project, the
Global Reporting Initiative, and a number of green freight programs do, can inspire a general
movement toward sustainable operations. However, market-based green freight programs have
the potential to do more by strongly incentivizing continual carbon performance improvements
among their participants.

Additionally, many corporations are responding to internal and external pressures to adopt CSR
goals and initiatives. Driven by a recognition of corporations’ influence on such global issues as
human rights, labor practices, climate change, economic development and poverty, more and
more stakeholders (e.g., shareholders, employees, customers, nonprofit and advocacy
organizations, local communities) are holding corporations accountable for their actions, meeting
best practices, and submitting to third-party inspections and oversight. Participating in a green
freight program responds to many CSR concerns and can be a centerpiece in a corporation’s
efforts to become a more responsible corporate citizen.

3-71
 4.0 Freight Vehicles and Operation Practices
4.1 Trucking (Vehicles and Operational Practices)

This chapter provides an overview of diesel truck characteristics and describes how these
characteristics influence the technologies and operational strategies that can be applied to the
different types of truck fleets. As reduction of black carbon is a primary focus of the Green
Freight Action Plan, this discussion is limited to trucks that are diesel-fueled.

4.1.1 Truck Classification

Diesel truck fleets can be classified in a number of ways, and classification of trucks varies
among countries and regions. In the United States, diesel trucks are classified by vehicle weight
group, as described later in this chapter. In Canada, classifications vary among provinces, based
on a number of factors such as size, weight, economic activity, and physical environment;
several Canadian provinces use the U.S. Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) weight
classification system, also described below. 78 Licensing in the European Union is based on gross
vehicle and trailer weight ratings. The U.S. and EU truck classification schemes, and associated
emission standards, are commonly adopted by other countries. Restrictions are also applied
based on vehicle and trailer length, as well as allowable payloads, which can be more variable
from country to country. Therefore, regional plans for targeting certain fleets need to consider
local truck classification standards and dimensional specifications. The most common methods
used to classify freight trucks are summarized below, along with general information on
technologies and operational strategies applicable to the various truck types and applications.

In the United States, commercial truck classification is based the vehicle’s gross vehicle weight
rating (GVWR), with trucks falling into one of eight weight classes. The FHWA uses the same
GVWR splits, but assigns weight classification more broadly in one of three categories: light
duty, medium duty, and heavy duty. The FHWA further classifies vehicles based on whether
they carry passengers or commodities, and non-passenger vehicles are further subdivided into
groups according to the number of axles and number of units, including both power and trailer
units. 79 The EPA weight class categories used for emission standard certification and modeling
are very similar to U.S. FHWA weight classes. The various weight classifications used in the
United States are shown in Figure 4-1.

78
http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/Freight/sw/index.htm
79
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohpi/vehclass.htm

4-1
 Figure 4-1. Weight Classifications Used in the United States

U.S. Department of Energy

In Europe, a similar system is used to classify vehicles based on weight. Self-propelled vehicles
with at least four wheels used specifically for carrying goods fall into Category N, with the
following subcategories:

4-2
 • N1—vehicles for carrying goods with a maximum mass less than or equal to 3.5 tonnes.
• N2—vehicles for carrying goods with a maximum mass greater than 3.5 tonnes but less than
12 tonnes.
• N3—vehicles for carrying goods with a maximum mass greater than 12 tonnes.

(Emission standards for European vehicles, as well as those for other countries, are listed in
Chapter 2, Table 2-6 and Table 2-7.)

4.1.2 Global Freight Truck Market

Roadways serve as the predominant mode of freight transportation in most regions of the world.
As such, roadway tonne-km hauled estimates provide a good indicator of the overall size of a
country’s total freight transportation market. Table 4-1 provides an indication of the intensity of
road freight transportation for 66 selected countries, ranked in terms of absolute tonne-km hauled
per year in 2009. 80 The table shows China clearly outdistancing all other countries on the list. In
addition, China, India, and the United States are responsible for almost two thirds of the tonne-
km hauled for the selected countries.

Table 4-2 presents the change in tonne-km hauled over the 2000-2009 period for many of these
same countries. This table shows that in addition to China, road freight volumes have increased
dramatically over the previous decade in many Central Asian and Eastern European nations,
while many North American and Western European nations have experienced relatively low or
even negative growth rates.

The next table, Table 4-3, provides an approximate snapshot of the world’s heavy-duty fleet
population in 2010 and its projected size in 2030. In some areas, such as the Middle East, India,
and South Korea, the heavy-duty fleet is expected to more than double in this 20-year period.
However, all areas are expected to see an increase in the fleet size (except Japan, where a 6
percent decline is projected).

80
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IS.ROD.GOOD.MT.K6

4-3
 Table 4-1. Annual Roadway Tonne-km Hauled, Selected Countries, 2009

Country 2009 Country 2009

China 3,718,882 Switzerland 16,734
United States 1,929,201 New Zealand 16,509
India 1,005,200 Austria 16,276
Germany 415,600 Norway 16,109
Japan 334,667 Slovenia 14,762
Spain 286,167 Bulgaria 13,871
France 276,000 Belarus 13,512
Mexico 211,600 Ireland 12,071
Poland 191,484 Azerbaijan 10,634
Australia 183,437 Denmark 10,003
Russian Federation 180,135 Croatia 9,429
Turkey 176,455 Luxembourg 8,400
Italy 167,627 Latvia 8,115
Pakistan 145,303 Afghanistan 6,575
South Asia 145,303 Estonia 6,290
United Kingdom 125,177 Albania 4,400
Canada 118,903 Macedonia, FYR 4,035
Netherlands 72,675 Moldova 2,674
Kazakhstan 66,254 Cuba 2,315
Colombia 65,688 Bosnia and Herzegovina 1,712
Czech Republic 44,955 Algeria 1,512
Belgium 43,591 Kyrgyz Republic 1,256
Hungary 35,373 Mongolia 1,161
Portugal 35,356 Cyprus 944
Sweden 35,000 Iceland 810
Romania 34,265 Morocco 800
Ukraine 33,193 Georgia 611
Vietnam 31,587 Serbia 418
Greece 28,585 Liechtenstein 300
Slovak Republic 27,484 Lao PDR 296
Finland 25,200 Armenia 182
Uzbekistan 23,200 Montenegro 179
Lithuania 17,757 Myanmar 4

4-4
 Table 4-2. Growth in Roadway Tonne-km Hauled, 2000–2009

Country % Increase Country % Increase

Uzbekistan 1,833% Greece 56%
Russian Federation 673% Australia 38%
China 507% Belgium 34%
Bosnia and Herzegovina 471% Norway 29%
Macedonia, FYR 420% Georgia 29%
Armenia 355% Portugal 28%
Bulgaria 236% Germany 20%
Azerbaijan 203% Czech Republic 15%
Slovenia 181% Cuba 14%
Belarus 169% United States 11%
Moldova 167% Mexico 9%
Hungary 165% Sweden 8%
Poland 155% Japan 7%
Colombia 142% Kyrgyz Republic 5%
Romania 140% France 4%
Lithuania 129% Serbia -1%
Spain 115% Ireland -2%
Albania 100% Austria -5%
Myanmar 100% Finland -8%
Slovak Republic 92% Denmark -9%
Latvia 69% Italy -9%
Croatia 62% United Kingdom -17%
Netherlands 59% Mongolia -22%

Table 4-3. World Heavy-Duty Fleet Estimates (Millions of Vehicles) 81

Country 2010 2030 Projected % Increase

Canada 3 4 33%
U.S. 12 15 25%
Mexico 3 5 67%
Brazil 2 3 50%
Latin America (excluding Brazil) 8 14 75%
EU-27 35 41 17%
Non-EU 6 8 33%
Africa 10 15 50%
Middle East 7 17 143%
India 5 19 280%
Australia 3 4 33%
China 17 32 88%
Russia 6 7 17%
Japan 17 16 -6%
South Korea 5 11 120%

81
International Council on Clean Transportation. 2013. European Vehicle Market Statistics: Pocketbook 2013.
Retrieved from http://eupocketbook.theicct.org/.

4-5
 Country 2010 2030 Projected % Increase
Total 139 211 52%

Frost and Sullivan has conducted a more detailed evaluation of the global growth prospects for
the medium and heavy commercial vehicle (MCV and HCV) fleet through 2022. The figures
below provide a snapshot of their most recent analyses and highlight growth trends for specific
regions and countries, as well as advanced technologies in the MCV and HCV fleets.

Figure 4-2 below provides vehicle unit estimates for MCV and HCV fleets from 2012 through
2022 for various regions. In terms of the absolute number of freight trucks added to the global
fleet, Chinese growth far outpaces any other region in this analysis.

Figure 4-2. Global Medium and Heavy Truck Market Forecast

Despite short-term global headwinds, stabilizing BRIC markets and rising Next 11 and African markets to
elevate global MCV and HCV sales to 4.7 million by 2022

BRIC: Brazil, Russia, India, and China HCV: heavy commercial vehicle
CAGR: compound annual growth rate MCV: medium commercial vehicle
CV: commercial vehicle RoW: rest of world

Figure 4-3 provides country-specific estimates for Africa. Unlike the regions presented in the
previous figure, Africa is expected to see fleet growth focusing on medium rather than heavy-
duty trucks. Note that these countries are often difficult to obtain data for, so this information

4-6
may be of particular interest to stakeholders considering the viability of Green Freight initiatives
on the African continent.

Figure 4-3. African Medium and Heavy Truck Market Forecast

South African, Algeria, and Nigeria to lead African truck market; low-cost product line, CKD assembly,
and after-sales support are key entry strategies for OEMs

CKD: completely knocked down HCV: heavy commercial vehicle

OEM: original equipment manufacturer MCV: medium commercial vehicle
CV: commercial vehicle

Figure 4-4 highlights anticipated technology adaptations for the global commercial trucking
fleet, by major region. It provides a matrix of popular commercial vehicle technologies along
with projections for their expected implementation. The developing markets represented (South
America, Russia, China, and India) offer the greatest opportunity for substantial technology
uptake, with significant developments expected in natural gas and telematics in particular.

4-7
 Figure 4-4. Top Commercial Vehicle Technologies—Global Outlook

OEMs to increasingly focus on advanced powertrain, safety, telematics, and cabin systems for diversified
leadership across segments and geographies

CV: commercial vehicle

NA: not applicable
OEM: original equipment manufacturer

Highlights from the Frost & Sullivan analysis 82 include:

• Global MVC truck sales are expected to increase by 70 percent between 2012 and 2022.
• BRIC, “Next 11,” Africa, and rest-of-world countries are expected to account for 75 percent
of truck sales growth volume during this period, providing prime opportunities for
penetration of new technologies and emission controls in developing markets.
• Sales of alternative technology OEM vehicles (CNG/LNG and hybrid electric trucks) will
reach half a million by 2022.
• Global natural gas penetration is projected to reach 8.5 percent by 2022.

4.1.3 In-Use Operating Characteristics

Average fuel economy and carbon efficiency values for freight trucks operating in selected
countries are provided in Table 4-4 below. The fuel economy values are highly dependent upon

82
For more information on the global truck industry outlook from Frost & Sullivan, contact Jeannette Garcia, Corporate
Communications, at jeannette.garcia@frost.com or 210-477-8427.

4-8
 local operating conditions such as topography and traffic congestion. On the other hand, the
carbon performance metric, expressed in grams of CO2 per tonne-kilometer, can provide a more
useful efficiency comparison as it is tied to actual freight delivered rather than distance travelled.
For example, higher allowable payloads in China result in relatively more efficient grams of CO2
per tonne-kilometer values than might be expected based on the Chinese fleet’s fuel economy
value alone.

Table 4-4. Average Fuel Economy and Carbon Performance for Selected Countries 83

Fuel Economy Carbon Performance Average Payload

Country (l/100 km) (g CO2/Tonne-km) (Tonnes)
EU 32 32 26
U.S. 33 41 21
Japan 23 43 14
China 47 36 34

The following provides a more in-depth profile of heavy-duty diesel truck operating
characteristics used for freight transport in the United States and Canada, supplemented by data
sources from other regions where available. Much of the efficiency and performance data
presented below came from the SmartWay program, illustrating the ability of green freight
programs to collect and evaluate high-quality operational data across the freight sector.

Typically, heavy trucks fall into the equivalent of U.S. FHWA weight classes 6 through 8. Class
6 trucks commonly include school buses, beverage trucks, bucket trucks, package delivery
trucks, and others, with payloads typically falling between 2 and 5 tons. 84 Class 7 trucks may
include moving vans, dump trucks, city buses, tankers, tractor-trailers, and others, with payloads
typically falling between 4 and 8 tons. 85 Class 8 trucks are generally over-the-road trucks used
for freight transport, with class 8A trucks typically being used for local or regional transport and
Class 8B trucks generally used for long-haul transport. Class 8 trucks in EPA’s SmartWay
program typically have fuel economies ranging from about 5 to 8 miles per gallon. 86 Generally,
because of their size and power requirements, class 6, 7, and 8 trucks are powered by
compression ignition (diesel-fueled) engines.

Examples of class 6, 7, and 8 trucks are shown in Figure 4-5, Figure 4-6, and Figure 4-7.

83
Personal communication: Manfred Schuckert, Business Environment and Corporate Regulatory Strategy, Daimler
AG, May 30, 2013.
84
http://www.epa.gov/smartway/tips/tips-12.htm (chart 2)
85
http://www.epa.gov/smartway/tips/tips-12.htm (chart 3)
86
http://www.epa.gov/smartway/tips/tips-17.htm (charts 1 and 2)

4-9
 Figure 4-5. Class 6 Single-Unit Truck

Mr. Choppers/Wikimedia Commons; CC BY-SA 3.0

Figure 4-6. Class 7 Dump Truck

Ky MacPherson/Wikimedia Commons; CC BY-SA 3.0

4-10
 Figure 4-7. Class 8 Combination Cab-Over Tractor-Trailer

111 Emergency/Wikimedia Commons; CC BY 2.0

Combination tractor trailers typically can benefit from the addition of aerodynamic retrofits, such
as skirts and fairings. However, advances in retrofits for single-unit trucks have lagged behind
those for combination trucks, likely a result of the lower speeds, lower annual mileage, and
typical stop/go service which is more common for single-unit trucks. 87 SmartWay verifies some
low-rolling-resistance tires when used on combination trucks (class 8 line-haul tractor trailers). 88
Idle reduction strategies can be applied to either single-unit trucks or combination trucks,
depending on the type of operation, but specific idle reduction technologies are typically best
suited to specific types of truck operation. For example, truck stops with sleeper cab climate
control or tractor electrification pertain primarily to over-the-road combination truck operation,
while automatic engine shutdown/startup systems might best apply to single-unit trucks used for
local delivery service or combination trucks used for local operations, such as drayage
operations.

87
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2002). Industry Options for Improving Ground Freight Fuel Efficiency. p.
35.
88
http://www.epa.gov/smartway/forpartners/documents/verified/420f12024.pdf

4-11
 Driveline efficiency improvements and exhaust after-treatment retrofits can be applied to either
single-unit trucks or combination tractor trailers, depending on the engine’s year, control
technology, and fuel used, as described in Section 4.2.

Figure 4-8 shows the average fuel economy of class 2B through class 8B trucks in EPA’s
SmartWay program, and Figure 4-9 shows the average fuel economy of SmartWay trucks by
operational category. As expected, miles per gallon values generally decrease with increasing
truck weight.

Figure 4-8. Average Fuel Economy of SmartWay Trucks by Class 89

89
http://www.epa.gov/smartway/tips/tips-17.htm (chart 3)

4-12
 Figure 4-9. Average Fuel Economy of SmartWay Trucks by Operational Category 90

Figure 4-10 shows the average payloads (excluding vehicle weight and empty backhaul) of class
2B through class 8B trucks in the EPA’s SmartWay program, and Figure 4-11 shows the average
payload (again, excluding vehicle weight and empty backhauls) of SmartWay trucks by
operational category.

Figure 4-10. Average Fuel Economy of SmartWay Trucks by Class 91

90
http://www.epa.gov/smartway/tips/tips5-b.htm
91
http://www.epa.gov/smartway/tips/tips3-a.htm

4-13
 Figure 4-11. Average Fuel Economy of SmartWay Trucks by Operational Category 92

A report from the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association 93 provides average payload
data from 2009 for 21 EU countries, with values ranging from approximately 18 tonnes in
Sweden down to 10 tonnes in the United Kingdom. The average payload values for the other
three top EU countries in terms of light commercial vehicle registration were 16 tonnes for
Spain, 13.8 tonnes for Germany, and 13.5 tonnes for France. However, average payloads can be
much higher in developing countries—as shown in Table 4-4 above, typical payloads in China
are more than 10 tons higher than in the United States, for example.

The amount of empty backhauls for a given fleet can have a significant impact on fuel
consumption and overall system efficiency. To the extent that empty backhauls can be
minimized, efficiency will improve. However, certain commodities do not lend themselves
readily to easy backhauls—for example, tanker and livestock fleets usually deliver their cargo to
locations that do not provide easy access to a return load. For these reasons, empty backhaul
fractions should be assessed based on freight commodity and/or associated truck body and
service type.

Figure 4-12 shows the average percent of empty miles traveled for SmartWay trucks by
operational category. The overall averages of SmartWay fleet empty vs. non-empty miles are
16.4 and 83.6 percent, respectively. 94 Empty miles traveled estimates vary dramatically across
operational categories, as expected.

92
http://www.epa.gov/smartway/tips/tips-12.htm (chart 1)
93
McKinnon, A. (2010). European Freight Statistics: Limitations, Misinterpretations and Aspirations. Retrieved from
http://www.acea.be/uploads/publications/SAG_15_European_Freight_Transport_Statistics.pdf.
94
http://www.epa.gov/smartway/tips/tips10-b.htm

4-14
 Figure 4-12. Average Percentages of Empty Miles Traveled by Operational Category 95

The Instituto de Energia e Medio Ambiente has developed similar estimates of empty backhaul
rates by truck service category, as shown below. Although the service categories do not match
precisely between the SmartWay and Brazilian data, similar percentages and ranges are evident
across categories:

Table 4-5. Empty Backhaul Rates by Truck Service Category, Brazil, 2013

Bulk hauler 22%

Reefer 23%
Auto carrier 32%
Chemical tanker 39%
Dry van 26%
Beverage 22%
Livestock 48%
LTL 19%
Miscellaneous cargo 19%

The ACEA report cited above also provides empty backhaul estimates for 23 EU nations, with
fleet average values ranging from approximately 38 percent for Ireland down to 13 percent for
Latvia. The values for the four top EU countries in light commercial vehicle registration are 27
percent for Spain, 25.5 percent for France, 22 percent for the United Kingdom, and 20 percent
for Germany.

4.1.4 Truck Configurations

The configuration of tractors and trailers can impact the technology options available to truck
fleets. For example, verified aerodynamic retrofits may only be available for certain trailer length

95
http://www.epa.gov/smartway/tips/tips10-c.htm

4-15
 and heights. Accordingly, unit configurations must be assessed carefully before specific
technologies and operational strategies are chosen.

Trucks may be classified as single-unit trucks or combination trucks. Single-unit trucks are one-
piece vehicles without a separate trailer; examples include vans, service utility trucks, flatbed
trucks, refrigeration vans or garbage and dump trucks. 96 Figure 4-5 and Figure 4-6 show
examples of single-unit trucks.

Combination trucks consist of a towing engine, known as a tractor, and a semi-trailer. Semi-
trailers are mounted on the “fifth wheel,” just forward of the tractor’s rear axle, in order to
distribute a portion of the trailer’s load to the tractor. In addition to the tractor, combinations
include an enclosed trailer, flatbed or lowboy trailer, refrigeration trailer, tanker, vehicle
transporter, or other specialty trailer. The tractor may be a single day cab or a sleeper cab for
over-the-road travel.

In the United States, two-axle tractors are permitted to pull two semi-trailers on national network
highways. In addition, some states allow use of “longer combination vehicles,” or LCVs, such as
the following: 97

• Triples—three 28.5-foot (8.7-meter) trailers.

• Turnpike doubles—two 48-foot (14.6-meter) trailers.
• Rocky Mountain doubles—one 40-to-53-foot (12.2-to-16.2-meter) trailer and one 28.5-foot
(8.7-meter) trailer.

Figure 4-13 provides an example of a Rocky Mountain double tractor-trailer combination.

96
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2002). Industry Options for Improving Ground Freight Fuel Efficiency. p.
17.
97
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-trailer_truck

4-16
 Figure 4-13. Class 8 Rocky Mountain Double

Alex1011/Wikimedia Commons; CC BY-SA 3.0

Allowable trailer length and the number and size of LCVs varies from country to country,
depending upon safety regulations and infrastructure constraints (e.g., road and bridge
specifications). For example, Australia allows for triples as well as quads in certain areas. In
Canada, LCVs include turnpike and Rocky Mountain doubles, as well as triples, depending upon
location, while Mexico permits operation of double trailers. Length restrictions a single tractor-
trailer unit vary substantially as well. For example, certain EU countries including Sweden and
Germany overall length can reach 25.25 meters, substantially more than the 19.2 meter limit in
the United States. 98

Tractor configuration will also impact the efficiency technologies available to fleets. With
“conventional” cabs, such as that shown in Figure 4-13, the engine is forward of the cab, over the
front axle. The hood is rotated on hinges located near the lower front bumper to access the
drivetrain. Although most U.S. tractors have conventional cabs, many tractors in Europe and
Asia are “cab over engine” units, such as that shown in Figure 4-7. Cab-overs offer a shorter
tractor length, which improves maneuverability and allows for a longer trailer, and the flat front
(lack of a hood) improves the driver’s view of the road, but generally the ride is rougher and
noisier because the cab is directly over the engine and the wheelbase is shorter. To service the
engine or transmission in a cab-over, the entire cab is rotated on front hinges to expose the
drivetrain.

By design, the maneuverability but much smaller cargo capacity of single-unit trucks makes
them better suited for local and short-haul service. 99 Combination trucks, on the other hand, have

98
Wikipedia editors. 2014. Road train. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_train.
99
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2002). Industry Options for Improving Ground Freight Fuel Efficiency. p.
20.

4-17
 more cargo capacity but less maneuverability, which generally makes them better suited for
long-haul and over-the-road (OTR) service.

4.1.5 Fleet Ownership/Contracting

The nature of a trucking fleet’s business can directly affect responsiveness to incentives, access
to financing, and other factors influencing their willingness to participate in green freight
programs. The freight trucking industry can generally be sub-divided into private and public (for-
hire) carriers. Private carriers maintain a truck fleet that provides freight transport services
necessary to maintain their business, while public carries offer “for hire” or “for fee” freight
transport services. Public carriers may be categorized either as “truckload” or “less than
truckload” (LTL) carriers. Truckload carriers typically contract the entire trailer load to a single
customer, while a LTL carrier mixes freight from several customers within a trailer. 100 Other
types of “for hire” trucking includes parcel delivery trucks or specialty services such as trucks
for delivery of appliances, movement of household goods or rental trucks. For-hire trucks may be
company-owned (fleet trucks) or privately-owned (owner-operator trucks that are owned and
operated by an individual). Self-reported fuel economies by participants in the EPA’s SmartWay
program indicate nearly identical fuel economies for private (6.2 mpg) vs. “for hire” (6.1 mpg)
SmartWay fleet trucks. 101 Also, Figure 4-14 shows self-reported empty vs. non-empty miles for
private vs. “for-hire” trucks in the SmartWay fleet. As shown in this chart, the percentage of
empty miles traveled is roughly equivalent for both industry subdivisions (private empty
percentage is 13.2 percent and “for hire” empty percentage is 12.8 percent).

Figure 4-14. Empty vs. Non-Empty Miles Traveled for Private and “For Hire” Fleets102

100
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truckload_shipping
101
http://www.epa.gov/smartway/tips/tips7-a.htm
102
http://www.epa.gov/smartway/tips/tips7-c.htm

4-18
 4.2 Intermodal Options

In the last four decades, global intermodal freight traffic has increased by an order of magnitude,
playing a critical role in facilitating economic globalization by providing a cost-effective method
of moving freight from one location to another. Intermodal transfers can be highly efficient,
minimizing fuel consumption and thereby reducing emission of other combustion-related
pollutants such as CO2, PM, and black carbon. Carbon intensity, expressed in terms of grams of
CO2 per kilometer or per tonne-kilometer, varies widely across the different transport modes, as
shown in Figure 4-15 below. For freight movement options, the figure clearly shows that CO2
emission rates are generally highest for short-haul aircraft, followed by lighter trucks, then heavy
over-the-road trucks, rail and barge transports, and finally ocean-going vessels. The highest-
intensity estimates are more than two orders of magnitude greater than for bulk ocean transport,
the lowest-intensity mode.

Figure 4-15. Direct CO2 Emissions Intensity by Transport Mode

(CO2 per km and per Tonne-km) 103

103
Source: Sims R., R. Schaeffer, F. Creutzig, X. Cruz-Núñez, M. D’Agosto, D. Dimitriu, M.J. Figueroa Meza, L.
Fulton, S. Kobayashi, O. Lah, A. McKinnon, P. Newman, M. Ouyang, J.J. Schauer, D. Sperling, and G. Tiwari

4-19
Intermodal systems shift cargo from origination to destination using the most appropriate and
fuel-efficient mode of transportation. Marine vessels are generally preferred, as they represent
one of the most fuel-efficient modes available, but they can only serve ports along navigable
waterways and shipping routes. From the port, cargo can be moved efficiently by rail to the
destination city and by truck to the final destination.

Figure 4-16. World Container Traffic and Throughput, 1980–2011 (Millions of TEU)

Jean-Paul Rodrigue; data adapted from Drewry Shipping Consultants

Figure 4-17. Example of Intermodal Transportation for Freight

Government Accountability Office

(2014). Transport. Figure 8.6 in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of
Climate Change.

4-20
 Figure 4-18. Rail Freight Ton-Miles and Track Miles
Class I railroads, 1980 to 2006

American Association of Railroads

Intermodal transfers are facilitated by the use of standardized containers that can be efficiently
transferred from ship to rail at the port and from rail to truck at the rail yard using specially
designed cargo handling equipment.

Green freight action plans that include development or improvement of intermodal systems need
to consider a range of issues: possible changes in land use; coordination between logistics,
trucking, ship operators, airlines, and railroad companies; customs clearance; available
warehouse storage; infrastructure improvements to harbors, rail yards, and ports; channel
dredging; cargo traffic monitoring systems; and dockside rail linkage/drayage operations.
Emissions associated with drayage trucks and idling of highway vehicles, vessels, and trains
should also be assessed.

The potential for intermodal shifts in a given region depends heavily on the level of rail
infrastructure development, as well as access to inland waterways and the density and
characteristics of the road network itself. For instance, even within the EU the relative split
across these modes can vary significantly. Figure 4-19 104 illustrates the modal transportation
splits between roads, rail, and inland waterways for the EU and selected European countries in
2001 and 2011. This figure illustrates that despite the availability of developed rail and inland
waterway systems, road transport has dominated the movement of freight throughout this 10-

104
Eurostat (2013). Energy, Transport and Environment Indicators. Retrieved from
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/product_details/publication?p_product_code=KS-DK-13-001.

4-21
 year period. At no time during this period did the fraction of freight moved via road fall below
50 percent, with the minimum being approximately 55 percent for Austria in 2011. All other
countries except the Netherlands had road freight values greater than 60 percent for both 2001
and 2011, with five (Denmark, Italy, Portugal, Spain, and the UK) greater than 80 percent for
both years. The EU’s road freight fraction as a whole was between 70 and 75 percent for both
years. Regions with less well-developed rail and waterway systems generally will have even
higher road freight fractions.

Figure 4-19. Inland Freight Transport Modal Split

100
90
80
70
60
2001-Road
Percent

50
2001-Rail
40
2001-IWW
30
2011-Road
20
2011-Rail
10
2011-IWW
0

Country

4.3 Rail Freight Options

Growth in the rail freight sector is strongly correlated with growth in intermodal traffic, as
container shipments become an increasingly large component of total rail shipments. For
example, in the United States movement of containers accounts for 20 to 30 percent of railroad
revenues, larger than any other commodity group. (Until recently, coal has usually been the most
significant commodity group.)

Table 4-6 presents rail freight transportation intensity for 75 countries, ranked in terms of tonne-
km hauled per year in 2010. 105 As with road freight transportation, the United States and China
have the highest levels of rail freight transportation. In this case the Russian Federation ranks
third on the list, and these three countries are responsible for a full 75 percent of the total tonne-
km hauled for the countries on the list.

105
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IS.RRS.GOOD.MT.K6

4-22
 Table 4-6. Annual Rail Tonne-km Hauled, Selected Countries, 2010

Country Name 2010 Country Name 2010

United States 2,468,738 Belgium 5,439
China 2,451,185 Chile 4,032
Russian Federation 2,011,308 Vietnam 3,901
India 600,548 Serbia 3,868
Canada 322,741 Egypt, Arab Republic 3,840
Brazil 267,700 Slovenia 3,283
Ukraine 218,091 Thailand 3,161
Kazakhstan 213,174 Bulgaria 3,061
South Africa 113,342 Croatia 2,618
Germany 105,794 Syrian Arab Republic 2,370
Australia 64,172 Gabon 2,238
Belarus 46,224 Tunisia 2,073
Poland 34,266 Portugal 1,932
Austria 23,104 Saudi Arabia 1,748
France 22,840 Malaysia 1,384
Uzbekistan 22,282 Algeria 1,281
Japan 20,432 Bosnia and Herzegovina 1,227
Iran, Islamic Republic 20,247 Israel 1,062
Latvia 17,164 Hungary 1,000
Czech Republic 13,592 Cameroon 978
Lithuania 13,431 Moldova 927
Italy 12,037 Peru 900
Argentina 12,025 Tajikistan 808
Turkmenistan 11,992 Swaziland 776
Turkey 11,030 Kyrgyz Republic 738
Mongolia 10,287 Bangladesh 710
Finland 9,760 Mozambique 695
Korea, Republic 9,452 Botswana 674
Romania 9,134 Greece 538
Switzerland 8,725 Macedonia, FYR 497
Azerbaijan 8,250 Jordan 353
Spain 7,844 Armenia 346
Slovak Republic 7,669 Congo, Democratic Republic 193
Mauritania 7,566 Luxembourg 189
Estonia 6,261 Iraq 121
Georgia 6,228 Ireland 92
Pakistan 6,187 Albania 46
Morocco 5,572

4-23
While the scale of existing rail freight activity is instructive, ideally it is more important to
determine overall rail system utilization in order to identify potentials for mode shifts. While
system capacities were not identified explicitly for most countries, growth in rail freight activity
can help identify target areas for potential mode shifts. To this end, Table 4-7 presents the
change in tonne-kilometers hauled over the 2000–2010 period for many of the countries shown
in Table 4-6. This table indicates that several countries have dramatically increased their rail
freight movement over the last decade, most of them in Asia and Eastern Europe. During the
same period a number of Western and Central European nations, as well as certain countries in
Southeast Asia and Africa, experienced negative growth rates.

Table 4-7. Growth in Rail Tonne-km Hauled, 2000–2010

Country Name % Increase Country Name % Increase

Bosnia and Herzegovina 473% Turkey 13%
Mongolia 140% South Africa 6%
Saudi Arabia 113% Peru 3%
Vietnam 105% Armenia -2%
Serbia 102% Finland -3%
India 97% Egypt, Arab Republic -4%
Australia 88% Macedonia, FYR -6%
China 84% Thailand -7%
Brazil 74% Cameroon -7%
Kazakhstan 71% Japan -8%
Greece 65% Bangladesh -9%
Pakistan 65% Tunisia -9%
Albania 64% Israel -9%
Georgia 59% Portugal -11%
Malaysia 53% Korea, Republic -13%
Lithuania 51% Switzerland -18%
Syrian Arab Republic 50% Estonia -20%
Belarus 47% Czech Republic -21%
Russian Federation 46% Slovak Republic -32%
Croatia 46% Spain -35%
Uzbekistan 44% Algeria -35%
Azerbaijan 43% Belgium -38%
Iran, Islamic Republic 43% Poland -38%
Austria 42% Jordan -39%
Gabon 39% Tajikistan -39%
Germany 31% Bulgaria -45%
Latvia 29% Congo, Democratic Republic -47%
Chile 29% Italy -47%
Slovenia 26% Romania -49%
Ukraine 26% France -59%
Morocco 22% Ireland -81%
United States 15% Hungary -87%

4-24
 Technologies that reduce fuel consumption and emissions vary according to the type of rail
operation. For example, line-haul locomotives carry goods over long distances, so technologies
that optimize constant engine operations would be useful; yard locomotives, meanwhile, work in
a smaller geographic area where engines tend to operate in a “stop-and-go” mode as they move
cars around the yard over shorter distances. Yard locomotives tend to have a smaller impact on
fuel consumption and air quality—they are typically associated with approximately 10 percent of
annual rail fuel usage—but they can have a significant impact on local air quality, as their
operations are limited to specific areas, often in urban communities.

A large number of options can be considered in a green freight action plan to improve railroad
fuel usage and reduced emissions. These options (discussed in detail in Chapter 6) include:

• Infrastructure improvements that would allow for double stacking of containers or

electrification of rail lines.
• Use of low-sulfur diesel fuels or alternative fuels, such as biodiesel, synthetic fuels, and
natural gas.
• Optimization systems that monitor train movements and improve load with optimal engine
operations.
• Friction reduction options such as wheel-to-rail lubrications, improved train aerodynamics,
and use of lightweight cars.
• Add-on locomotive controls such as oxidation catalysts, PM filters, and exhaust gas
recirculation. 106
• Idle reduction and application of auxiliary power units that allow for the main propulsion
engine to be shut down while in the rail yard.
• Engine improvements such as turbocharging, turbocompounding, intercooling, and common
rail fuel distribution.
• Use of gensets and hybrid locomotives.

4.4 Marine Cargo Options

More than 90 percent of global trade is carried by sea; this includes movement of raw materials
to processing and manufacturing facilities and shipments of final products to markets. Marine
cargo shipments tend to be the most energy-efficient ways to move freight (in terms of fuel
consumption and emissions per tonne-kilometer).

Table 4-8, on the next page, shows total marine container freight movements for 123 countries in
2010, expressed in terms of 20-foot equivalent units (TEUs). In this case China far outpaces the
rest of the world, responsible for almost one quarter of all container shipments. 107

106
http://www.alphaliner.com/liner2/research_files/newsletters/2011/no19/
Alphaliner%20Newsletter%20no%2019%20-%202011.pdf
107
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IS.SHP.GOOD.TU

4-25
4-26
Table 4-8. Annual Marine Container Shipments in TEUs, Selected Countries, 2010

Country Name 2010 Country Name 2010

China 130,290,443 Dominican Republic 1,382,680
United States 42,337,513 Bangladesh 1,356,099
Singapore 29,178,500 Finland 1,247,521
Hong Kong SAR, China 23,699,242 Venezuela, RB 1,226,508
Korea, Republic 18,542,804 Ecuador 1,221,849
Malaysia 18,267,475 Greece 1,165,185
Japan 18,098,346 Bahamas, The 1,125,000
South Asia 17,323,023 Poland 1,045,232
United Arab Emirates 15,176,524 Costa Rica 1,013,483
Germany 14,821,767 Guatemala 1,012,360
Spain 12,613,016 Kuwait 991,545
Netherlands 11,345,167 Lebanon 949,155
Belgium 10,984,824 Ireland 790,067
Italy 9,787,403 Denmark 709,147
India 9,752,908 Kenya 696,000
United Kingdom 8,590,282 Uruguay 671,952
Indonesia 8,482,636 Yemen, Republic 669,021
Brazil 8,138,608 Ukraine 659,541
Egypt, Arab Republic 6,709,053 Syrian Arab Republic 649,005
Australia 6,668,075 Ghana 647,052
Thailand 6,648,532 Honduras 619,867
Panama 6,003,298 Jordan 619,000
Vietnam 5,983,583 Cote d’Ivoire 607,730
Turkey 5,574,018 Djibouti 600,000
France 5,346,800 Trinidad and Tobago 573,217
Saudi Arabia 5,313,141 Romania 556,694
Philippines 4,947,039 Slovenia 476,731
Canada 4,829,806 Tunisia 466,398
Sri Lanka 4,000,000 Sudan 439,100
Oman 3,893,198 Tanzania 429,285
South Africa 3,806,427 Austria 350,461
Mexico 3,693,956 Cyprus 349,357
Russian Federation 3,199,980 Senegal 349,231
Chile 3,171,959 Qatar 346,000
Iran, Islamic Republic 2,592,522 Congo, Republic 338,916
New Zealand 2,463,278 Mauritius 332,662
Malta 2,450,665 Norway 330,873
Colombia 2,443,786 Benin 316,744
Israel 2,281,552 Papua New Guinea 295,286
Pakistan 2,149,000 Lithuania 294,954
Morocco 2,058,430 Bahrain 289,956
Argentina 2,021,676 Cameroon 285,070
Jamaica 1,891,770 Algeria 279,785
Portugal 1,622,247 Latvia 256,713
Peru 1,534,056 Namibia 256,319
Puerto Rico 1,525,532 Mozambique 254,701
Sweden 1,390,504 Cuba 228,346

4-27
 Country Name 2010 Country Name 2010
Georgia 226,115 New Caledonia 90,574
Cambodia 224,206 Albania 86,875
Iceland 192,778 Barbados 80,424
Myanmar 190,046 French Polynesia 68,889
Libya 184,585 Nicaragua 68,545
Guam 183,214 Mauritania 65,705
Gabon 153,657 Maldives 65,016
Estonia 151,969 St. Lucia 52,479
El Salvador 145,774 Cayman Islands 40,281
Bulgaria 142,611 Belize 31,919
Madagascar 141,093 Antigua and Barbuda 24,615
Croatia 137,048 St. Vincent and the
Aruba 130,000 Grenadines 18,852
Nigeria 101,007 Paraguay 8,179
Brunei Darussalam 99,355 World 542,034,853
Switzerland 99,048

The next table presents the growth in marine container traffic between 2000 and 2010 for a
subset of the above countries. Unlike the road and rail modes, the vast majority of these countries
have experienced extremely high growth rates in marine container shipments over the 10-year
period, with over half seeing at least a doubling in shipments during this time, and the Russian
Federation seeing an increase of almost an order of magnitude.

Table 4-9. Growth in Marine Container Shipments, 2000–2010

Country Name % Increase Country Name % Increase

Russian Federation 912% Chile 153%
Croatia 868% Jamaica 147%
Morocco 526% Dominican Republic 144%
Vietnam 403% Portugal 142%
Egypt, Arab Republic 313% World 141%
India 298% Sri Lanka 131%
Malaysia 293% New Zealand 131%
South Asia 273% Malta 126%
Saudi Arabia 254% Indonesia 123%
Turkey 250% Spain 118%
Brazil 237% Belgium 117%
Oman 235% Thailand 109%
Peru 233% South Africa 106%
China 218% Korea, Republic 105%
Colombia 209% Guatemala 104%
United Arab Emirates 200% Trinidad and Tobago 103%
Bangladesh 197% Germany 93%
Ecuador 195% Australia 88%
Mexico 181% France 83%
Yemen, Republic 170% Venezuela, RB 82%
Panama 153% Netherlands 77%

4-28
 Country Name % Increase Country Name % Increase
Costa Rica 77% Cote d’Ivoire 40%
Argentina 77% Japan 38%
Singapore 71% Finland 34%
Canada 65% United Kingdom 33%
Philippines 63% Denmark 25%
Honduras 58% Ireland 10%
Sweden 57% Algeria 5%
United States 50% Greece -16%
Italy 41% Puerto Rico -22%

Opportunities for marine freight movement for a given area depend not only on the presence and
size of regional port facilities, but also on the quality of the infrastructure itself. The following
table presents ratings for the quality of port infrastructure around the world, based on annual
surveys of over 13,000 business executives. Port facility ratings range from 1 to 7, with 7
representing the most advanced, efficient facilities. Respondents from land-locked countries
rated their access to port facilities, again from 1 to 7 with 7 representing highly accessible
ports. 108 Further analysis of the data indicates that heavily indebted countries with low GDP
levels have notably lower port infrastructure quality scores than high-income countries
(approximately 3.5 vs. 5.2 on average in 2013).

108
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IQ.WEF.PORT.XQ

4-29
 Table 4-10. Port Infrastructure Quality Index, 2013

Country Name 2013 Country Name 2013

Netherlands 6.8 Brunei Darussalam 4.7
Singapore 6.8 Uruguay 4.7
Hong Kong SAR, China 6.6 South Africa 4.7
United Arab Emirates 6.4 Caribbean small states 4.6
Finland 6.4 Dominican Republic 4.6
Panama 6.4 Gambia, The 4.6
Belgium 6.3 Azerbaijan 4.5
Iceland 6.0 China 4.5
Bahrain 5.8 Cote d’Ivoire 4.5
Germany 5.8 Greece 4.5
Spain 5.8 Jordan 4.5
Malta 5.8 Pakistan 4.5
Sweden 5.8 Thailand 4.5
Denmark 5.7 Czech Republic 4.4
United Kingdom 5.7 Mexico 4.4
United States 5.7 Croatia 4.3
Barbados 5.6 Italy 4.3
Estonia 5.6 Lebanon 4.3
Canada 5.5 Swaziland 4.3
Korea, Republic 5.5 Turkey 4.3
Norway 5.5 Ecuador 4.2
New Zealand 5.5 Georgia 4.2
Oman 5.5 Ghana 4.2
France 5.4 India 4.2
Luxembourg 5.4 Sri Lanka 4.2
Malaysia 5.4 El Salvador 4.2
Namibia 5.3 Egypt, Arab Republic 4.1
Puerto Rico 5.3 Guatemala 4.1
Chile 5.2 Iran, Islamic Republic 4.1
Ireland 5.2 Kenya 4.1
Japan 5.2 Kuwait 4.1
Portugal 5.2 Trinidad and Tobago 4.1
Qatar 5.2 Zimbabwe 4.1
Jamaica 5.1 Cambodia 4.0
Lithuania 5.1 Mali 4.0
Latvia 5.1 Tunisia 4.0
Saudi Arabia 5.1 Bulgaria 3.9
Slovenia 5.1 Honduras 3.9
Australia 5.0 Hungary 3.9
Switzerland 5.0 Indonesia 3.9
Morocco 5.0 Montenegro 3.9
Mauritius 4.9 Russian Federation 3.9
Suriname 4.9 Cabo Verde 3.8
Seychelles 4.9 Israel 3.8
Cyprus 4.8 Macedonia, FYR 3.8
Senegal 4.8 Argentina 3.7
Austria 4.7 Benin 3.7

4-30
 Country Name 2013 Country Name 2013
Cameroon 3.7 Armenia 3.0
Peru 3.7 Libya 3.0
Poland 3.7 Romania 3.0
Slovak Republic 3.7 Angola 2.9
Ukraine 3.7 Costa Rica 2.9
Vietnam 3.7 Lesotho 2.9
Botswana 3.6 Mauritania 2.9
Rwanda 3.6 Yemen, Republic 2.9
Sierra Leone 3.6 Burundi 2.8
Albania 3.5 Brazil 2.7
Burkina Faso 3.5 Algeria 2.7
Bangladesh 3.5 Gabon 2.7
Colombia 3.5 Kazakhstan 2.7
Madagascar 3.5 Nepal 2.7
Mozambique 3.5 Lao PDR 2.6
Nicaragua 3.5 Moldova 2.6
Zambia 3.5 Myanmar 2.6
Guyana 3.4 Mongolia 2.6
Liberia 3.4 Serbia 2.6
Nigeria 3.4 Bolivia 2.5
Philippines 3.4 Chad 2.5
Paraguay 3.4 Venezuela, RB 2.5
Uganda 3.4 Haiti 2.4
Malawi 3.3 Timor-Leste 2.4
Guinea 3.2 Bhutan 2.2
Tanzania 3.2 Bosnia and Herzegovina 1.8
Ethiopia 3.1 Kyrgyz Republic 1.3

The marine transportation mode is also most sensitive to fuel cost, which represents 60 to 80
percent of total expenditures. As marine bunker fuel prices have been generally increasing (see
Figure 4-20), it is important that green freight Figure 4-20. Rising Marine Bunker Fuel
action plans include options that allow for Prices
improved fuel efficiency along with
anticipated emission reductions. These options
include:

• Replacement of older engines with newer,

more fuel-efficient engines that have
common rail fuel distribution, turbo
chargers or turbo compounding, or
diesel/electric engine configurations.
• Use of improved propeller designs.

4-31
 • Application of hull friction reduction technologies such as high-tech antifouling coatings and
bubble lubrication.
• Use of low-sulfur fuels and alternative fuels such as biofuels and natural gas.
• Encouraging solar cell and wind-powered Alphaliner
options.
• Route and engine optimization systems.
• Operational changes such as cold ironing in port and slow-speed shipping while underway.
• Application of add-on control devices.

4.5 Air Freight Options

Figure 4-21. World Air Cargo Traffic
Despite recent economic downturns in the
global market, air cargo traffic has grown
consistently throughout the years (Figure
4-20) and is expected to continue to grow in
the future (Figure 4-21)—including express
traffic, which is anticipated to average 5.3
percent annual growth (measured in revenue
ton kilometers, or RTKs). This will increase
world air cargo traffic from 202.4 billion
RTKs in 2011 to more than 558.3 billion
RTKs in 2031. 109
Figure 4-22. World Air Cargo Traffic: 20-Year
Asia is expected to lead the world air cargo Forecast
industry in average annual growth rates, with © 2012 Boeing
domestic China and intra-Asia markets expanding 8.0 and 6.9 percent per year, respectively.

Freight aircraft companies include those that are directly involved in cargo movement (such as
DHL, UPS, and Federal Express), but also
large air carriers that move both cargo and
passengers during a flight. Many of the
technologies presented in this study would be
applicable for both. Because aircraft use large
amounts of fuel to move cargo, the
profitability of aviation activities is highly
dependent on fuel costs, which have increased
over the years; Figure 4-23 indicates that
current Gulf Coast kerosene/jet fuel prices are
about six times higher than during the 1990– © 2012 Boeing

109
Boeing (2013). Boeing World Cargo Forecast 2012–2013. Retrieved from
http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/cargo/wacf.pdf.

4-32
 2002 period. 110 Therefore, the aviation industry would be very receptive to components of a
green freight action plan that improve fuel consumption while reducing emissions. These options
could include:

• Encouraging use of new fuel-efficient engines, including high-bypass geared jet and the open
rotor engines.
• Use of electric wheels to reduce main engine operations during taxi modes.
• Use of alternative fuels such as biofuels and synthetic fuels.
• Airframe improvements such as wing lengthening, laminar flow wings, multilayer wings,
winglets, and low-friction surface coatings.
• Introduction of alternative aircraft such as cargo airships.
• Operational changes such as the FAA’s NextGen system to reduce trip distances, reduce
delay times, and ensure that aircraft are operating at the optimal elevation.

Figure 4-23. Jet Fuel Prices, 1990–2014

Energy Information Administration

110
U.S. Energy Information Administration (2014). U.S. Gulf Coast kerosene-type jet fuel spot price FOB.
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=EER_EPJK_PF4_RGC_DPG&f=M.

4-33
5.0 Review of Current Truck Technologies and Operating Strategies
A wide variety of strategies are available to reduce the fuel consumption and emissions
associated with freight movement. The feasibility and cost-effectiveness of these options vary
greatly from region to region depending upon the characteristics of the industry fleet, available
fueling options, predominant freight modes, and the level of transportation infrastructure
development, among other factors. For this reason the adoption of these strategies should be
prioritized and tailored to the unique characteristics of each region’s freight industry. For
example, the following illustrates some of the strategies most appropriate for consideration in a
few selected regions.

Country Freight System Characteristics Target Control Strategies

United States/Canada High speed, long haul Aerodynamic improvements,
extended idle reduction
China Large fraction of empty backhauls Initial logistics improvements (e.g.,
drop-and-hook)
India Infrastructure constraints Road network investments, mode
shifts
EU Lower speeds, dense roadway Advanced tires/lubricants,
network hybridization

In order to help identify the appropriate mix of strategies for a given region, this chapter presents
various technologies, concepts, fuels, and actions that can be taken to reduce GHG emissions
from the on-road portion of freight operations. These include options that can be retrofitted to
existing trucks and trailers; technologies a buyer can specify or choose when purchasing new
trucks and trailers; and logistical concepts, programs, and strategies, all of which can reduce fuel
consumption, decrease GHG emissions, or reduce pollutant emissions from on-road freight
operations.

To create this chapter, the authors reviewed a variety of publications, technical journal articles,
white papers, books, and various forms of informational marketing materials. Books and
publications from government agencies were the preferred source for many of the concepts in
this chapter, as well as their calculated benefit potential. This chapter also refers to sponsored
publications written by independent research organizations, which were considered valuable
even if not given the same level of priority. For some newer devices, promotional material listing
features was useful to describe how the devices worked as well as their intended use; this was the
least rigorous in terms of reference quality, but in some cases it was the only available literature.
If a GHG or fuel consumption benefit presented in this chapter was taken from promotional
material, that fact is stated explicitly alongside the presented data.

For on-road trucking operations using conventional fuel, GHG emission levels are very closely
tied to fuel consumption, and reductions in either are cited equivalently in much of this chapter.
For on-road freight hauling, there are two key definitions of fuel efficiency, vehicle miles per
gallon and freight ton-miles per gallon. The first is defined similarly to passenger car fuel
economy: the total distance traveled by a truck divided by the fuel used over that distance. For
freight operations, it can also be beneficial to define freight-specific fuel economy. This is
calculated by the tons of freight moved, multiplied by the miles traveled, divided by the fuel
consumed, i.e. freight-ton miles per gallon. Using this metric is beneficial as it accounts for the

5-1
amount of freight being transported in each trip. For example, loading a truck completely full
instead of half-full will reduce its vehicle fuel economy, but will raise the freight-specific fuel
economy as the percentage fuel consumption penalty for the added weight is much lower than
the doubling of the goods transported. Generally speaking, discussing vehicle fuel economy is
appropriate for technologies that improve vehicle fuel consumption, while freight-specific fuel
economy is a more appropriate metric for operational and routing strategies.

5.1 Factors Influencing Truck Fuel Consumption and Emissions

5.1.1 Fuel Consumption

The factors that influence freight vehicle fuel economy can be divided into two groups, those
intrinsic to the vehicle’s design and those that are related to its environment or operating
conditions. This section discusses how a truck’s design characteristics and operating conditions
affect fuel economy.

A vehicle moving along a level road must expend tractive power in order to overcome the
frictional forces acting upon it. These frictional energy losses include aerodynamic drag, rolling
resistance, and the friction associated with the rotating components within the engine and
powertrain. In addition to the tractive power, a vehicle must meet various accessory load
demands such as air conditioning and air compressors. The sum of these various energy sinks
constitutes the total power required by the vehicle at any moment of operation.

The aerodynamic drag acting on a vehicle represents the energy lost when moving the vehicle
through the air. The power required to overcome this drag is proportional to the cube of the
vehicle speed, and also depends upon the vehicle’s shape and the frontal area that is projected
toward the direction of motion. Drag can also be increased by the turbulence created by sharp
corners and edges, as well as appendages such as rearview mirrors. Drag is usually higher for
cab-over trucks as compared to front-engine, or conventional trucks.

In this context, “rolling resistance” primarily refers to tire rolling resistance, but also includes
friction in the wheel bearings and other driveline components that rotate when the wheels are
rotating. During rotation, tires are deformed by the weight of the vehicle on the road surface. The
deformation and subsequent rebounding of the tire consumes energy that is dissipated as heat and
sound. This energy is proportional the amount of weight on the tire, as well as other construction
and material characteristics. Tire deformation also causes a small amount of slip and frictional
loss against the roadway surface, and less firm roadway surfaces such dirt or gravel can also
cause energy loss due to deformation or shifting of the roadway surface. Tire pressure affects
rolling resistance when operating on paved roadways, as a tire with low pressure deforms more
when rolling than a properly inflated tire. Drivetrain losses also can contribute to rolling
resistance, as the bearings and lubricants necessary for the operation of driveshafts and axles
consume energy due to frictional and hydraulic losses while the vehicle is in motion.

Vehicle accessory loads represent another power demand that must be met in addition to the
tractive power demand required to propel the vehicle. Heavy-duty vehicles such as those used in
freight movement will typically be equipped with the following components that contribute an
accessory load:

5-2
• Air conditioning compressor. This
compressor drives the air conditioning
cycle used to cool or dehumidify (in the
case of defroster use) the vehicle cab.
• Onboard air compressor. This device
pressurizes a reserve of compressed air in
order to operate trailer brakes, the truck’s
parking brake, and any other
pneumatically driven systems.
• Alternator. This device generates the
electrical power to charge batteries and
operate any electrical loads such as
lighting, air conditioning fans, and
electrical devices.
AVL Powertrain, NREL 02266
• Cooling fan. The cooling fan draws air
through the engine’s radiator in order to enhance natural air flow. This fan can be driven
mechanically or electrically, but either method requires energy to be provided by the main
engine.
• Fluid pumps. The cooling water pump and oil pump are usually integral to the engine. These
devices require the use of fuel energy in the engine that does not result in crankshaft power
output, however.

The above energy demands must all be met by the vehicle’s power unit, which for most heavy-
duty vehicles is a diesel engine. The vehicle’s engine and transmission must convert fuel energy
into mechanical power to meet the tractive and accessory power demands specified above. The
efficiency of the energy conversion, known as brake-specific fuel consumption or BSFC
(expressed in quantity of fuel per horsepower-hour of engine work), varies with engine type,
engine speed, and load. For a typical diesel engine, the most efficient operating condition in
terms of BSFC is relatively high load and low to moderate engine speed. Each particular engine
design will have its own BSFC map, which consists of the BSFC value at each point on the map
of engine speed vs. torque output. Some of the engine characteristics that help determine BSFC
are:

• Internal friction. Friction in the engine’s bearings, rings, and valve train, along with the
viscous drag of rotating parts moving through lube oil, consume some of the power produced
by the engine.
• Engine displacement. Larger-displacement engines generally have more friction than
smaller engines. For a diesel engine, this manifests itself most in terms of the fuel
consumption at idle, as at higher speeds and loads the increased output of the engine offsets
the increased friction.
• Engine temperature. When cold, engines consume more fuel to do the same work than they
do when warmed to operating temperature. This is because of reduced combustion efficiency

5-3
 due to higher heat loss to the cool internal engine surfaces, as well as greater viscosity of the
engine oil increasing the parasitic drag on the crankshaft.
• Waste heat. Even when fully warmed up, most of the fuel energy that goes into an engine is
lost as heat due to inherent inefficiency in the engine’s thermodynamic cycle. Designs that
reduce heat loss result in higher BSFC.
• Accessory loads. Some of the accessory loads described above are internal to the engine and
result in fuel energy consumption that does not reach the crankshaft as torque output. The
engine’s oil pump is an example of an internal accessory as it is typically driven off the
camshaft or crankshaft within the engine. 111

Diesel engines operate using compression-ignition, in which the heat caused by the compression
of the air within the cylinder ignites the injected fuel. Diesel engines generally operate
unthrottled (with the exception of some modern engines which use throttles for emissions control
purposes), which means that the quantity of fuel injected in each stroke determines the engine’s
torque output, and that the fuel generally burns in an environment containing excess oxygen.
Diesel engines operate more efficiently than gasoline engine for two key reasons: their higher
compression ratio results in greater thermal efficiency, and unthrottled operation eliminates the
energy loss caused by drawing intake air past the throttle’s restriction as in a gasoline engine.
Figure 5-1 illustrates the various sources of energy losses on a typical truck operating at highway
speeds.

Figure 5-1. Typical Energy Demands of Various Losses of a Tractor Trailer Operating at
Highway Speeds 112

John Woodrooffe

111
Houston Advanced Research Council (2010). Identification and Assessment of Light Duty Retrofit Vehicle
Technologies to Reduce Emissions.
112
National Research Council (2010). Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the Fuel Consumption of Medium-
and Heavy-Duty Vehicles.

5-4
Tractive power requirements and engine efficiency govern the fuel economy potential for a
particular vehicle. The fuel economy that a vehicle achieves while in use, however, also depends
on how the vehicle is actually operated. Various modes of operation can result in different fuel
consumption rates over a period of time. This variation depends on the following factors:

• Idling. Time spent idling is time that the engine is achieving 0 mpg. Driving conditions that
include long or frequent periods of idle will result in lower fuel economy.
• Braking. Any time that the brakes are used in a conventional vehicle, kinetic energy in the
vehicle is lost to heat. This kinetic energy was converted from fuel energy by the engine, so
its loss represents energy that can no longer be used to propel the vehicle.
• Speed. The power required to overcome the aerodynamic drag force caused by the truck
moving through air increases with the cube of the speed of the vehicle. As a vehicle moves
faster at highway speeds, the aerodynamic drag becomes the dominant source of energy loss.
• Terrain. Driving over inclines often results in more frequent braking and greater
opportunities for energy loss.
• Vehicle weight/payload. The fuel required to accelerate a vehicle is proportional to the
vehicle weight, as is the rolling resistance. Also, increased weight requires more fuel energy
to climb over hilly terrain. In the case of freight transport, however, the fuel consumed per
payload ton-miles traveled is reduced by loading the vehicle as heavily as possible.
• Routing. For a given fuel economy in terms of miles per gallon, fewer miles driven will
reduce total fuel consumed. Changing routing or frequency of trips can make it possible to
reduce fuel consumption and still deliver needed freight to its destination.
• Number of cold starts. As described above, engines do not run as efficiently below their
design operating temperature. Frequent short trips with longer periods of engine-off time in
between, allowing engines to cool, will result in lower fuel economy because the engine
spends more of its operating time in this temperature range.
• Road surface. Rougher roads will generally increase rolling resistance. Many international
locations require freight trucks to travel over unpaved roads, and these can further increase
the energy requirements of rolling tires.

5.1.2 PM and NOx Emissions

In addition to carbon dioxide, NOx and PM are the other two key pollutants in diesel exhaust that
are considered problematic. NOx is formed during combustion as a result of the oxidation of
nitrogen molecules at elevated temperature. In a diesel engine, NOx is produced not only at the
flame front during ignition, but also within the burned gases in the cylinder as the cylinder
pressure (and temperature) continues to rise as remaining fuel burns. In general, higher cylinder
temperatures and longer residence times at elevated temperature result in greater levels of NOx
formation. A key challenge regarding NOx formation is that engines generally operate at higher
efficiency levels when higher in-cylinder temperatures and pressures are reached. This is one of

5-5
 the reasons that there is frequently a tradeoff between fuel efficiency and NOx formation in
engine design. 113

PM and associated BC are formed in diesel engines primarily due to incomplete combustion of
the injected fuel. After injection, a portion of fuel is exposed to enough heat in the cylinder to
burn or oxidize, but may not be exposed to enough local oxygen in order to allow complete
combustion. This process can also be known as pyrolysis, and produces a less flammable but still
organic substance. These secondary substances continue to oxidize in the cylinder and leave
behind soot. This process is common in older engines, in which fuel droplets would not
completely atomize before combustion, and, as such, would involve oxidation of some of the
fuel in the absence of adequate amounts of oxygen. Engine oil that seeps into the cylinder can
also provide less flammable organic molecules that can initiate soot formation. After the initial
formation of soot particles, which are primarily carbonaceous, other organic materials and
byproducts of combustion will continue to condense upon some of the soot particles (while other
soot particles may dissociate and react to form CO2). As the remaining particles expand in the
combustion stroke of the cylinder and flow into the exhaust stream, they continue to grow and
coagulate, providing a surface for the nucleation of various substances in the exhaust stream and
nearby atmosphere. 114

As described above, diesel particulate is not a homogenous substance. It generally consists of

inorganic carbon (or black carbon) coated or interspersed with hydrocarbons or other soluble
organic compounds. Not only is particulate matter a respiratory health hazard, the black carbon
component is considered a short-term climate forcer, meaning it exhibits global warming
potential but does not generally remain in the atmosphere for very long as compared to carbon
dioxide.115 The two mechanisms for warming are airborne PM absorbing sunlight and PM
settling on snow or ice, where it will not only absorb sunlight but also block solar reflectivity,
further increasing the warming effect. 116

Fuel characteristics can affect the rate at which some pollutants are formed in exhaust. The fuel’s
sulfur concentration is one of the most significant properties for determining emission rates. The
sulfur in fuel can act as a nucleation site for the formation of PM. Also, modern exhaust after-
treatment systems are less effective or can be destroyed when an engine is run with anything but
very low levels of sulfur. Exhaust aftertreatment systems reduce tailpipe emissions by converting
pollutant molecules into less harmful compounds. For example, a NOx adsorber catalyst stores
NO and NO2 and then converts these molecules into N2 and H2O. Diesel particulate filters
(DPFs) trap PM and then convert the particles primarily into CO2. Both types of devices are less
effective if there is anything beyond trace levels of sulfur in the fuel. Generally, fuel sulfur levels
are specified by governmental regulation, not the choices of individual operators. In order for
advanced aftertreatment systems to function, the political system of the area must make available
or require fuel with very low sulfur levels.

113
Heywood, J.B. (1988). Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals.
114
Ibid.
115
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2012). Reducing Black Carbon Emissions in South Asia—Low Cost
Opportunities.
116
Diesel Technology Forum (2009). Climate Change, Black Carbon and Clean Diesel.

5-6
 Exhaust aftertreatment systems deteriorate with age and usage, and their effectiveness generally
decreases after their initial stabilization when new. In addition to poisoning from sulfur in fuel,
improper maintenance can cause aftertreatment systems to deteriorate more quickly. Because
they do not always specifically benefit or impact a vehicle’s operation or performance, these
systems are not always maintained or replaced when they lose effectiveness. In addition to
aftertreatment deterioration, pollutant emission rates generally increase as an engine ages as well,
especially in terms of PM. As diesel engines age, they tend to operate with reduced fuel pressure,
worn fuel injectors, and lower compression ratios. These characteristics tend to result in
conditions that increase the rate of formation of PM and reduce combustion efficiency, although
NOx emissions may actually decrease slightly with age.

5.1.3 Recent Trends in Heavy-Duty Diesel Fuel Economy

For the United States and EU, trucks improved in efficiency during the nineties and into the mid-
2000s. Beginning around the 2004–2005 timeframe, EPA and EU emissions regulations required
significant decreases in NOx emissions from heavy-duty diesel engines. The aftertreatment and
engine designs required to meet these standards inevitably resulted in reduction of the efficiency
of these engines to a small degree. As the standards continued to tighten through the 2010 time
frame, engine efficiency did not improve due to increases in aftertreatment requirements.
Emissions standard changes moving into the future are likely to be less radical than those
enacted in the mid- to late 2000s, and it is probable that technology improvements implemented
in new trucks will again drive improvements in efficiency as time progresses. This improvement
is more likely also because of new heavy-duty fuel efficiency standards being implemented by a
number of countries around the world. 117, 118

In the United States, light-duty vehicles have been subject to fuel economy standards since 1975.
By the 2000s, many nations had enacted light-duty vehicle fuel economy standards including the
EU, Japan, China, South Korea, Canada, and Australia. 119 Heavy-duty vehicles have not received
this level of regulatory attention until much more recently. Japan was the first nation to establish
a heavy-duty fuel economy requirement, in 2005, though the rulemaking had a long lead time
and does not come into effect until 2015. The United States created the second heavy-duty fuel
economy requirement. The EPA rulemaking is somewhat more expansive than the Japanese plan.
It involves computer simulation, but the model also includes aerodynamics, weight reduction,
tire efficiency, and other fuel-saving characteristics. Engine efficiency is verified separately
using engine dynamometer results, and the engine dynamometer results are also used in the
model. Canadian standards will align with the U.S. program when they come into effect.

China has also developed heavy-duty fuel economy standards. Initially, the Ministry of Industry
and Information Technology conducted numerous dynamometer tests of new vehicles in order to
establish baseline fuel economy for vehicles with modern technology. This became a minimum-
level standard for new vehicles, and is being implemented now with full phase-in required by
July 2015. The fuel consumption regulations are based on gross vehicle weight. The Chinese

117
National Research Council (2010). Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the Fuel Consumption of Medium-
and Heavy-Duty Vehicles.
118
International Transport Forum (2011). Moving Freight with Better Trucks.
119
Resources for the Future (2010). Automobile Fuel Economy Standards—Impacts, Efficiency, and Alternatives.

5-7
 program is different than the others mentioned because they use chassis dynamometers for
almost all measurements, with options for using modeling in special cases. 120

To summarize, heavy-duty fuel economy regulations are relatively new, and in place only in
some nations. There are significant differences in the various programs, as the “best practice”
approach has not yet become apparent. Smaller nations may align themselves with one approach
or another to maximize benefit based on similarities with their own fleet of heavy-duty vehicles,
or based on the types and country of origin of most new heavy-duty vehicles purchased.

5.2 Technologies for the In-Use Fleet

This section presents various technologies and concepts that can be retrofitted or implemented on
fleets of trucks that are already in-use. Retrofit approaches allow for faster technology
penetration rates than waiting for new vehicles to replace in-use vehicles through attrition. All of
the technologies here are currently available and past the proof of concept phase. Many of the
fuel-saving concepts reduce fuel consumption enough that the cost of purchase and installation
can be paid back within a few months or years due to the reduction in fuel costs. The costs and
benefits of the following technologies are presented in Section 5.2.7.

5.2.1 Aerodynamic Retrofits

One of the most readily available groups of devices available for trucks that travel primarily at
high speeds on highways are aerodynamic retrofits. The devices are generally either attached to
the tractor or trailer and reduce the level of drag acting on the vehicle. They require an initial
capital expenditure but will usually save enough fuel to have a payback period after which the
net cost of the device becomes negative. They are only effective on vehicles that typically travel
fast enough that their drag reduction benefits outweigh the increased weight of the devices.
Trucks in the United States and Canada typically travel faster than the trucks in most other
countries, so aerodynamic retrofits will be more effective in the United States. 121 For example,
most trucks in the EU are limited to 80 kph (50 mph). 122

A key consideration for comparing tractor devices to trailer devices is the relative numbers of
each. In the United States, there are about three times as many registered box trailers as there are
semi trucks. This reduces the true cost-effectiveness of upgrades to trailers as compared to trucks
because, on average, each trailer spends much less time in operation than each truck. 123 However,
research has shown that trailer modifications can result in greater fuel savings potential than can

120
International Council on Clean Transportation (2011). Evolution of heavy-duty vehicle GHG and fuel economy
standards. Presentation to Asilomar Conference: Rethinking Energy and Climate Strategies for Transportation.
121
International Council on Clean Transportation (2011). European Union Greenhouse Gas Reduction Potential for
Heavy-Duty Vehicles. TIAX reference no. D5625.
122
European Union Road Safety (2012). Speed limits. Retrieved December 2012 from
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/specialist/knowledge/speed/speed_limits/current_speed_limit_policies.htm.
123
Northeast States Center for a Clean Air Future, International Council on Clean Transportation, Southwest Research
Institute, and TIAX (2009. Reducing Heavy-Duty Long Haul Combination Truck Fuel Consumption and CO2
Emissions.

5-8
 changes to modern trucks. 124 Both trucks and trailers can be fitted with devices to reduce the
aerodynamic drag caused by the gap between them. This gap causes turbulence and increased
drag as air gets entrained and disturbed by the sharp edges of the truck and trailer in this area.
This effect is magnified in crosswind conditions, which generally cause combination trucks to
have much higher amounts of drag than in calm conditions. The trailer gap should be minimized
for drag, but the tradeoff is that space is necessary to prevent contact between truck and trailer
during articulation as the vehicle goes over bumps, up and down grades, and around turns. 125 In
order to reduce drag caused by the truck/trailer gap, modifications can be made to either the
truck, the trailer, or to both.

5.2.1.1 Tractor Treatments

For tractors, there are a few key areas that contribute greatly to drag. Open wheels and rotating
tires create large amounts of turbulence, as do exposed fuel tanks, side mirrors, and air filters. At
the front of the truck, sharp edges at the hood and fenders can increase drag as well. As air
passes around the rear of the tractor, drag is created in the truck/trailer gap as described above.
The following devices can reduce the drag caused by these areas.

• Chassis skirts. These panels can be fitted in the area between the front and rear tires of the
tractor. They can cover an exposed fuel tank or other frame boxes such as battery storage
boxes. They reduce the turbulence caused by these appendages as well as turbulence caused
by the rotating drive and steering wheels.
• Wheel covers. Generally, wheels have an offset so that they have a concave recession in the
center. Covering these with smooth wheel covers can reduce drag and turbulence.
Consideration should be given to cooling of the brakes: if the truck operates in an area where
continuous brake operation is required (such as mountainous regions), smooth wheel covers
may not allow adequate brake cooling.
• Roof deflectors and fairings. These devices manage the air flow over the top of the truck as
it passes over the tractor/trailer gap. If a truck has a roof height that is appreciably shorter
than the height of the trailers that it usually tows,
aerodynamic drag can be reduced by the addition of a roof
deflector or a completely faired roof similar to that found
in modern sleeper cabs. These devices allow the airflow to
smoothly transition up to the height and width of the
trailer and not flow directly into the bluff face of the front
of the trailer.
• Vortex generators. These devices attach to the rear of the
truck’s cab just in front of the trailer gap. They create a
row of vortices whose axis is parallel with the length of
the truck. These vortices have greater energy than the
airflow would otherwise have, and so do not change

124
Hakansson, C., and M. Lenngren (2010). CFD Analysis of Aerodynamic Trailer Devices for Drag Reduction of
Heavy Duty Trucks. Master’s thesis, Chalmers University.
125
Ibid.

5-9
 direction as easily as they pass around the sharp rear edge of the truck’s cab. As a result, the
row of vortices presents a type of “fluidic curtain” that reduces the drag caused by cross-flow
and turbulence in the trailer gap area.

5.2.1.2 Trailer Treatments

The trailer has four key areas that contribute to the total aerodynamic drag:

• The trailer gap.

• The underbody.
• The wheel trucks (or bogie).
• The flat back surface for a box trailer.

The underbody usually has appendages that can cause turbulence such as the spare tire carrier,
jack legs, and (for trailers with integrated refrigerators or generators) a diesel fuel tank. The rear
wheels and axle bogie also cause drag because these bluff mechanical parts are exposed to the
airflow, and the exposed rotating wheels cause a large amount of turbulence. Finally, the flat rear
of a box trailer causes a large amount of turbulence and wake drag. For ease of loading and
unloading, and to maximize internal volume, box trailers usually have flat, squared-off rear
surfaces. As air flows around the rear corners of the trailer, turbulence is created and a low-
pressure zone is created behind the trailer that exerts a drag force on the vehicle. The following
trailer treatments can be used to reduce these aerodynamic drag effects.

• Trailer nose cone. A round or bulbous cover can be added to the upper part of the front
surface of a box trailer. This device can smooth the flow around the front of the trailer and
reduce pressure drag caused by the front face of the trailer. It can also reduce the drag caused
by the trailer gap area even if the tractor has a full round air deflector, as its can further
eliminate turbulence in this region beyond the level possible with only the tractor fairing.
• Trailer vortex stabilizer. This device is a flat vertical panel surface mounted to the center of
the front of the trailer. It serves to block cross-flow through the trailer gap. It is especially
effective at reducing drag in crosswind conditions, but also can reduce oscillation effects of
cross flow through this area even in low-wind conditions.
• Side skirt. Side skirts extend downward from the trailer body on each side to cover the area
between the jack legs and the trailer wheels. They reduce turbulence and cross-flow in the
underbody area, reduce pressure drag on the trailer bogie, and also smooth the flow over the
rear wheels. They are susceptible to damage from road debris and also high-centering if
cresting sharp gradients. Some of these devices are intentionally created to be flexible in
order to reduce damage from these conditions. Side skirts are fairly common on EU trailers,
but less so for the rest of the world. 126

126
International Council on Clean Transportation (2013). Trailer Technologies for Increased Heavy-Duty Vehicle
Efficiency.

5-10
 • Bogie cover/fairing. Undercarriage covers consist of fairings around the trailer bogie area.
These fairings can smooth airflow around the axles, springs, suspension, and support
framework. They would be made less effective by the presence of side skirts on the trailer.
• Trailer wheel covers. As with the tractor wheels, smooth covers on trailer wheels can reduce
turbulence around rotating wheels and tires as compared to typical concave wheel designs.
This drag reduction would be greatest for vehicles equipped with side skirts, because the
airflow would be smooth before flowing over the wheels.
• Vortex generators. Vortex generators can also be used at the rear of the trailer. Instead of
smoothing the flow between the truck and trailer, as they do when installed behind the cab,
they reduce the turbulence created by the sharp rear edge of the trailer and smooth the
trailer’s wake.
• UnderTray systems. These systems are retrofit underneath trailers that reduce turbulence
and drag at the rear wheels. Different configurations are available with claimed fuel savings
ranging from 5 to 10 percent. Trailer clearance is reduced to some extent by these systems. 127
• Boat tail/trailer end fairing. These devices can also smooth the transition of the sharp edge
of the rear of a box trailer. The fairings reduce the sharp angled flow at the rear of the trailer
and thus reduce pressure drag. A key disadvantage to these retrofits is their effect on opening
the trailer doors for loading and unloading. The most important factor in the success of these
designs is whether they minimize logistical problems with accessing the rear of the trailer.
Because these devices protrude from the rear of the trailer, another limitation is legislation
regarding the maximum length of the trailer. The devices will only be useful if they do not
require a reduction of the useable volume inside the trailer.
• Aerodynamic mudflaps. There are vented mudflaps available that can reduce the drag
caused by the flat face of typical mudflaps. These flaps are vented or slatted and reduce drag
and are even claimed to reduce the spray caused by water droplets impacting standard flaps.

The effects and benefits of the above devices are not necessarily additive. Some of the different
devices address the same sources of drag, and as such only one or the other would be required to
achieve most of the fuel savings possible in that area. Conversely, the effectiveness of some
technologies may require the presence of others. For example, smooth trailer wheel covers would
very likely not reduce drag by any consequential amount without trailer side skirts mounted to
smooth the airflow moving toward the wheels. Figure 5-2 depicts a trailer equipped with both
side skirts and a rear boat tail.

127
SmartTruck (2009). SmartTruck systems portfolio. Retrieved from http://smarttrucksystems.com/undertray.php.

5-11
 Figure 5-2. A Trailer Equipped with Side Skirts, Gap Fairings, and a Rear Boat Tail

5.2.2 Rolling Resistance

Several retrofit options are available to reduce the part of the rolling resistance caused by the
tires. Tires must be replaced periodically throughout the life of the vehicle, so shifting to low-
resistance options at the time of necessary replacement can reduce capital costs for some tire
models. The following is a list of retrofit options that help reduce tire rolling resistance.

• Low-rolling-resistance tires. In general, improvements in tire technology have continually

reduced truck tire rolling resistance over the last few decades. 128 However, some tires are at
the leading edge of these reductions. The SmartWay program certifies some specific models
of tire as low-rolling-resistance. For a given level of technological development, there is
often a tradeoff between rolling resistance and traction. However, as technology levels
improve, rolling resistance has generally decreased over time without a loss in traction.
• Single-wide tires. Heavy-duty tractor-trailer trucks operate with dual wheels on each side of
the drive axles, and most box trailers have dual wheels on each side of their axles. Each pair
can be replaced with single wide-base tires (or super singles) that are nearly as wide as the
pair of dual wheels and tires. Replacement requires the purchase of a new wheel to fit the
single tires’ dimension. These tires reduce rolling resistance as compared to duals. This is
thought to be because they have fewer sidewall/tread interfaces, which is an area where
significant energy is lost during deformation caused by rolling. Another advantage of this
type of tire, especially as compared to trucks and trailers with dual steel wheels, is a weight
reduction by substituting a single aluminum wheel. This weight reduction can improve
efficiency or allow a truck to haul more cargo for a given gross weight. Outside of
replacement wheel cost, the other disadvantage of these tires is reduced ability to run in case
of a blowout. A single-tire blowout on a truck with dual wheels will often still allow the truck
to “limp” to a service station, but a blowout of a super single will usually require a service
technician to travel to the truck in order to replace or repair the tire. 129 While these tires are
becoming more prevalent and available in the United States, they may not be available

128
National Research Council (2010). Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the Fuel Consumption of Medium-
and Heavy-Duty Vehicles.
129
International Council on Clean Transportation (2013). Trailer Technologies for Increased Heavy-Duty Vehicle
Efficiency.

5-12
 enough in other nations to allow for prompt enough repair or replacement in the event of a
blowout to justify their use.
• Low-rolling-resistance retreads. In addition to low-resistance technologies for new tires,
low-resistance retreads are also available. These retreads are available for dual and single-
wide tires. While retreads have higher rolling resistance than comparable new tires, some
retread products have lower rolling resistance than others. 130 The EPA SmartWay program
has verified a number of retread products in addition to the verified new low-rolling-
resistance tires. 131
• Tire and wheel alignment. Tire slip angle, which defines an angle between a tire’s
rotational path and its actual direction of travel, can contribute to rolling resistance. Though
this effect is usually small, an operator can eliminate the loss in efficiency caused by this
effect by ensuring that an in-use truck and trailer’s wheels are in proper alignment. 132
• Tire pressure monitoring and automatic tire inflation. Low tire pressure increases the
amount of deformation experienced by a rotating tire, and in turn increases rolling resistance.
While many fleets encourage drivers to check tire pressure often, this may not occur for all
trucks. Electronic tire pressure monitoring systems (TPMS) allow for passive monitoring of
tire pressures. These devices usually have sensors mounted at the tire valves at the time the
tire is mounted. The sensors transmit a pressure signal to the head unit, which reports all
pressures together and can sound an alarm if one or more tires fall below a set level. The next
level of tire pressure management is automatic tire inflation (ATI) systems. These systems
contain pressure monitoring systems similar to TPMS, but also tap into the truck’s onboard
compressed air system. The controller unit can manually or automatically command
independent solenoid values to bring up the pressure in a low tire. 133

5.2.3 Driveline Efficiency Improvements

For the in-use fleet, the most prevalent way to increase driveline efficiency is the substitution of
low-friction or low-viscosity lubricants. Fluid lubricants resist the rotation of driveshafts, pumps,
and gears due to viscous and shear effects. These cause an energy loss that must be met with
power from the engine. These viscous effects can be reduced by specifying low-viscosity or
energy-saving engine and transmission fluids. These fluids are designed to still meet the
lubrication requirements of the engines, transmissions, and rear differentials while reducing the
energy loss from viscous drag. Often, the highest-efficiency lubricants tend to be synthetics, but
there are some conventional lubricants available that can increase fuel economy. 134 Higher-
efficiency wheel bearing greases are also available, though their benefits may be small enough to
be negligible.

130
National Research Council (2010). Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the Fuel Consumption of Medium-
and Heavy-Duty Vehicles.
131
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2014). SmartWay technology: About the SmartWay Technology Program.
Retrieved from http://epa.gov/smartway/forpartners/technology.htm.
132
National Research Council (2010). Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the Fuel Consumption of Medium-
and Heavy-Duty Vehicles.
133
Ibid.
134
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2002). Industry Options for Improving Ground Freight Fuel Efficiency.

5-13
 5.2.4 Idle Reduction

Heavy-duty vehicles often idle for extended periods of time for various reasons. During extended
idle, the engine is consuming fuel, pollutant emissions are being produced, but no freight is being
moved. Different technologies exist to meet the various needs that cause operators to idle for
extended periods while reducing the fuel consumption and emissions effects of the process. The
most common reason for extended idling of heavy-duty trucks is to keep climate control systems
operating while long-haul drivers are resting in sleeper cabs. This power demand is often called
the “hotel load.” The following options can help reduce idling:

• Auxiliary power units. These are small IC engines that can meet required hotel loads more
efficiently than a truck’s main engine. They usually power a generator as well as producing
useable heat. Because their working parts are much smaller, they operate with far less
internal friction than main engines and they can meet the relatively small hotel load
requirements while burning less fuel. The key drawbacks to these devices are their initial cost
and added weight. 135
• Direct-fired diesel heaters. These devices can provide warmth to the sleeper cab relatively
quietly and efficiently. They burn fuel from the truck’s main tanks, and this fuel is converted
into heat in the cab. 136 They have relatively few drawbacks, except that they are limited in use
to cold and winter conditions.
• Automatic engine shutdown and startup. These devices electronically control automatic
engine startup and shutdown to meet a cab temperature demand or battery charging
requirements. They can cycle the engine in either air-conditioning or heating mode in order
to keep the sleeper cab within a set temperature range. 137
• Battery-powered air conditioning. These can either use separate batteries or the truck’s
main battery bank to supply the demands of various hotel loads. Systems exist that can
provide eight hours of heating or cooling under moderate conditions. Severe heating or
cooling requirements will reduce the length of time for which these devices can meet hotel
loads. The key drawbacks to these systems are cost and the weight of increased battery
capacity. 138
• Thermal storage systems. These systems use a thermal sink, either water or another
working fluid, to store energy taken from the engine when it is running. This stored energy is
then drawn into the sleeper cab after the engine is shut down in order to maintain cab
temperatures for an overnight rest period. While the engine is running, the thermal storage is
either heated by the engine’s coolant, or cooled using a refrigeration compressor driven from

135
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2002). Industry Options for Improving Ground Freight Fuel Efficiency.
136
Ibid.
137
Ibid.
138
National Research Council (2010). Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the Fuel Consumption of Medium-
and Heavy-Duty Vehicles.

5-14
 the truck’s electrical system. The drawbacks of this type of system are installation cost and
the weight of the thermal sink that must be mounted to the truck. 139
• Truck stop electrification. This is not a vehicle retrofit, but it is a non-OEM concept that
does not require the same period of time for benefits to be realized as required by new
vehicle rates of market penetration. There are two
main types of truck stop electrification. 140
o Dual system (shore power/electricity only). In
these types of truck stops, electrical supply is run
to stations throughout the overnight parking
areas. The operator can plug the truck into these
stations and use electricity to run onboard
heating or cooling or to power other accessories.
The drawbacks to these systems are the cost and
weight of onboard AC-powered heating and air
conditioning systems. They are referred to as
dual systems because they require hardware both
at the truck stop and within each truck. 141
o Single system (onsite climate controls and
electric). Some truck stops have stations set up in
U.S. Department of Energy
their parking lots for conditioned air as well as
electricity. In these locations, ducting is run to
each parking space that can provide hot or cool air as well as electrical outlets for the
operation of accessories. They are called single systems because equipment only needs to
be installed at the truck stop, not in the trucks. These systems eliminate the need for
idling as well as the need to carry the weight of any onboard devices for sleeper comfort.
Their key disadvantage is that use is subject to the discretionary pricing of the truck stop
operator for these services. They will almost always be priced lower than the cost of
extended idling, however. Also, if these types of truck stops are not available all along a
route, an operator may need to still carry the weight of other installed systems, partially
reducing the benefits that are achievable with these systems. 142

5.2.5 Exhaust Aftertreatment

Exhaust aftertreatment devices are not designed to reduce fuel consumption or CO2 production,
but rather to reduce regulated pollutant emissions. Because they have no ability to reduce
operational costs as do many of the technologies described above, private companies are unlikely
to adopt them without some additional incentive.

139
Webasto (2014). Bunk cooling systems. Retrieved from http://www.webasto.com/us/markets-products/truck/bunk-
cooling-systems/.
140
National Research Council (2010). Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the Fuel Consumption of Medium-
and Heavy-Duty Vehicles.
141
Millard-Ball, A. (2009). Truck Stop Electrification and Carbon Offsets.
142
Ibid.

5-15
 • Diesel oxidation catalyst (DOC).
These aftertreatment devices
facilitate a reaction between PM,
HC, and CO in the exhaust to
produce CO2 and water. DOCs are
entirely passive systems that can
be retrofitted on vehicles widely
varying in age, and because of
this, they are the most widely-
implemented diesel aftertreatment Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
retrofit in the world. 143 The DOC is typically a flow through device, in which the exhaust
flows uninterrupted through a substrate designed to have maximum surface area for the
reactants to come in contact with the catalyst material. DOCs are tolerant of a wide range of
fuel quality and have a fairly low exhaust temperature requirement of around 150o C. These
devices became popular in the 1990s in the United States when fuel sulfur was around 500
ppm. They are effective at these sulfur levels and become even more effective at lower
levels. DOCs generally reduce the soluble organic fraction of PM by reacting that portion
with other exhaust constituents. They are not typically considered to react the elemental or
black carbon portion of PM. DOC systems in retrofit are generally known for their high
reliability and minimal maintenance requirements.
• Diesel particulate filter (DPF). DPF devices are now standard on OEM trucks in the United
States and EU. For new trucks, most OEM DPFs are of the wall-flow type. This type of filter
is made up of many porous axial tubes, with alternating tubes capped at either the entrance or
the exit. With this design, exhaust flow enters the open tubes, travels through the porous
walls of each tube, and exits through the tubes that are open at the outlet. The wall between
tubes provides the surface to collect PM. The other type of DPF is the flow-through type. In
these filters, a catalyzed metal mesh grid makes up the filter surface. The filter contains metal
fins, tubes, and channels that are
designed to cause large amounts
of turbulence and changes in flow
direction to force particles to
adhere to the metal mesh inside.
Flow-through filters do not have
as high a filtration efficiency as
wall-flow filters. They are more
appropriate for retrofits on older
engines that have much higher
levels of engine-out PM
emissions. One consideration for
wall-flow filters is that, at
extended intervals, they must be

143
Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (2009). Retrofitting Emission Controls for Diesel-Powered
Vehicles.

5-16
 cleaned of ash that can slowly build up in their pores. This ash does not burn off during the
regeneration cycle, so every few years the DPF must be removed for this service. 144
For those DPFs that can be regenerated, there are two main types of approaches to
regeneration, active and passive. With both of these methods the carbonaceous PM
compounds trapped on the filter react with the compounds in the incoming exhaust to create
CO2 and other gaseous byproducts.
o In the case of active regeneration, a control device measures the pressure difference
across the DPF; when it hits a threshold, the regeneration process begins. During
regeneration, the control unit either increases the temperature of the incoming exhaust or
creates an oxidizing environment with an auxiliary fuel injector placed in the exhaust
stream. This causes the truck to incur a small fuel consumption penalty during
regeneration as this fuel energy is not used to move the vehicle.
o Passive regeneration systems do not require a controller or monitoring of the DPF
pressure drop. Instead, they are regenerated any time the engine is operating at high loads
with high exhaust temperatures. Application of passive retrofit DPF devices is limited to
engines that spend adequate time at high loads. If the engine operates continuously with
low exhaust temperatures for an extended period, the DPF could clog. A clogged DPF
needs to be removed and cleaned or replaced. This will result in downtime for the truck
and may or may not be covered under the truck’s warranty.
• Closed crankcase ventilation. Older engines typically had crankcases that were vented
directly to the atmosphere. During the combustion cycle, a small amount of the byproducts of
combustion inevitably slip past the engine’s piston rings (a process called blowby) and into
the crankcase. Because of the rapid motion of the crankshaft and oil within the crankcase,
there are usually suspended droplets of oil in this space. This suspended oil may react with
PM and other exhaust compounds to increase PM mass, and then can be expelled from the
crankcase due to blowby pressure. If the crankcase is open to the atmosphere, these
emissions (which contain pollutants as untreated exhaust) must be considered with the
tailpipe emissions to make up the total pollutant emissions from the truck. For a truck
equipped with aftertreatment, the crankcase gases escape without the benefit of the
reductions to the rest of the exhaust within the aftertreatment devices.
Closed crankcase systems are not specifically an aftertreatment concept, but do provide an
emissions reduction effect. They involve hardware to redirect blowby gasses back into the
intake stream of the engine. They are usually equipped with liquid filters that capture
droplets of oil and return them to the oil sump of the engines. Any captured PM is removed
by the oil filter and eliminated during the next oil change. The filters allow the gaseous
portion of the crankcase flow to return to the intake of the engine, where they pass back
through the combustion process again. 145
• Selective catalytic reduction (SCR). SCR systems are designed to create a chemically
reducing environment in the exhaust to eliminate NOx. Instead of using fuel to create the

144
Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (2009). Retrofitting Emission Controls for Diesel-Powered
Vehicles.
145
Ibid.

5-17
 reducing environment, as in the case of the actively regenerated DPF, SCR systems inject an
ammonia-type liquid into the exhaust upstream of a catalyst substrate. OEM-type SCR
systems use urea as the working fluid, a molecule of which contains two NH2 groups instead
of the NH3 atoms in ammonia. The similar atomic structures allow urea to support similar
reactions to ammonia, but at a much lower level of toxicity. The urea reacts with the NOx in
the exhaust stream to produce molecular nitrogen and water. 146
Vehicles equipped with SCR must carry a tank of the urea, which is typically mixed with
water and marketed as diesel exhaust fluid (DEF). Generally, the service requirements of
SCR systems require the DEF tank to be replenished at approximately the same service
interval as the engine oil change. SCR systems are not very susceptible to fuel sulfur
poisoning and do not necessarily require ultra-low-sulfur fuel, but they are more effective
when used with lower levels of fuel sulfur. In OEM installations, the engine’s ECU
commands a certain DEF injection rate based on either an expected NOx formation rate at
any given engine operating condition or based on a NOx sensor in the exhaust. This type of
control is considered closed-loop SCR control, and allows for very high NOx reduction
efficiency levels. For retrofits, this level of control is not always possible or affordable. If no
NOx sensor is present, the SCR controller must operate in open loop and the effectiveness of
the NOx reduction is decreased because the DEF injection rate is not precisely matched to the
engine’s NOx formation rate. DEF costs approximately $3.00 U.S. per gallon, and trucks
consume DEF at a rate of about 3 percent of the amount of fuel consumed. Most U.S. and
European spec trucks are programmed to be unable to be restarted, or be able only to run in
limp-home mode, if their DEF tanks become fully depleted. 147
• Lean NOx catalyst (LNC) or lean NOx trap (LNT). These systems are both designed to
reduce the NOx in the exhaust stream, usually by using fuel injected into the exhaust to react
with the NOx in the presence of a catalyst. As a result, both types of system usually require a
small penalty to fuel economy in order to achieve NOx reduction levels high enough to
justify their installation costs.
o In the LNC, the catalyst reduces a portion of exhaust NOx continuously. This is usually
done with a small amount of fuel continuously or periodically injected upstream.
However, these devices can also operate without exhaust fuel injection, though their
effectiveness will be greatly reduced in that configuration. 148
o In the LNT, also known as a NOx adsorber catalyst, NOx molecules entering in the
exhaust stream are stored temporarily on catalyzed surfaces as they flow through the unit.
An LNT system is designed to have an interior framework with maximum catalyzed
surface area for storage of NOx molecules. In retrofit systems, these stored molecules are
periodically reduced directly off the surfaces by briefly injecting fuel into the exhaust
stream. In OEM applications, the reducing environment in the exhaust can often be
created through engine calibration without necessarily requiring an exhaust fuel injector,

146
Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (2009). Retrofitting Emission Controls for Diesel-Powered
Vehicles.
147
Johnson, C. (2012). What Truck Stop Operators Need to Know About Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF).
148
Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (2009). Retrofitting Emission Controls for Diesel-Powered
Vehicles.

5-18
 but in either case a fuel consumption penalty will result. LNT systems can have an
effectiveness of up to or over 90 percent. 149
• It is possible to combine the above technologies in various ways. In general, closed crankcase
ventilation operates independently and can be used with (or without) any of the other
systems. For the others, aftertreatment concepts generally involve the combination of one PM
filtering device and one NOx-reducing device. Common aftertreatment combinations are.
o LNC/LNT + (DPF or DOC)
o DOC + SCR
o SCR + DPF
o DOC + DPF
• Fuel sulfur and aftertreatment systems. Many of the devices listed in this section require
low levels of fuel sulfur to function and to avoid damage. Mandating fuel sulfur
concentration levels requires regulatory action and is not typically a choice made by end
users. In general, the more effective the aftertreatment, the less fuel sulfur it can tolerate. The
DOC and SCR retrofits can tolerate a moderate amount of sulfur (up to approximately 500
ppm), but the other devices generally require fuel sulfur levels in the range of 10 to 30 ppm.
As a result, the first step in any retrofit program is to make sure that the desired
aftertreatment types can function on the type of fuel that is usually supplied in the area of
interest.

5.2.6 Fuel Strategies

Diesel vehicle operators have a small number of fuel-related options for reducing the emissions
of trucking operations:

• Biodiesel blends. Operators can fuel in-use trucks with biodiesel blends. Blends with
conventional diesel of up to 20 percent biodiesel (B20) are compatible with most existing
engines and infrastructure. Higher-percentage blends may be used with minor changes to
fittings and other vehicle components, as well as other fuel delivery and storage systems,
depending on specific designs. Operators of newer vehicles under warranty should verify that
the biodiesel use does not void the warranty, as some manufacturers do have biodiesel
exclusions. Research into sourcing biodiesel from algae continues, and this holds promise as
the source of biodiesel with the lowest requirement for energy input during production of the
fuel.
There is considerable uncertainty over the life-cycle GHG benefits of biodiesel when indirect
land use change and other indirect effects are included. The estimated GHG impacts of B20
produced from soy range from a 13 percent reduction to a 10 percent increase in GHG
emissions compared to conventional diesel. If the biodiesel is sourced from a truly renewable
feedstock, its use will have a net GHG benefit. Operating a diesel engine with biodiesel
typically results in lower PM emissions as well. Data regarding its effect on NOx emissions
shows some disagreement, with some sources suggesting a slight increase and some showing

149
Ibid.

5-19
 a decrease or equivocal impacts. HC and CO, while typically already very low in diesel
combustion, are also lower from engines operating on biodiesel. The energy content of
biodiesel is lower than that of conventional diesel fuel, so operators will experience slightly
increased fuel consumption. Depending on the method used for production of the fuel, GHG
reductions are still possible in spite of increased consumption because the fuel is
renewable. 150, 151
• Cetane-enhancing additives. These additives can affect the way fuel is burned within a
diesel engine. The cetane number refers to a fuel’s propensity to ignite; and higher cetane is
desirable for cold starting and driveability, especially in older engines. In locations that have
a relatively low-cetane fuel supply, benefits can come from the use of additives that increase
cetane. These additives can reduce NOx and PM formation, primarily in older engines.
Cetane improvers generally do not have an appreciable benefit when used with higher-cetane
base fuels, such as those with a cetane over approximately 50–55. While there is some
anecdotal information in the literature suggesting possible fuel economy improvement with
the use of cetane improvers in low-cetane fuel, there is little independent data to support this
and the effect seems to be dependent upon specific engine designs. 152, 153
• Natural gas conversion. 154 Natural gas retrofit systems are available for a variety of heavy
truck makes and models, and can often be installed by local vendors. Natural gas use
practically eliminates PM emissions, a great benefit compared to older diesel engines. NOx
emissions may also be reduced, although carbon emission impacts are likely equivocal
relative to diesel. 155 Compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquefied natural gas (LNG)
conversions are generally lower in cost than purchasing new vehicles from OEMs, but the
conversion systems themselves can be less reliable and durable than OEM vehicles if not
performed properly. CNG tanks store gaseous fuel at high pressures (e.g., commonly at 3,600
psi), although vehicle range may be very limited compared to diesel due to the much lower
energy density. For this reason CNG conversions are typically applied to local delivery fleets
with relatively low daily mileage and a central refueling location. CNG conversions also
require multiple, bulky storage tanks, which add weight and limit available cargo space. LNG
systems are more expensive than CNG but offer longer range, and can be adopted for long-
haul applications. Depending upon the local availability and cost of CNG and LNG,
substantial fuel cost savings may be realized through this option.

150
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (2013). Clean Cities Guide to Alternative Fuel and Advanced Medium- and
Heavy-Duty Vehicles. Publication no. DOE/GO-102013-3624.
151
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2002). A Comprehensive Analysis of Biodiesel Impacts on Exhaust
Emissions. EPA-420-P-02-001.
152
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2003). The Effect of Cetane Number Increase Due to Additives on NOx
Emissions from Heavy-Duty Highway Engines. EPA-420-R-03-002.
153
Chevron Global Marketing (2007). Diesel Fuels Technical Review.
154
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/natural_gas_emissions.html
155
Improperly maintained CNG/LNG equipment can leak large amounts of methane, resulting in a much greater GHG
impact than equivalent diesel vehicles.

5-20
5.2.7 Costs, Benefits, and Degree of Utilization for Retrofittable Strategies

The technologies and concepts discussed in Chapter 5 require a capital cost for the hardware
purchase, and some involve ongoing maintenance costs that can usually be estimated on a per-
mile-traveled basis. Many of the fuel-saving concepts reduce operating costs in such a way that
there is a payback period after which cost reductions exceed the installation cost. The exhaust
aftertreatment concepts generally have a small fuel consumption penalty associated with their
use, so they will not have a payback period unless the trucks operate in an area where legislative
initiatives provide compensation through grants or other means for emissions reductions. One
example of this situation was the Ecopass area in Milan, Italy. This program operated from 2008
to 2011 and involved a use tax on polluting vehicles entering the city center. Diesel vehicles
equipped with DPFs were allowed to access this area at no cost.

Estimates of the cost and benefits of the various on-road fuel-saving retrofit devices are
presented in Table 5-1. The benefits in terms of fuel consumption are presented in terms of the
percent reduction in fuel consumed for a typical on-highway freight truck. The table divides the
costs of the devices into capital/one-time costs and operating/continuous costs, presenting the
latter in terms of per mile or per year. Finally, the table lists any co-benefits or potential negative
side effects that can affect a truck’s operations.

Table 5-1. Costs and Benefits of the On-Road Retrofit Technologies for On-Highway
Freight Trucks

Benefit
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Device (% Reduction in Co-benefit or Side Effect
($ U.S.) ($ U.S.)
Fuel Consumed)
Tractor roof and 1–2%a 1,250a,d —
side fairings 2–10%b 300–1,800b
3–5%c
Vortex Up to 2–3%b,e $220b — Can increase the stability (or
generators on perceived stability) of the truck and
truck and trailer trailer.
Tractor side skirt 3-4%b 1,500–2,000b —
3-4% c
Trailer side skirt 5.6–7%b,e 700–1,000f 50–400/year if Susceptible to damage on severe
damagedg terrain or over steep railroad
crossings.
Trailer nose 2–3.8%b,h 800–1,260b —
cone
Trailer boat 2–4%a 1,000–1,600f — Can cause a loading delay
tail/rear fairing 2.8–4.8%b,h depending on how quickly it can
4–6%c be moved out of the way of the
trailer doors.
Low-rolling- 5%a 455a,d — Can also reduce NOx emission rate
resistance tires 1–2%c 240c by 3%.i
3% or morei 300–500j

5-21
 Benefit
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Device (% Reduction in Co-benefit or Side Effect
($ U.S.) ($ U.S.)
Fuel Consumed)
Single-wide tires 9–12%a 450a,d — Weight reduction can benefit cargo
k
2.6% 900 (trailer) c capacity. Can also reduce limp-
5%k 1,700j home ability of truck in case of a
Up to 10%b blowout.
4–6% (trailer)c
5–10%j
Low-friction 1.5–3%k — Up to 0.004 per
driveline lubes mileb
f
Automatic tire Variable 700–1,000 —
inflation system
Notes
a
International Council on Clean Transportation (2011). European Union Greenhouse Gas Reduction Potential
for Heavy-Duty Vehicles. TIAX reference no. D5625.
b
National Research Council (2010). Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the Fuel Consumption of
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles.
c
International Council on Clean Transportation (2013). Trailer Technologies for Increased Heavy-Duty Vehicle
Efficiency.
d
Converted euros to U.S. dollars using 1.3 dollars per euro (as of the December 2011 publication date).
e
Values taken from manufacturer-supplied data, not independent test data.
f
Sharpe, B., and M. Roeth (2014). Costs and Adoption Rates of Fuel-Saving Technologies for Trailers in the
North American On-Road Freight Sector. Retrieved from
http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT_trailer-tech-costs_20140218.pdf.
g
Lowe, M., G. Ayee, and G. Gereffi (2009). Chapter 9: Hybrid drivetrains for medium- and heavy-duty trucks.
In Manufacturing Climate Solutions: Carbon-Reducing Technologies and U.S. Jobs. Retrieved from
http://www.cggc.duke.edu/environment/climatesolutions/greeneconomy_Ch9_HybridDrivetrainsforTrucks.pd
f.
h
ERG converted values from percent fuel economy improvement to percent fuel consumption reduction.
i
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2014). SmartWay technology: About the SmartWay Technology
Program. Retrieved from http://epa.gov/smartway/forpartners/technology.htm.
j
International Energy Agency (2012). Technology Roadmap—Fuel Economy of Road Vehicles.
k
Federal Railroad Administration (2009). Comparative Evaluation of Rail and Truck Fuel Efficiency on
Competitive Corridors.

Not all of the benefits presented in the table are additive. For example, if a truck has well-faired
sides and roofline, the addition of a trailer nose cone may not produce as great a benefit. It is
important that each operator select from the best technologies that are most conducive to benefits
for the type of operation that is most often encountered. Also, as mentioned in the table, two of
the benefit estimates are drawn from manufacturer data and do not necessarily reflect
independent testing results. Finally, some of the benefit percentage estimates were taken from
literature that gave values in terms of percentage increases in fuel economy. ERG converted
these values to percent reduction in fuel consumption so that all values would be presented on
the same basis.

The various strategies that address extended idle reduction are presented in Table 5-2. The
reduction in fuel consumed for a typical long-haul truck are given, as well as the costs involved
for each. Most onboard strategies are given as capital costs, but the truck stop electrification
concepts have both capital costs and per-use costs.

5-22
 Table 5-2. Costs and Benefits of the Extended-Idle Reduction Strategies

Benefit
Costs
Device (% Reduction in Fuel Co-benefit or Side Effect
($ U.S.)
Consumed)
APU 8.1%a 5,000–12,000b Increased weight, noise, and maintenance, but
4–8%b flexible and can be used anywhere. Does
5–6%c require yearly maintenance.
Diesel heat 4.3%a 1,000–3,000b Can only provide heat.
1–3%b
Engine 5.6%a 0 (OEM)b Engine starting and stopping can interrupt
start/stop 2–3%b 1,325–3,750 (retrofit)b driver rest.
control
Battery AC Variabled 1,600–6,900b Batteries add weight to vehicle and the cooling
systems may not be able to keep cab cool on
hotter days.
Thermal 7–8%e 2,700 f
Very efficient when used for heat, as it uses
storage heat that would otherwise be wasted. Does
require some extra fuel consumption for
cooling, however.
Dual TSE 7–8%e Capital cost for operator: There are a limited number of available
125–2,500 Approximately parking spaces based on the number of
0.50 per hourb to $1 per equipped truck stops. Weight and investment
hourg of systems are not beneficial if the truck must
1,700f spend some rest periods at non-TSE locations.
For truckstop: 4,500– Operators become subject to pricing variation
$8,500 per spaceg of TSE company.
Single TSE 7–8%e Minimal capital costs: There are a limited number of available
1.85–2.18 per hour,b up to parking spaces based on the number of
2.45–2.89 per hourg equipped truck stops. Weight and investment
For truckstop: 10,000– of systems are not beneficial if the truck must
$20,000 per spaceg spend some rest periods at non-TSE locations.
Operators become subject to pricing variation
of TSE company. Systems can also provide
ancillary benefits such as TV or Internet
connectivity.
Notes
a
Federal Railroad Administration (2009). Comparative Evaluation of Rail and Truck Fuel Efficiency on
Competitive Corridors.
b
National Research Council (2010). Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the Fuel Consumption of
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles.
c
International Council on Clean Transportation (2013). Trailer Technologies for Increased Heavy-Duty Vehicle
Efficiency.
d
Available literature values do not take fuel burned for increased alternator charging load into consideration,
and so are not appropriate from an engineering perspective.
e
These estimates are based on the estimate of total fuel burn during idling for an average long-haul truck. The
devices can reduce fuel consumption up to this total amount. See Northeast States Center for a Clean Air
Future, International Council on Clean Transportation, Southwest Research Institute, and TIAX (2009).
Reducing Heavy-Duty Long Haul Combination Truck Fuel Consumption and CO2 Emissions.
f
Argonne National Laboratory (2000). Analysis of Technology Options to Reduce the Fuel Consumption of
Idling Trucks Center. Publication no. ANL/ESD-43.
g
Millard-Ball, A. (2009). Truck Stop Electrification and Carbon Offsets.

5-23
Section 5.3.6 also described various pollutant-reducing aftertreatment systems that can be
retrofitted to in-use vehicles. These systems are summarized in Table 5-3 with the pollutant
reduction levels and the installation costs. The installation costs also include the approximate
length of time for an experienced shop to install the devices. The table also includes the
approximate level of fuel economy penalty that can be expected due to the operation of the
systems.

Table 5-3. Costs and Emission Reduction Levels of Various Retrofit Aftertreatment
Devices

After- Percent Reduction in Pollutant Emissions Fuel

Cost
treatment Economy
NOx PM HC CO (U.S. $)
Type Penaltya
DOC — 20–40%b 40–70%b 40–60%b 600–4,000 + 2 —
25–50%c 50–90%c hoursb
500–2,000c
DPF (wall- — 85–95%b 85–95%b 50–90%b 8,000–50,000 + 1%
flow) >85%c 50–95%c 7 hoursb
7,000–30,000c
DPF (partial/ — Up to 60%b 40–75%b 10–60%b 4,000–6,000 + 7 < 1%
flow-through) 30–60%c 50–95%c hoursb
5,000–7,000c
CCVd — Variable — — 450–700c —
5–10%c
SCRd Up to 75%b 20–30%c 80%c — 10,000–20,000b < 1%
80%c 16,000–20,000c
LNCd 5–40%b — — — 6,500–10,000b 3%
5–30%c 15,000–20,000c
Biodiesel usee -2%f 10.1%f 21.1%f 11%f 1–2%g
Notes
a
Jackson, M., R. Schubert, and E. Kassoy (2005). Comparative Costs of 2010 Heavy-Duty Diesel and Natural
Gas Technologies. TIAX reference no. D0286.
b
U.N. Centre for Regional Development (2011). Best Practices in Green Freight for an Environmentally
Sustainable Road Freight Sector in Asia. Retrieved from
http://cleanairinitiative.org/portal/sites/default/files/BGP-EST5A_Green_Freight_Best_Practices_-_CAI-
Asia_Dec2011.pdf.
c
Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (2009). Retrofitting Emission Controls for Diesel-Powered
Vehicles.
d
Can combine with DOC or DPF to reduce emissions from all four pollutants.
e
Trucks with aftertreatment systems will have lower benefits and penalties from biodiesel use.
f
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2002). A Comprehensive Analysis of Biodiesel Impacts on Exhaust
Emissions. EPA-420-P-02-001.
g
Biodiesel use typically results in a well-to-wheels GHG emission reduction in spite of the increased fuel
consumption rate.

5.3 Technologies for the OEM Fleet

This section presents various technologies and options that can be specified or chosen in the
purchase of a new heavy-duty diesel truck. The technologies presented here are generally
available, and any increased demand is likely to decrease cost of production as volume increases.
Some of the devices and concepts in this section can reduce fuel consumption enough that the

5-24
 additional cost of the option can be paid back within some period of time due to the reduction in
fuel costs.

Many of the retrofit technologies described in Section 5.2 can also be used with new trucks. This
section primarily focuses on additional technologies that could not be practically or cost-
effectively added to in-use vehicles.

5.3.1 Engine Efficiency/Thermal Management

Engine manufacturers continuously seek to improve their engines’ thermal efficiency—the

amount of fuel energy that actually creates torque output and is not lost as waste heat, either to
the engine’s coolant or as thermal energy in the exhaust stream. Turbocharging allows an engine
to recoup some of the energy that would otherwise be wasted in the exhaust, and has been used
in production diesel truck engines since the 1950s. Much more recent designs improve the
efficiency of exhaust energy recovery even more, and some of these concepts are described
below.

• Dual-stage turbocharging. Engines using this technology have two different turbochargers
mounted in series. Generally, the two have different but complementary characteristics. For
example, one turbocharger may be large to efficiently convert high exhaust flow rates to
higher pressure in the intake, and the other may be relatively small in order to respond
quickly to changes in exhaust flow rate. By having two different turbochargers, the engine
can operate more efficiently over a wider range of operating conditions. Additionally, two-
stage turbochargers can drive a higher overall intake pressure than can a single turbocharger,
which allows for engine downsizing while maintaining the same power output level.
• Variable geometry turbocharging (VGT). Another way to allow the turbocharger to work
more efficiently over a wide range of speeds and loads is to employ variable geometry. A
turbocharger is a device with an exhaust flow-driven turbine (located in the upstream part of
the exhaust) that is directly connected to and drives a compressor in the engine’s intake
stream. Typical turbochargers employ fixed geometry, so the designed ratio of flow through
the intake and exhaust turbines is fixed. This means that the system design must be a
compromise intended to work over all engine speeds and loads. As a result, the system is not
as efficient as it could be, especially at operational extremes. Variable geometry systems
allow the design flow/pressure ratios to vary as necessary to maintain more efficient engine
operation (i.e., the device can supply a larger amount of air at low loads while still not over-
pressurizing or choking the airflow at higher speeds and loads). VGT systems generally work
by altering the geometry at the point where the exhaust flow meets the turbine blades. VGTs
can vary the angle of stator blades in the exhaust housing, increasing or decreasing the angle
and speed of the exhaust flow against the turbine. They can also expand or restrict the size of
the aperture in which the exhaust enters the turbine housing. By decreasing the size of this
opening, the flow speed increases for a constant flow rate, increasing the energy transferred
to the turbine blades. 156

156
Mowitz, D. (2013). Variable geometry turbocharger. Successful Farming (summer): 24–26.

5-25
 • Turbocompounding. This is a similar concept to turbocharging as it is intended to recoup
some of the energy that would otherwise be lost in the exhaust stream. As with a
turbocharger, a turbine is mounted in the exhaust stream. Instead of driving a compressor in
the intake, however, the torque from this shaft either powers an electric generator or is
connected to the engine’s crankshaft via a geared drive in order to supplement the cylinder
torque on the crankshaft. These devices can be used in addition to a turbocharger, and in this
case are generally mounted downstream of the turbocharger. 157, 158
o Mechanical turbocompound. In a mechanical turbocompound system, the exhaust turbine
is geared to provide additional torque to the engine’s driveshaft. These systems are
generally connected via a fluid coupling that reduces the forces caused by oscillations in
the crankshaft. The gear ratio between the turbine speed and the engine speed needs to be
so great in order to operate efficiently that combustion oscillations could damage the
turbine or housing without the fluid coupling in place.
o Electrical Turbocompound. These systems use the rotational energy in the exhaust
turbine to drive an electric generator instead. The electric generator can be used to control
the load on the turbine irrespective of the crankshaft rotational speed. Because of this,
electrical turbocompounding can be more efficient than mechanical systems. However,
the rest of the vehicle must be able to use the greater amount of electrical energy. Electric
hybrid drive systems can use this power, as can trucks with greater electrical demands
(such as those with multiple electrified accessories like power steering, coolant, and oil
pumps).
• Variable valve actuation. This technology initially gained popularity in light-duty gasoline
engines in the 1990s, but is now being adopted in some heavy-duty diesel engines. This
design allows the intake and/or exhaust valve timing to be varied throughout a range
depending on engine operating condition. Just like a conventional turbocharger, conventional
valve timing represents a single compromise value that must work over the entire range of
engine operating conditions. When the engine computer can vary this value, air can flow
through the engine more efficiently over the entire range of speeds and loads. The efficiency
benefit of variable valve timing is more limited for diesel engines than for gasoline, but the
system becomes more effective when used to assist either turbocompounding, exhaust gas
recirculation, or other advanced exhaust flow managing systems, as it can be used to alter the
energy in the exhaust under some operating conditions. One example of this alteration would
be to change the exhaust valve timing so that the exhaust valves open earlier to allow higher
temperatures and/or pressures in the exhaust stream under some conditions, helping to
increase EGR flow or turbocompounding effectiveness. 159

157
Northeast States Center for a Clean Air Future, International Council on Clean Transportation, Southwest Research
Institute, and TIAX (2009. Reducing Heavy-Duty Long Haul Combination Truck Fuel Consumption and CO2
Emissions.
158
National Research Council (2010). Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the Fuel Consumption of Medium-
and Heavy-Duty Vehicles.
159
Northeast States Center for a Clean Air Future, International Council on Clean Transportation, Southwest Research
Institute, and TIAX (2009. Reducing Heavy-Duty Long Haul Combination Truck Fuel Consumption and CO2
Emissions.

5-26
 5.3.2 Mass Reduction

The reduction of vehicle mass reduces the road loads on the vehicle. A vehicle with lower mass
requires less fuel energy to accelerate to highway speed, consumes less fuel when climbing hills,
and also has lower rolling resistance. In a freight vehicle, reducing truck mass can also allow that
weight to be replaced with greater payload capacity. If this is the case, the substitution does not
improve the fuel economy of the vehicle, but it still does improve fuel economy in terms of the
freight movement in freight-ton miles per gallon. Many trucks operate empty, partially loaded, or
completely loaded by volume but not weight, and in all of these cases, mass reduction can
improve vehicle fuel economy.

Vehicle mass reduction can vary greatly in cost-effectiveness. There are advanced materials that
are extremely light but extremely expensive, and replacement materials must be carefully
selected and extensively tested to ensure they satisfy the many demand requirements of the
material being replaced. Carbon fiber and other advanced materials fall into this category. For
heavy-duty trucking, weight reduction in the near term is likely limited to replacing components
made from low-alloy steel with those made either from high-strength steel or aluminum.
Depending on duty cycle and initial weight, a class 8 combination truck can improve fuel
consumption anywhere from 0.5 percent to 1.5 percent with a reduction of 1,000 pounds. 160

As mentioned in Section 5.2.2, operators can select wide-base tires to substitute for dual wheels
and tires at the ends of each axle. In addition to reducing rolling resistance, specifying single
aluminum wheels reduces weight as compared to dual steel wheels. Weight reduction at the
wheels is even more beneficial than weight reduction of other components because the mass of
the wheels requires energy to accelerate rotationally as well as linearly along a road’s surface.
Specifying wide-base tires at the time of purchase makes them more cost-effective than if
purchased to replace wheels as a retrofit. Even if wide-base tires are not specified, the use of
aluminum wheels can reduce fuel consumption as compared to steel wheels.

Several manufacturers are using lighter-weight materials in construction of their trucks. Cab and
sleeper units built using more aluminum in the structure are gaining market share. Some modern
engines use lightweight and strong compacted graphite iron (CGI) for engine blocks and
turbocharger housings. Suspension components such as leaf springs can be replaced with
composite materials. Some driveline components can be made of composites or aluminum.
When purchasing a new truck, buyers who are aware of the various areas in which weight
reduction can take place will be better able to choose the lightest truck possible. As more buyers
demand weight reductions, manufacturers will place a greater priority on this concept.

New trailers can also benefit from substitution with lighter components. Modern trailers use less
wood, steel, or iron than older trailers. Notably, aluminum can be used in place of other heavier
materials to reduce trailer weight. The floor crossmembers and roof supports are both types of
components that, when replaced with aluminum, can save a few hundred pounds. Specifying a

160
National Research Council (2010). Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the Fuel Consumption of Medium-
and Heavy-Duty Vehicles.

5-27
 lighter trailer at the time of purchase will result in fuel savings and greater productivity for routes
that are loaded to the maximum allowable GVW.

5.3.3 Driveline Efficiency

New truck buyers have the opportunity to specify fuel saving options in the driveline of their
trucks as well. Certain types of transmissions and drive axle configurations can save fuel over
conventional systems. Depending on the anticipated duty cycle of the truck, purchasing hybrid
options may result in fuel consumption reductions as well.

• Reducing driveline losses. Class 8 long-haul trucks are generally equipped with manual
transmissions. While these transmissions are fairly efficient, their operation requires a drive
interruption during each shift, in which the engine is running and consuming fuel but no
torque is going to the wheels. Some trucks, primarily those used for short hauls, use
automatic transmissions with a fluid coupling to allow shifts to take place. While they do not
have a torque interruption during shifting, the fluid coupling does consume energy and they
typically are less efficient than manual transmissions. Recently, automated manual
transmissions (AMTs) have become available, combining the benefits of both previous types
of units. They are mechanically similar to manuals and do not have a fluid coupling, but the
control computer performs the shifts very quickly so there can be less torque interruption
than with a conventional manual. They can be set to choose the most efficient gear at any
given time and offer fuel economy benefits over either other type of transmission.
Typical class 8 trucks that have dual axles have conventionally had both axles powered. The
differential of the first axle has an output shaft that continues back to drive the second axle.
This is considered a 6×4 configuration, meaning the truck has six total wheels (or wheel
pairs), four of which are driven. For trucks that do not typically operate in low-traction
environments, 6×2 configurations can reduce fuel consumption. In this configuration, only
the forward of the rear axle pair is driven. This saves the frictional losses in the front
differential’s output shaft bearing and the differential gears and bearings in the rear axle.
While it has a lower initial cost than the 6×4, the penalty is a loss of traction in some terrain
situations in which the forward drive axle has less traction than the rear, resulting in wheel
slip. The 6×2 configuration is fairly common in European trucks but relatively uncommon in
trucks sourced from the United States. 161
• Hybrid drive systems. Hybrid systems have been developed in order to recoup energy that
would otherwise be lost as heat in the braking system when slowing down. Hybrid systems
for heavy-duty trucks operate either electrically or hydraulically. They allow the energy of a
vehicle to be stored as the vehicle slows down (termed regenerative braking), and then
released to assist the drive engine in getting the vehicle moving again. In general, a hybrid
system will have the most benefit on trucks that have frequent stops and starts in their duty
cycles. Hybridization can also benefit fuel economy by allowing the specification of a
downsized engine. Because peak power demands can be reduced by the addition of the
hybrid system, the engine can be smaller, with reduced frictional losses, and still maintain the

161
National Research Council (2010). Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the Fuel Consumption of Medium-
and Heavy-Duty Vehicles.

5-28
 same level of driveability. Finally, some hybrid systems are designed to allow an engine to
continuously operate under its most efficient operating conditions more often. This allows
the engine to produce usable output energy more efficiently than in a conventional vehicle. A
hybrid system generally adds significant weight to a vehicle, but this weight is usually more
than offset by the increased energy efficiency that comes with regenerative braking,
especially over driving cycles with frequent starts and stops. 162
Hybrid systems can have varying levels of energy storage. The greatest efficiency gains
come when the total energy storage is well matched to the duty cycle demands and typical
weight of a given truck. Too much energy storage generally results in reduced effectiveness
due to the added weight and cost of the system. Too little energy storage will not allow the
full benefits of the system to overcome the increased cost and complexity of the various
hybrid components.
o Electric hybrids. Electric hybrids use batteries to store the energy of the hybrid system.
Generally, these vehicles have an electric motor that can also act as a generator. An
electronic motor controller optimizes the level of torque output or power generation that
takes place on a second-by-second basis. Electric hybrid systems can offer a wide range
of capacities and functions. The minimal level of hybridization is the integrated starter
and alternator. In this system, the hybrid generator performs the functions of the
alternator and starter. When the vehicle comes to a stop, the system automatically shuts
the engine down to prevent idling and save fuel. When the vehicle is ready to accelerate,
the integrated system acts as a heavy-duty starter that starts the engine, allowing it to
immediately accelerate the vehicle. This is known as a mild hybrid system. The amount
of hybridization and electrification can increase all the way up to the plug-in hybrid
electric vehicle (PHEV) in which the electrical storage capacity and motor power are so
great that the truck can be plugged in while parked and then operate for the first few
miles on electricity alone.
Driveline hybridization can be used for parallel benefits in various heavy-duty
applications. As mentioned in Section 5.3.1, electric turbocompounding systems can
create a source of a large amount of electrical energy. Electric hybrid systems can be used
store and use this electrical energy. Electric accessories such as power steering, engine
cooling pumps, and electric air compressors, which are traditionally driven directly off
the engine accessory belt, can also provide an efficient use of this energy. For long-haul
heavy-duty trucks, larger amounts of electric energy storage can be used to meet or help
meet hotel loads such as heating or air conditioning. 163, 164
o Hydraulic hybrids. These systems use hydraulic fluid to transfer energy stored by the
hybrid system. These devices use tanks in which the hydraulic fluid compresses a gas in
order to store energy, known as an accumulator. A hydraulic pump/drive performs a
similar function to the motor/generator in an electric hybrid. The driveline is connected to

162
Ibid.
163
National Research Council (2010). Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the Fuel Consumption of Medium-
and Heavy-Duty Vehicles.
164
Lowe, M., G. Ayee, and G. Gereffi (2009). Chapter 9: Hybrid drivetrains for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. In
Manufacturing Climate Solutions: Carbon-Reducing Technologies and U.S. Jobs. Retrieved from
http://www.cggc.duke.edu/environment/climatesolutions/greeneconomy_Ch9_HybridDrivetrainsforTrucks.pdf.

5-29
 the pump/drive so that it can either pump fluid into the accumulator during regenerative
braking, or provide torque output when stored gas pressure drives the fluid back out of
the accumulator and through the hydraulic pump/drive.
Hydraulic hybrids are generally most effective in extreme stop and go conditions. This is
because they have high power density but limited energy storage capability; they can
provide a large amount of power for a brief period. As such, their benefits are maximized
in situations in which there is frequent use of regenerative braking. This is typically
encountered in relatively low speed routes and duty cycles.

Heavy-duty trucks frequently have to meet vocational demands. Long haul hotel loads could be
considered one type of vocational demand, while other types of trucks have hydraulic or
electrical loads that must be met. Generally, even though hydraulic hybrids could provide stored
energy for vocational loads, electric hybrids are better suited to meet these demands because of
their greater energy density; they can drive vocational loads for longer amounts of time in spite
of the energy losses associated with charging and discharging the battery system. 165, 166

5.3.4 Alternative Fuels/Advanced Power Sources

At the time of purchase, new truck buyers can specify powertrains that operate using other fuels
besides gasoline and diesel. The most widely available alternative-fuel powertrains for use in
heavy-duty trucking use gaseous fuels that are typically derived from natural gas. They can also
be derived in limited quantities from other sources, such as landfill waste gas streams. Most
natural gas engines operate similarly to gasoline engines by using spark ignition, but some use
dual-fuel setups in which a small amount of diesel fuel is injected into the engine in order to
ignite the gaseous fuel.

• Natural gas. Natural gas can be stored on board vehicles in either liquefied or gaseous form.
o Liquefied natural gas (LNG) has greater energy storage density and is therefore better
suited to longer-haul operations requiring longer range. LNG must be cooled
cryogenically in order to be stored in liquid form. Vehicle fuel tanks must be resistant to
thermal extremes and well insulated. This adds cost and weight to the vehicles fuel
system. Also, as LNG heats up during onboard storage over extended periods of time,
various compounds within the gas can evaporate, reducing the quality of the fuel. An
LNG fuel tank is pictured in Figure 5-3 below.
o Compressed natural gas (CNG) has lower energy density but poses fewer logistical
difficulties to store on board, as it is still in gaseous form and does not require any
thermal extremes during storage or transport. It is, however, stored at relatively high
pressures—up to around 3,600 psi. 167 Both types of natural gas engines typically offer a

165
National Research Council (2010). Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the Fuel Consumption of Medium-
and Heavy-Duty Vehicles.
166
Lowe, M., G. Ayee, and G. Gereffi (2009). Chapter 9: Hybrid drivetrains for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. In
Manufacturing Climate Solutions: Carbon-Reducing Technologies and U.S. Jobs. Retrieved from
http://www.cggc.duke.edu/environment/climatesolutions/greeneconomy_Ch9_HybridDrivetrainsforTrucks.pdf.
167
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (2013). Clean Cities Guide to Alternative Fuel and Advanced Medium- and
Heavy-Duty Vehicles. Publication no. DOE/GO-102013-3624.

5-30
 GHG benefit over gasoline engines but, due to lower thermal efficiency, they do not offer
a GHG reduction over diesel engines. If a leak develops in the fuel systems of these
trucks, the fugitive methane can result in increased GHG emissions, however. This fuel
does burn more cleanly and emit lower levels of NOx and dramatically lower PM than
diesel in conventional engines, however.

Figure 5-3. LNG Tank on a Heavy-Duty Truck

Battelle, NREL 11613

• Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). LPG is a byproduct of natural gas refining and is almost
pure propane. Because propane condenses at a higher temperature than natural gas, it is
typically carried around 150 psi as a mixture of liquid and gas, making it logistically easier to
store onboard a vehicle with more cost-effective tankage. Because of its higher purity and
level of refinement, LPG generally costs more than natural gas. It burns more cleanly than
diesel and, because of its molecular structure, emits lower levels of GHG than diesel fuel.
Because it is a refining byproduct, its supply is more limited than conventional fuel types and
it is not likely to become a large part of the transportation fuel supply. 168, 169
• Dimethyl ether (DME). This gaseous fuel can be produced from natural gas or biomass
feedstocks. It can be burned in a similar fashion to diesel fuel but it burns more cleanly.
While the basic engine architecture is similar for DME engines and diesel engines, DME is

168
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (2013). Clean Cities Guide to Alternative Fuel and Advanced Medium- and
Heavy-Duty Vehicles. Publication no. DOE/GO-102013-3624.
169
U.S. Department of Transportation (2009). Transportation’s Impact on Climate Change and Solutions.

5-31
 not a direct drop-in fuel and engines of this type will need to be specific to this fuel. It has a
similar GHG emission rate in exhaust, but is nearly carbon-neutral if produced from biomass.
In terms of onboard storage, it is relatively similar to LPG in that it liquefies at low pressure
and does not have logistical problems regarding storage. There is minimal infrastructure
change required for this fuel, and its time-to-market depends on consumer interest and
demand.

5.3.5 Alternative Refrigerant Systems

Vehicle air conditioning systems operate using various refrigerants as their working fluid. These
refrigerants must have favorable heat transfer as well as boiling temperatures and pressures in
order to function in air conditioning systems. When these systems leak, the refrigerant
evaporates into the atmosphere. The most common refrigerant in new vehicles is HFC-134a.
This refrigerant does not cause ozone depletion, unlike its predecessor R-12, but does have a
GHG effect. Many auto companies are phasing in HFC-1234yf. It has a much lower GHG effect
than HFC-134a. It is more expensive, however, and total supply is limited due to few
manufacturers. Some European manufacturers are also considering the use of CO2 (known as R-
744) as a refrigerant. It is not as efficient a refrigerant as the others, but it is relatively safe,
inexpensive, and has the lowest GHG effect of all practical refrigerant options. Consumer
demand may drive these refrigerants to wider market share sooner, but it is unlikely than any
new vehicle buyers will choose a vehicle based on its supplied air conditioning refrigerant. 170

5.3.6 Costs, Benefits, and Degree of Utilization for Non-Retrofittable Strategies

The costs and percentage of fuel consumption reduction for each of the OEM technologies are
presented in Table 5-4. The table also includes the co-benefits or negative side effects of each.
The costs presented in the table represent estimates of the marginal cost of heavy-duty vehicles
equipped with each option. Note that the fuel savings for each concept are not additive: for
example, both types of turbocompounding could not be used on a single engine with each
operating at maximum effectiveness. Also, the advantages of an automated manual transmission
would not be as great with a full hybrid electric or hydraulic powertrain, and they may not be
appropriate for use together at all, depending on the specific design.

Table 5-4. Costs and Fuel Consumption Reductions for the OEM Technologies

Fuel
Capital Cost
Technology Consumption Co-benefits/Side Effects
(U.S. $)
Reduction
Mechanical 2.5–4%a 2,650–5,300c —
turbocompound 2.5–5%b
Electrical 3–10%a 6,500–13,100c To gain benefits, this needs to be used with
turbocompound accessory electrification or electric
hybridization.
Variable valve 1%a 300–600c —
actuation

170
U.S. Department of Transportation (2009). Transportation’s Impact on Climate Change and Solutions.

5-32
 Fuel
Capital Cost
Technology Consumption Co-benefits/Side Effects
(U.S. $)
Reduction
Mass reduction 1.25%a 13,500a Values given are the benefits and costs for
2–5%d 2,000–5,000d varying levels of OEM weight reduction.
Automated manual 3–8%a 4,000–5,700a Can increase productivity and reduce driver
Transmission 4–8%b 4,500–6,000d fatigue as compared to traditional manual.
4–6%d
6×2 axle layout 1%a -300 (i.e., savings)e May require hardware that can lift the undriven
1%b axle to prevent losing traction; this would add to
cost. Concept is appropriate for trucks that are
used almost exclusively on paved surfaces.
Mild electric hybrid 2.9–14.2%a 4,500d —
5–22%d
Full electric hybrid 5.6–41.7%a 23,000–35,000c The electrical storage can be used to support
20–50%f 30,000–33,000d hotel loads and reduce extended idling in
4–30%d addition to motive power.
Hydraulic hybrid 25–70%a 13,000d Greater fuel savings are available only over
50%f cycles with large numbers of starts and stops
12–25%d (e.g., urban delivery)
Notes
a
National Research Council (2010). Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the Fuel Consumption of
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles.
b
International Council on Clean Transportation (2013). Trailer Technologies for Increased Heavy-Duty Vehicle
Efficiency.
c
Northeast States Center for a Clean Air Future, International Council on Clean Transportation, Southwest
Research Institute, and TIAX (2009. Reducing Heavy-Duty Long Haul Combination Truck Fuel Consumption
and CO2 Emissions.
d
International Energy Agency (2012). Technology Roadmap—Fuel Economy of Road Vehicles.
e
Carbon War Room (2012). Road Transport: Unlocking Fuel-Saving Technologies in Trucking and Fleets.
f
Lowe, M., G. Ayee, and G. Gereffi (2009). Chapter 9: Hybrid drivetrains for medium- and heavy-duty trucks.
In Manufacturing Climate Solutions: Carbon-Reducing Technologies and U.S. Jobs. Retrieved from
http://www.cggc.duke.edu/environment/climatesolutions/greeneconomy_Ch9_HybridDrivetrainsforTrucks.pdf.

5.4 Operational Strategies

This section presents strategies to minimize total trips, reduce empty return trips, and keep truck
and engine operation as efficient as possible. Where applicable, technologies that can be used to
implement or enhance these strategies are also presented along with the options. Some
information is provided regarding barriers to adoption of strategies, but information on the
potential extent of adoption is highly site- and company-specific and is generally not included in
this report.

5.4.1 Route Optimization

In this section, we consider three tiers of route optimization, including steps an individual
shipping company could take, stakeholder programs which could be developed, and regional
planning efforts that could be undertaken in order to optimize shipping efficiency.

5-33
 5.4.1.1 Individual Shipping Company Activities to Improve Route
Optimization

Route optimization can be as simple as “static routing,” in which the best route is selected based
on current conditions, or “dynamic routing,” in which routes are modified based on real-time
data such as: 171

• Fuel availability and cost.

• Weather conditions.
• Last-minute customer requests.
• Construction and traffic congestion (using real-time traffic reports).
• Changes in availability of vehicles and operators.

For local shipments with few stops, static route optimization using basic maps or Internet
mapping software may be sufficient. However, for larger delivery areas, over-the-road
shipments, or shipments with multiple stops, dynamic routing using route optimization software
is usually advantageous. Dynamic route optimization software is generally part of an overall
transportation management system suite that also includes loading and network optimization
modules. Since this software uses real-time information about conditions that can affect shipping
costs, delays, and objectives, use of this software to update routes in real-time can result in lower
shipping costs, reduction in shipping delays, reduction of product returns and redeliveries, and a
higher level of customer satisfaction. Like other strategies to optimize transportation operations,
these increases in transportation efficiency and reductions in transportation costs equate to
reduced fuel usage and reduced greenhouse gas and black carbon emissions.

5.4.1.2 Stakeholder Programs to Improve Route Optimization

The UN’s Best Practices in Asia describes several techniques for route optimization, including
the following: 172

• Backloading. Backloading involves finding loads that need to be moved between similar
areas, such as two points within the delivery area of a returning vehicle. 173 This type of route
optimization simply attempts to minimize reduced or empty loads. It is similar to what the
UN best practices report calls the “milk run” concept, which includes collection and
distribution. This idea is derived from historical milk delivery route planning, in which the
delivery truck is filled with empty bottles after milk delivery but prior to return to the dairy
plant, so the truck is full on both legs of the route. The milk run concept is used to maximize
loads and minimize trucks and travel distances, especially travel of empty trucks. This
reduction in empty backhauls can offer a significant improvement of overall transport

171
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2013). Route Optimization for Shippers. EPA-420-F-13-030. p. 1.
172
U.N. Centre for Regional Development (2011). Best Practices in Green Freight for an Environmentally Sustainable
Road Freight Sector in Asia. p. 28. Retrieved from http://cleanairinitiative.org/portal/sites/default/files/BGP-
EST5A_Green_Freight_Best_Practices_-_CAI-Asia_Dec2011.pdf.
173
http://www.freightbestpractice.org.uk/default.aspx?appid=3511&pid=7778

5-34
 efficiency in countries such as China, which is known to have very high empty backhaul
rates. As described in Section 4.1.3, empty miles traveled varies among operational
categories, so strategies to reduce empty miles traveled might be most effective by targeting
certain operational categories with higher percentages of empty miles traveled.
• Freight exchange. A freight exchange is an online service for freight haulers and haulage
companies, logistics providers, and freight forwarders. 174 This service offers haulers and
companies offering cargo loads for shipment a common Internet site at which they can search
for cargo or freight to be shipped or for transporters with available space on a desired route.
Although not a centrally controlled logistics operation, this type of service allows
communication among transporters, forwarders, cargo companies, and logistics companies
by providing a sort of matchmaking tool.
• Freight company consortiums. Consortiums among smaller freight companies allow them
to compete more efficiently against larger carriers. This type of consortium allows small
operators to improve backloading and improve fleet utilization, thereby creating greater
opportunities to compete against large operators. The key features of these types of
consortiums are integrated fleet management, information sharing, facilities sharing, and
profit sharing. 175
• Freight consolidation centers. At freight consolidation centers (also referred to as “freight
centers,” “transshipment centers,” “public logistics centers,” “city distribution centers,” or
“urban platforms”), goods from different suppliers with the same origin and destination are
combined into single shipments, thereby improving efficiency and reducing vehicles on the
road. However, it has been reported that a large number of freight center projects have failed
due to poor design, high cost, location, and non-participation by key stakeholders, so it is
important to have proper discussions with the stakeholders before establishing a
consolidation center. 176 A well-managed outreach effort targeted at key shippers and
suppliers can also help increase the opportunity for success of a freight consolidation center.

5.4.1.3 Regional Planning Efforts to Improve Route Optimization

From a city planning perspective, route optimization can also be obtained through population
distribution control measures and development of attractive mass transit options. For example, a
U.N. African transportation report described an April 2005 declaration adopted by African
ministers that included (among other things) a target of reducing the proportion of rural
population living beyond 2 kilometers of an all-season mode of transport by half, in order to
improve access to inputs and markets, as well as generate employment opportunities. 177 This
same report also described the implementation of a “Bus Rapid Transit” program to stimulate a

174
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freight_exchange
175
http://www.freightbestpractice.org.uk/profit-through-partnership
176
U.N. Centre for Regional Development (2011). Best Practices in Green Freight for an Environmentally Sustainable
Road Freight Sector in Asia. p. 31. Retrieved from http://cleanairinitiative.org/portal/sites/default/files/BGP-
EST5A_Green_Freight_Best_Practices_-_CAI-Asia_Dec2011.pdf.
177
U.N. Economic and Social Council (2009). Africa Review Report on Transport—A Summary. E/ECA/CFSSD/6/6. p.
4.

5-35
 mass transit system using exclusive right-of-way lanes similar to the metro systems in well-
known developed countries, except using bus technology instead of rail.

Road traffic optimization strategies—such as location and control of traffic signals and other
traffic control devices; minimization of traffic obstructions such as pedestrians, non-motorized
vehicles, vendors, or lane encroachment as vehicles turn and navigate into parking areas;
increasing roadway capacities with additional (and possibly dedicated) lanes; and developing
overpasses, orbital links, and other forms of intersection bypass—can all contribute to increased
route optimization, particularly in urban regions. Regional planning strategies intended to
decongest roadways (i.e., toll ways, increased mass transit options and attractiveness, and
increases in parking fees and other impediments to personal transport) can all serve to open up
roadways to increase trucking efficiency. However, any efforts to reduce roadway traffic
congestion will also increase the attractiveness of private transport on that roadway, possibly
resulting in a move back toward the original level of congestion (i.e., nature abhors a vacuum).

In regions such as Africa, road use efficiency suffers as the road freight industry is heavily
cartelized and controlled, which will act as a barrier to successful implementation of regional
planning efforts to improve freight transport efficiency. This can inhibit regional changes
intended to improve efficiency.

For less developed countries, a fundamental component of network optimization involves

ensuring that an adequate network of paved roads is in place. For example, in Africa, a plan for a
59,000-kilometer African comprehensive continental road system was developed in the 1970s,
but due to lack of financial commitments from national governments, this comprehensive
network has not materialized. Overall, Sub-Saharan Africa has only 204 kilometers of roads per
1,000 square kilometers of land area, with only one-quarter paved; the world average is 944
kilometers per 1,000 square kilometers, with over half paved, as shown in Figure 5-4. Figure 5-5
provides additional context for world road densities among other developing areas. Together,
these two figures show that the spatial density ratio (roadway length/regional area) of Sub-
Saharan Africa (0.204) is much lower than the world average of 0.944; India has a spatial density
ratio of 0.79, while Russia has a very low spatial density ratio of 0.038. The spatial density of
Sub-Saharan Africa’s roads is less than 30 percent that of South Asia, where half of the roads are
paved, and only 6 percent that of North America, where two-thirds are paved. 178 Costs for
completion of a network such as this can be high, and can act as a barrier to implementation, in
particular for developing countries with limited national income.

178
World Bank (2011). Africa’s Transport Infrastructure—Mainstreaming Maintenance and Management. p. 22

5-36
 Figure 5-4. Spatial Densities of Road Networks in World Regions

World Bank

Figure 5-5. Road Density in Russia, Brazil, China, and India

KPMG International: Competing in the Global Truck Industry: Emerging Markets Spotlight

5-37
 Another factor to consider in a country’s roadway network optimization is roadway density, with
consideration of spatial (geographic) density, industry density, and population density (in terms
of vehicle traffic volume or per-capita). 179 When developing regional roadway plans, the regional
densities of various roadway types (primary, secondary, tertiary) should be evaluated in light of
international standards in an effort to maximize the positive impact of roadway network
upgrades. Certainly, per capita income and a nation’s GDP will influence a nation’s roadway
network optimization, as limited financial resources will act as an impediment to improvements
for developing nations. While funding for roadway development and maintenance can be
problematic, a restructuring of revenue sources to reflect traffic patterns, and development of
new revenue sources could help increase available funding for roadway network improvements.
For example, cities could charge private cars for parking and tax new urban developments that
impose a burden on existing transport networks. 180

Geographic conditions (climate and terrain) will also influence the feasibility of network
optimization. Wet regions, or regions with mountainous terrain, will carry higher road
construction and maintenance costs than regions with flat terrain or arid climates, and these
higher costs will also impede roadway network development.

Changes in regional legislation that allow increased truck size and weight limits will allow truck
operators to carry more goods per truck, using heavier or longer trucks than currently allowed.
This basic improvement in productivity per truck could translate to fewer trucks on the road,
reduced fuel consumption, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. 181 However, such changes
would result in additional wear on each region’s transportation infrastructure, which would
somewhat reduce the gains in emissions and cost benefits. Safety issues would also need to be
considered when evaluating legislative changes of this nature.

5.4.2 Network Optimization

Although all shipping networks are developed with efficiency in mind, a number of factors must
be considered in order to fully optimize a network and changes in customer bases, carriers,
inventories and distribution center locations, among other factors, can reduce a network’s
efficiency over time. Various network models, such as a single-site model, a multi-site model, or
a hybrid model, can be used to best meet the needs of a transportation company. 182 The process
of determining which model (or combination of models) to use, along with tuning the model’s
parameters, is complex and must balance factors such as the types, sizes, and volume of
products, customer base specifics, transportation costs and times, inbound transport requirements
(including customer returns), inventory required for the type of network, and facility costs for the
type of network. In addition, in some scenarios it may be advantageous for shippers to arrange a
collaborative agreement to share network capacity in order to reduce costs while maintaining a
high level of shipping service. This sharing is usually handled by an independent third-party
logistics firm to ensure that proprietary data are kept confidential and routes are offered

179
World Bank (2011). Africa’s Transport Infrastructure—Mainstreaming Maintenance and Management. p. 20.
180
Ibid., p. 230.
181
U.S. Department of Transportation (2009). Transportation’s Impact on Climate Change and Solutions. p. 4-40.
182
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2013). Network Optimization for Shippers. EPA-420-F-13-027. p. 1.

5-38
 impartially. 183 A shipper that continually evaluates its shipping network may choose to purchase
shipping network design and optimization software, while it might be more cost-effective for
other shippers to rent software or temporarily hire a consultant with access to modeling software.

5.4.3 Facility Optimization

One fairly fundamental concept intended to increase the efficiency of the flow of goods to and
through a port is to ensure an adequate network of transportation corridors between each port and
major distribution centers. In Africa, container traffic is constrained by administrative blocks,
and corridor development programs as well as competition between corridors could serve to
increase the flow of goods. 184 Road and rail systems should be developed to support container
transport, and efforts to minimize container stripping and stuffing at or near the port could ease
restrictions on port flow. Certainly, an integrated port management system must be in place to
maximize port throughput while minimizing shipping distances traveled and engine operation
time.

The UN’s Best Practices in Asia describes “drop-and-hook,” 185 a strategy intended to “eliminate
empty miles and optimize performance.” This simply refers to dropping a trailer at the
destination and immediately hooking to a new (already loaded) trailer, thereby reducing or
eliminating empty return runs and extended idling at destinations while trailers are unloaded.
However, this requires a dedicated trailer pool, and trailer pool management integrated with
specialized route management.

Two major indicators of landside container terminal performance are truck cycle time and the
average dwell time of containers in the terminal. Truck cycle time is the truck’s total time at the
port, including time in queues to enter and leave. Due to an ever-increasing growth of container
traffic, the rough international benchmark of one hour truck cycle time is becoming increasingly
rare. 186 Many strategies, such as pre-booking, terminal organization and IT management
strategies, modernizing gate systems and also container movement, transfer and storage systems,
and reducing or moving non-critical activities (such as container stripping and stuffing activities)
offsite to alleviate congestion can all serve to reduce engine operation time and increase road,
rail and waterway port transport efficiency. The port’s management structure as well as a lack of
the necessary capital required to implement the technological, management and operational
changes such as those listed above can serve as impediments to improvement.

With respect to delivery of cargo, improvements in delivery efficiency can be obtained through
regional plans which include urban consolidation centers. 187 These centers are freight facilities
where deliveries (retail, office, or residential) can be consolidated for subsequent delivery in an
efficient manner (rather than delivery by the transport truck). Although these centers can reduce

183
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2013). Network Optimization for Shippers. EPA-420-F-13-027. p. 2.
184
World Bank (2011). Africa’s Transport Infrastructure—Mainstreaming Maintenance and Management. p. 184.
185
U.N. Centre for Regional Development (2011). Best Practices in Green Freight for an Environmentally Sustainable
Road Freight Sector in Asia. p. 28. Retrieved from http://cleanairinitiative.org/portal/sites/default/files/BGP-
EST5A_Green_Freight_Best_Practices_-_CAI-Asia_Dec2011.pdf.
186
World Bank (2011). Africa’s Transport Infrastructure—Mainstreaming Maintenance and Management. p. 215.
187
U.S. Department of Transportation (2009). Transportation’s Impact on Climate Change and Solutions. p. 4-44.

5-39
 the number of large trucks operating on urban streets, they are not ideal for loads that are
perishable or time-sensitive.

Although a country’s ratio of imports to exports will have a large effect on the number of
containers brought into and shipped from ports, efforts undertaken to reduce the imbalance of
flows can minimize the number of empty containers shipped. A high trade imbalance will serve
as an impediment to reducing the shipment of empty containers. Research and efforts should be
undertaken, when necessary, to balance containerized imports and exports. Although economic
interests can be an impediment, balancing imports and exports among ports could help reduce
the flow of empty containers, as well as ensuring an open market is maintained for transport
operators.

5.4.4 Packaging Reduction

In this context, the term “packages” refers to either delivery parcels (such as boxes) or product
containers (such as pallets or cases). The objectives of packaging reduction strategies are to
increase the amount of product delivered per shipment, reduce the total amount of shipping miles
traveled (and hence reduce shipping costs, emissions and fuel used), and reduce packaging
waste. In general, packaging reduction can involve switching to different and/or reusable
materials, reconfiguring products to decrease empty space in shipping packages, or eliminating
unnecessary materials to reduce weight. 188 Some specific options for packaging reduction
include: 189

• Using bulk deliveries (such as tanker deliveries or use of Intermediate Bulk Containers)
instead of packaging for fluids.
• Using lighter materials to reduce packaging weight.
• Using reusable packaging such as metal instead of wood or cardboard.
• Redesigning packaging and even the products to fit more items into one package.
• Ensuring that the maximum number of packages, pallets or cases fit into trucks or railcars (a
process typically referred to as “cubing out”).
• Using renewable filler material instead of petroleum-based, shock-absorbing materials like
“peanuts.” For example, organic materials such as bamboo and mushrooms can be
mechanically broken down and formed into shapes that hold delicate equipment during
shipping.
• Optimizing the width of tape adhesives or using slotted tabs in packaging.
• Using spot gluing instead of full-length gluing on boxes.
• Eliminating unnecessary tertiary packaging and layers such as bags within bags.
• Reducing the thickness of packaging walls.

188
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2013). Packaging Reduction for Shippers. EPA-420-F-13-029. p. 1.
189
Ibid., pp. 1-2.

5-40
 • Increasing rigidity by using stronger, but lighter, materials or changing shapes.
• Eliminating paper labels by printing directly onto packaging.
• Shipping items only when necessary. Some products like software, media, and
documentation can be transmitted electronically or placed on websites for customer
downloading. Ask customers to “opt in” for additional items, such as cables or power cords,
which they may not need.

5.4.5 Load Optimization

Load optimization is a strategy which can be used by shippers to not only reduce carbon
emissions but also to reduce shipping costs and increase operational efficiency. Load
optimization is the process of loading pallets, containers, or trailers to hold the maximum amount
of product while conforming to local regulations and company policies regarding overall
weights, load distributions, and product placements. While the concept is simple, the process can
become complex due to multiple factors, including: 190

• Location within the trailer or container based on where it will be delivered.

• Balance and load distribution.
• Product placement requirements such as box sizes, weights, fragility, or product placement
restrictions (such as for some food shipments).
• Local regulations and company requirements such as those governing total allowable weight.

Due to the dynamic complexities of load optimization, load optimization software as part of an
overall transportation management software (TMS) system is likely the best solution. This
software will determine optimum loading strategies based on a transportation company’s specific
situation. The four primary types of load optimization are: 191

• Mode optimization—choosing a package delivery company or a truckload (TL) carrier who

is willing to make multiple stops may be more efficient than using a less-than-truckload
(LTL) carrier. Analysis of individual loads is necessary in order to determine the most
effective carrier option.
• Pool-point optimization—pooling inbound loads from multiple suppliers in a distant area
improves process efficiency, and TMS load optimization software can be used to perform
this analysis.
• Consolidated optimization—load optimization software can help decide how to combine
shipments to lower carrier miles based on delivery times, distances, closeness of customers,
and recipient expectations.

190
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2013). Load Optimization for Shippers. EPA-420-F-13-031. p. 1.
191
Ibid.

5-41
 • Multi-stop truckload optimization—load optimization software can be used to determine
how to load a multi-stop delivery truck to maximize loading and unloading efficiency.

Based on review of anecdotal evidence, it is possible that a reduction in truck utilization (percent
of available capacity used) has resulted from the high growth in the number of small shipments
and also just-in-time (JIT) systems that rely on frequent shipments that do not necessarily
optimize truck capacity. 192 Since JIT system operations prioritize inventory minimization and
delivery times, JIT management and small shipment deliveries can act as barriers to load
optimization.

5.4.6 Intermodal Strategies

Intermodal transport refers to transportation using more than one mode (i.e., road to rail), without
handling the cargo during transport. 193 Various intermodal freight options that can be used in
freight transport include rail, truck, inland barge, cargo ship and air transport. Intermodal
shipping is growing, especially for distances over 500 miles, for shipments that are heavy, or
where delivery times are more flexible. Intermodal container volume set a new record in 2011
for the United States, with 12.4 million moves in North America, beating former record year of
2007 by 3.7 percent, according to the Intermodal Association of North America (IANA). 194 Road
to rail intermodal transport is commonly facilitated by transporting a combination trailer on a
flatcar (TOF) or by transfer of containers to flatcar, as shown in Figure 5-6 and Figure 5-7.

Figure 5-6. Trailer on Flatcar Intermodal Transport

Peter Van den Bossche; CC BY-SA 2.0

192
ICF International and Federal Railroad Administration (2009). Comparative Evaluation of Rail and Truck Fuel
Efficiency on Competitive Corridors. Publication no. 13.4841.21. pp. 46–47.
193
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermodal_freight_transport
194
Berman, J. (2014). Intermodal volumes finish Q4 and 2013 strong, reports IANA. Logistics Management. Retrieved
from http://www.logisticsmgmt.com/article/intermodal_volumes_finish_q4_and_2013_strong_reports_iana.

5-42
 Figure 5-7. Container on Flatcar Intermodal Transport

Sean Lamb/Wikimedia Commons; CC BY-SA 2.0

The use of intermodal shipping services can increase transportation efficiency and reduce
shipping emissions, fuel usage, and costs. Each mode of transport has costs and benefits in terms
of fuel used, shipping costs, transport times, schedule delays and flexibility, delivery capabilities,
types of cargo (weight/size), and freight security. Many logistics services and software providers
offer planning tools that can help identify what works best for different shipping scenarios. Also,
intermodal brokers can help determine if a combination of transportation modes is cost-effective
and appropriate for shipments based on distance, delivery time, and contents. 195 An analysis of
various intermodal shipment options can help reveal the best intermodal shipment combination
to maximize efficiency within the specific constraints of a shipment.

As previously discussed, development of primary roadway networks that can accommodate

reasonable volumes of containerized traffic can minimize engine operation times and roadway
distances traveled required for the transport of goods. In addition, alternatives to on-road
transport may also be used in order to maximize the efficiency of goods transport to and from a
port. Mode shifts using alternative forms of transport may include rail or ship, including travel
on inland waterways, when available. 196

To play a role in transshipment, ports should have deep water and good container-handling
performance, and be unencumbered by excessive bureaucracy. 197 Having a suitable network of
transshipment-capable ports at strategic commerce locations can maximize the efficiency of
intermodal transport and port operations.

195
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2013). Intermodal for Shippers. EPA-420-F-13-028. p. 2
196
World Bank (2011). Africa’s Transport Infrastructure—Mainstreaming Maintenance and Management. pp. 184–
186.
197
Ibid., p. 188.

5-43
 5.4.7 Adaptive Cruise Control and Speed Reduction

Adaptive cruise control systems for trucks are designed to allow a greater amount of vehicle
speed variation in order to minimize fuel consumption, especially over hilly terrain. In addition,
since aerodynamic drag and tire rolling resistance increase with speed, the amount of fuel used
and thus truck emissions can be reduced through a limit on overall truck speed. For vehicles with
a GVW of 60,000 pounds, the fuel economy at 55, 65, and 75 mph were 9.5, 8.0, and 6.8 miles
per gallon respectively. For those same speeds, the fuel economies were 9.0, 7.5, and 6.5 for a
70,000 GVW vehicle and 8.5, 7.1, and 6.2 for an 80,000 GVW vehicle. 198

In addition to fuel savings, a reduction in maximum truck speed can also result in a reduction of
truck maintenance costs and increased safety. However, some of these savings may be offset by
potentially greater over-the-road transportation costs and driver dissatisfaction. Both of these can
serve as a barrier to adoption by shipping companies, but they may be offset through stakeholder
outreach programs and driver incentives.

One possible strategy for reducing maximum truck speeds is to set speed governors or reduce
maximum speed settings on electronically controlled trucks. This is typically more effective for
long-haul trucks than local delivery trucks, as local delivery trucks rarely reach maximum
speeds. In addition, maximum truck speed can be monitored and controlled through the use of
GPS/cellular-based fleet monitoring systems. With such systems, speed, location, load, engine
information, and other parameters are continually monitored and broadcast back to a central
office (such as a dispatch office) via a cellular uplink connection. Any violation of corporate
driving policies can be automatically flagged in summary reports for management.

5.4.8 Driver Performance and Incentive Programs

In addition to electronically monitoring truck speeds as discussed in the prior section, driver
training and incentive programs can be implemented in order to reduce fuel use and emissions.
Driver training can also focus on topics such as up-shifting and down-shifting strategies to
optimize efficiency, coasting, effective use of cruise control, idle reduction, and limiting the use
of accessories. For large companies, in-house training programs can be offered, while smaller
companies may opt to send their drivers to offsite training. In addition, online training programs,
such as the SmartDriver E-learning portal, jointly developed by EPA and NRCan, can also be
used to provide in-depth training on fuel-efficient driving techniques. Additional information
regarding this program can be accessed at http://fleetsmartlearning.nrcan.gc.ca/Saba/Web/Main.

After a training program is offered, an incentive program (such as bonus or vacation packages)
can help encourage drivers to implement these driving strategies. Fuel economy, possibly
enhanced by GPS-based fleet management reports, may likely be the best metric for monitoring
driver performance and serve as the basis for awarding driver incentive programs.

198
ICF Consulting (2002). Industry Options for Improving Ground Freight Fuel Efficiency. p. 54.

5-44
 5.4.9 Cost, Benefits, and Degree of Utilization for Operational Strategies

Costs and benefits for the operational strategies discussed in this section are highly dependent on
factors such as the way each option is implemented, details of the shipping company, products
shipped, frequency and volume of shipments, current shipping routes, modes and network, and a
number of other factors. Some general information regarding costs and benefits on some of the
different strategies presented in the preceding subsections are provided in Table 5-5. No
information is provided regarding the degree of utilization in the United States or other countries
for the various strategies.

Table 5-5. Costs and Benefits of Various Shipping Optimization Strategies 199

Operational Strategy Costs Benefits

Route optimization Costs can be as low as several hundred Benefits are generally
dollars for simple GPS-based routing incremental, and cumulative
systems to several thousand dollars (as a benefit varies based on existing
module in an overall TMS software suite). routes, shipping volumes, and
other factors.
Network optimization $10,000–$250,000, depending on company Generally, benefits are
software size, whether a cost calculator or optimizer incremental improvements which
is used, number of software licenses, etc. accrue to larger savings due to
$250,000 is for purchase of a TMS software daily network usage.
suite.
Network optimization Varies on time required, complexity of
consultant network and distribution, etc.
Packaging reduction One-time labor costs to research materials Incremental improvements from
and redesign packaging and costs to retool or longer life cycle on reusable
replace production equipment can range packaging equipment and lower
from several hundred dollars to tens of shipping costs from fewer and
thousands of dollars. lighter loads.
Load optimization Load optimization software costs vary, Substantial benefits, with return
depending on the shipper’s volume and on investment typically less than
frequency of shipments, whether the one year, depending on current
software is stand-alone or part of a TMS shipping volume and practices.
software package, and whether the software
is licensed and hosted onsite or remotely.
Intermodal shipping Costs for use of an intermodal broker vary. Intermodal shipments are
Also, each mode of transport has costs and typically secure, as cargo remains
benefits in terms of fuel used, shipping costs, in locked containers and stored in
transport times, schedule delays and secure yards. Intermodal can
flexibility, delivery capabilities, types of overcome obstacles, such as
cargo (weight/size), and freight security. weather delays, that can at times
impede single-mode transport.

199
http://www.epa.gov/smartway

5-45
Operational Strategy Costs Benefits
Other strategies Costs and benefits for other strategies can
(facility optimization, vary widely based on specifics of each
speed reduction, individual scenario.
adaptive cruise
control, driver
programs, other)

5-46
 6.0 Intermodal—Rail, Marine, and Air
6.1 Intermodal Strategies

Intermodal transport refers to transportation using more than one If 10 percent of long-haul U.S.
mode (e.g., road to rail), without handling the cargo during highway freight were shifted to
transport. 200 Various intermodal freight options that can be used rail:
in freight transport include rail, truck, inland barge, cargo ship
and air transport. Intermodal shipping is growing, especially for Annual fuel consumption would
decrease by 12 billion gallons,
distances over 500 miles, for shipments that are heavy, or where and
delivery times are more flexible. Intermodal container volume
set a new record in 2011 with 12.4 million moves, beating Annual greenhouse emissions
former record year 2007 by 3.7 percent, according to the would decrease by 12 million
Intermodal Association of North America (IANA). 201 tons.

The use of intermodal shipping services can increase transportation efficiency and reduce
shipping emissions, fuel usage, and costs. Each mode of transport has costs and benefits in terms
of fuel used, shipping costs, transport times, schedule delays and flexibility, delivery capabilities,
types of cargo (weight/size), freight security, and impacts on traffic congestion.

When viewed separately each mode of freight transportation has

strengths and weaknesses, but when combined they can provide
a flexible and efficient mode of shipping. For example, marine
shipments tend to be the most efficient method of freight
transportation, able to handle large amounts of tonnage in a
single vessel, but they are the slowest mode and can only deliver
to ports with proper cargo handling equipment. Railways
provide the next-best fuel efficiency; they are faster than marine
vessels, and use less space than highway systems, but can only
carry cargo between ports and rail yards. Aircraft can carry
Hannes Grobe; CC BY 3.0 high-value freight long distances very quickly, but they use the
most fuel relative to ton-miles traveled and can only carry cargo
from airport to airport. Trucks have the next-highest fuel per ton-mile value, but have the
greatest flexibility in providing door-to-door service.

200
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermodal_freight_transport
201
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2013). Intermodal for Shippers. EPA-420-F-13-028. p. 1

6-1
 Table 6-1. Fuel Consumption for Freight Transportation, 2010202, 203, 204, 205

Fuel Consumption
Transportation Mode
BTU per Short-Ton-Mile kJ per Tonne-Kilometer
Domestic waterborne 217 160
Class 1 railroads 289 209
Heavy trucks 3,357 2,426
Air freight (approximate) 9,600 6,900
Wikimedia Foundation; CC BY-SA 3.0

Many intermodal transfers rely on marine vessels to carry cargo from an origination port to a
destination port. If the final location is within 500 to 750 kilometers of the destination port,
highway trucks can then be used for the delivery. 206 If the distance is longer, then the cargo can
be transferred to a rail line to get to the destination city and then by truck to make the final
delivery (shown in the figure below). Examples of successful intermodal components of action
plans can be found in the Welsh government’s Multi-modal Freight Best Practice Navigator. 207
Note that intermodal transfers can occur within the marine component, with cargo from large
deep water vessels being transferred to barges that operate along inland waterways.

Figure 6-1. Example of Intermodal Transportation for Freight

Government Accountability Office

Obviously the shipping time can be shortened if the cargo can be sent via aircraft to the
destination city and delivered by truck to the final destination. Intermodal systems have even
been developed that use ships to bring high-value/low-time-sensitivity cargo to a country, and
once the cargo arrives in port, it is delivered quickly to the final destination using aircraft. This
approach reduces the price of aviation delivered products as the system only uses domestic
flights, but provides faster service than traditional ship/rail/truck transfers.

202
Davis, S.C., S.W. Diegel, and R.G. Boundy (2011). Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 30. ORNL-6986.
Table 2.12. Retrieved from http://cta.ornl.gov/data/index.shtml.
203
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (n.d.). Where you live. Retrieved from
http://yosemite.epa.gov/gw/heatisland.nsf/webpages/HIRI_Initiatives.html?OpenDocument.
204
U.S. Energy Information Administration (1995). Measuring Energy Efficiency in the United States’ Economy: A
Beginning. Chapter 5. Retrieved from http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/efficiency/ee_ch5.htm.
205
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (2013). Transportation Energy Data Book. Table 2.15. Retrieved from
http://cta.ornl.gov/data/chapter2.shtml.
206
Rodrigue, J.-P., and B. Slack (2013). The Geography of Transport Systems. Chapter 3. Retrieved from
http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch3en/conc3en/ch3c6en.html.
207
http://www.freightbestpractice.org.uk/categories/3589_586_amlfodd--multi-modal-.aspx

6-2
 The introduction of containerized freight that uses
interlocking containers with a standard size and
shape (i.e., 20-foot equivalents, or TEUs) is the
critical element needed to allow for efficient
intermodal shipments, as these allow cargo to be
quickly and efficiently transferred from ship to rail
to truck. Aircraft transfers require use of special
lightweight containers that match the cargo storage
space of cargo aircraft (seen in the photo to the
right).
UPS
Use of intermodal systems requires specialized
cargo handling equipment designed specifically for moving these standardized containers, such
as gantry cranes that are used in ports and rail yards. These extremely large cranes are portable
and can be moved into position next to a ship or train, and are able to extend 200 meters over the
vessel and systematically lift the containers off a ship and onto railcars if the port has a rail link
integrated into the docks. If there is no rail link, than the containers need to be moved by drayage
truck to a terminal location where the containers can be put onto a rail car or be made available
for a highway truck pickup. The rail link is preferred for several important reasons. For example,
a single container ship can hold up to 14,000 TEUs, and gantry cranes can move 40–60 TEUs
per hour. Therefore, a large ship can be unloaded and reloaded in about two days, but would
require over 5,000 truckloads to move the same cargo over a 48-hour period, which would
generate a significant amount of local traffic congestion. Alternatively, a train can carry the same
amount as 300 trucks, and because trains do not operate on the highway systems, their
movements do not necessarily impact local traffic.

Many logistics services and software providers offer planning tools that can help identify what
works best for different shipping scenarios. Also, intermodal brokers can help determine if a
combination of transportation modes is cost-effective and appropriate for shipments based on
distance, delivery time, and contents. 208 An analysis of various intermodal shipment options can
help reveal the best intermodal shipment combination to maximize efficiency within the specific
constraints of a shipment. A second issue with regard to using trucks to offload container ships is
that drayage trucks tend to be older high-emitting vehicles. It is estimated that California
contains 100,000 drayage trucks. If drayage is the only option to move cargo from ship to
warehouse or rail hub, fuel-efficient and low-emitting drayage options are available, including
replacement of older trucks with newer ones, retrofitting trucks with add on control devices, use
of electric or hybrid trucks, and CNG-powered trucks.

208
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2013). Intermodal for Shippers. p. 2.

6-3
 Figure 6-2. AVANTE Electronic Cargo Tracking System

Avante International Technology

When considering intermodal transfer points such as ports, rail yards, and airports, it is important
to evaluate how cargo-handling equipment is powered. Often application of natural gas or
electric-powered equipment can reduce emissions from cargo handling engines. Where diesels
cannot be replaced, use of biofuels should be considered as well as idle reduction options. For
large marine vessels, idling emissions can be eliminated through cold ironing (connecting the
ship’s power system to the local electric grid). But these systems require significant investment
for both vessels and ports: a vessel needs to add an onboard connection linked to its electrical
control panel and a port needs to provide shoreside power line, a frequency/transformer
converter, and access to the electrical grid. There are also issues related to standardization of
cold ironing practices; vessels’ voltage requirements can vary from 100 to 11,000 volts. If cold
ironing is not possible, port and railway yards can collect and treat emissions from large ships
and line-haul locomotives through advance control systems that fit over the engine exhaust, treat
the emissions using sodium hydroxide to remove SO2, and cloud chamber scrubbers to further
reduce SO2 and PM, and then selective catalytic reduction to remove VOCs and NOx.

Intermodal systems can be complicated, as cargo routing involves coordination of different

combinations of truck, ship, rail, and aviation modes. Geographic information systems (GIS) in
conjunction with geopositioning systems (GPS) have been developed to map cargo flow,
ensuring that the freight movement system is optimized and able to quickly address
unanticipated disruption such as train derailment, weather-related events, or shutdowns due to
bridge repair. Optimizing systems allow cargo to be shifted to alternative routes or modes,
reducing the disruption.

6-4
 Table 6-2. Summary of Emissions—Grams per Ton-Mile—2009

Emissions (Grams/Ton-Mile)
HC (VOC for
CO NOx PM CO2
Truck)
Inland towing 0.014 0.043 0.274 0.008 16
Railroad 0.018 0.056 0.354 0.010 21
Truck 0.100 0.370 1.450 0.060 171
Note
a
CO2 emissions for railroads were calculated on a system-wide basis.
Texas Transportation Institute

As noted earlier, intermodal systems optimize freight transfers by shifting cargo to the most fuel-
efficient modes of transportation; these also tend to be less-polluting modes based on ton-miles
traveled, as shown in the table above.

If the development or enhancement of intermodal systems is included in the green freight action
plan, it will be necessary to consider a range of issues: changes in land use; required coordination
between logistics, trucking, ship operators, airlines, and railroad companies; custom clearance;
available warehouse storage; infrastructure improvements to harbors, rail yards and ports;
channel dredging; cargo traffic monitoring systems; as well as dockside rail linkage/drayage
operations.

6.2 Rail Cargo Strategies

Rail is one of the more efficient

methods of freight transport, with
fewer emissions than other modes of
transportation on a tonne-kilometer
basis, as noted in the intermodal
section. Green freight action plans
that include enhancements to rail
infrastructure offer benefits to
countries with a broad range of sizes
and financial backing. For example,
the use of double-stacking
containers improves the capacity of
trains, allowing a single train to
carry the equivalent volume of up to
Doug Wertman
280 trucks 209 while using less fuel
and producing fewer emissions than the equivalent number of trucks. In order to double stack
cars, bridges and tunnels may need to be modified to accommodate the higher trains, while rail
yards need appropriate crane support to shift the containers.

Other infrastructure changes include those that facilitate the use of alternative fuels, such as
upgrading the electric grid and adding transformers and electrically charged rails or catenary

209
Stehly, M. (2008). Train resistance and railroad emissions and efficiency presentation.

6-5
 lines, installing pipelines for natural gas transport or storage tanks for biodiesel or synthetic
fuels. These alternative fuels displace petroleum usage and also offer some emission benefits.

Biodiesel fuels have been field-tested in the form of 10 to 20 percent vegetable oils blended with
diesel fuel. Blended biodiesel fuels require no retrofitting of existing engines, and therefore no
investment cost related to the locomotives. However, it should be noted that biofuels have less
energy content than traditional diesel.

For countries such as South Africa with large coal reserves but little oil, coal-to-liquid synthetic
fuels offer several benefits. The liquefaction processing technology includes steps that remove
sulfur, ash, mercury, and other pollutants as well. The sulfur and hydrogen resulting from the
processing can be sold as byproducts. The synthetic gasoline and diesel produced are high-grade
and clean, capable of meeting even future “clean diesel” requirements in countries with strong
environmental standards.

Another alternative fuel option includes natural gas. Primarily composed of methane (70 to 90
percent) and extracted from gas wells or as a byproduct of oil production, natural gas can be used
for transportation applications in two forms, as compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquefied
natural gas (LNG). CNG is compressed to between 3,000 and 3,600 pounds per square inch (psi).
To liquefy, natural gas must be cooled to -260 degrees Fahrenheit. The liquefaction process used
for LNG removes most, though not all, impurities, such as water, solids, and heavy
hydrocarbons, that when combusted may increase emissions. CNG and LNG are inherently
clean-burning fuels, with drastically lower PM levels. 210 Long-term options for railways include
use of CNG for switching activities and LNG for switching and long-haul operations due to its
higher energy density and increased vehicle range. 211 Even with LNG, range is substantially less
than with comparable diesel units, often being reduced by 40 to 50 percent. 212 Gaseous fuels such
as CNG and LNG either require spark-ignition or can be co-fired with diesel fuel. Therefore,
adopting either of these fuels would require a rail line to either modify its locomotives or
purchase new ones. Also, either of these fuels
requires extensive infrastructure enhancements,
which may include the development of natural
gas fields, extension of natural gas pipelines,
and construction of refueling stations.

Electrification of rails supplies electrical energy

to trains so they operate without onboard
combustion sources. Emissions from
electrification of rail lines depend upon the mix
of electricity generating units that provide
energy to the local grid. Most of the cost
associated with electrification of rail lines Urawa; CC BY 2.0

210
BNSF Railway Company, Union Pacific Railroad Company, The Association of American Railroads, and California
Environmental Associates (2007). An Evaluation of Natural Gas-Fueled Locomotives.
211
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy00osti/27678.pdf
212
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/mechanical/locomotives/cn-testing-lng-fueled-main-line-
locomotive.html?channel=35

6-6
 relates to construction of infrastructure such as transformers, substations, third rails, or overhead
power lines.

Advantages of electrification include lower costs of building, running, and maintaining

locomotives and less rail upkeep due to reduced wear from lower-weight rolling stock. However,
if the routes are not completely electrified, companies may find the need to continue using diesel
locomotives as well, making the option expensive and inconvenient. Also, most overhead
electrification designs do not allow sufficient clearance for double-stack cars. 213

Driving optimization systems are also currently

being developed and enhanced that use satellite
position data, engine operating data, and other
information on track geometry and load to
provide the optimal speed and power setting to
move freight quickly, while reducing fuel
consumption and emissions. For example, the
European Train Control System (ETCS) is a
signaling, control, and train protection system
designed to replace the many incompatible
safety systems currently used by European
railways, especially on high-speed lines. ETCS
requires standard trackside equipment and a
Federal Railroad Administration standard controller within the train cab. In its
final form, all lineside information is passed to
the driver electronically, removing the need for lineside signals which, at high speed, could be
almost impossible to see or assimilate. 214

Locomotives expend energy to address wheel-to-rail friction and to overcome aerodynamic drag.
Several options are available to reduce these energy expenditures, from the basic and
inexpensive to more technologically advanced and costly. For example, improved lubrication
decreases wheel-to-rail resistance. Lubrication systems reduce wheel and rail wear as well as fuel
consumption. The cost of retrofitting wheel/rail lubrication systems to the current fleet of freight
locomotives includes investment cost and fixed costs for additional lubricant and system upkeep.
Simple systems for low-tonnage railroads allow operators to control the application of lubricants
with roller nozzles spraying directly onto the wheels of the locomotive or the rails. The U.S.
DOE estimates from field studies and manufacturer data that wheel-to-rail lubrication systems
can reduce fuel consumption and GHG emissions between 4 and 10 percent.

Freight trains also use energy to overcome air friction. 215 This is due to the aerodynamically
unfavorable shape of freight trains, space between cars not being shielded, and lack of covers for

213
Center for Clean Air Policy and Center for Neighborhood Technology (2006). High Speed Rail and Greenhouse Gas
Emissions in U.S.
214
Argonne National Laboratory Center for Transportation Research (2002). Railroad and Locomotive Technology
Roadmap.
215
Union Pacific (2013). Union Pacific unveils new aerodynamic technology for double-stack intermodal trains.
Retrieved from http://www.uprr.com/newsinfo/releases/environment/2013/0903_arrowedge.shtml.

6-7
 empty cars. 216 When cars are empty, air drag associated with moving uncovered cars is
maximized because of poor aerodynamics. For example, a locomotive pulling open, empty cars
consumes the same or more energy than when pulling full freight cars with a better aerodynamic
profile. In many cases simple approaches, such as covering empty hopper cars, decreasing the
gaps between railcars, and using simple fairings or foils to direct the air flow over empty cars,
are effective with minimal costs relative to the overall cost of rolling stock. Another cost-
effective approach involves loading freight on cars closest to the locomotive, with empty cars
grouped together at the back of the train or removed completely, when possible. Improving the
load configuration for intermodal trains can reduce fuel consumption by as much as 27
percent. 217

Decreasing weight also reduces friction and improves efficiency. Aluminum rail cars are two-
thirds the weight of comparable steel cars. Use of such lightweight materials allows for the
construction of cars with more carrying capacity. These cars have become increasingly common
for use in carrying coal, and are becoming available for other uses as well. Aluminum cars also
require less repair and maintenance than traditional rail cars. The cost differential of investing in
aluminum cars over traditional cars can be repaid in only a few years by the increased carrying
capacity and decreased fixed costs. Light-weight, high-capacity railcars have been introduced by
Canadian Pacific Railway, demonstrating a reduction of energy use by 10 percent for coal
shipments and by 5 percent for grain. 218

In addition to infrastructure improvements, use of alternative fuels, and friction reduction

options, there are several pollution control systems available to reduce emissions. Many can be
added to existing locomotives without the need to invest in new stock. Using low-sulfur diesel
fuels results in direct reductions in PM emissions, and can enable the adoption of additional
exhaust controls (for example, oxidation catalysts for NOx reduction). Additionally, new
technologies are becoming available, such as exhaust gas recirculation, diesel oxidation catalysts,
and diesel particulate filters. Union Pacific is currently testing these newer technologies through
2014. 219

As noted in Section 5.2.5, lean NOx technologies reduce NOx emissions and, when used in
combination with a diesel particular filter (DPF), can also reduce particulate emissions.

Though more costly than many of the previously mentioned approaches for improving efficiency
and reducing emissions, locomotive improvements provide excellent, long-term results. Most of
the improvements can be applied to existing locomotives as a retrofit during routine
maintenance. Among the most cost-effective improvements are technologies such as APUs or
anti-idling strategies to minimize locomotive engine usage when the locomotive is not actively

216
Argonne National Laboratory Center for Transportation Research (2002). Railroad and Locomotive Technology
Roadmap.
217
Lai, Y.-C., C.P.L. Barkan, and Ö. (2008). Optimizing the aerodynamic efficiency of intermodal freight trains.
Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 44(5): 820–834.
218
Skillingberg, M., and J. Green (2007). Aluminum applications in the rail industry. Light Metal Age.
219
Union Pacific (2012). Union Pacific Railroad investing $20 million to test emissions-reducing locomotive
technology in California. Retrieved from
http://www.uprr.com/newsinfo/releases/capital_investment/2012/0813_loco-tech.shtml.

6-8
 engaged in hauling freight. Typical line-haul locomotives
spend approximately 16 percent of their time idling, because
the engine is needed for heating/cooling. Anti-idling
strategies use smaller, more efficient engines for
supplemental power at times of idling, allowing the larger
propulsion engines to shut down. 220

Available improvements to locomotive diesel engine design

includes use of advanced turbocharging which enhances energy efficiency over a wider range of
operating conditions; application of turbocompounding using heat from the exhaust to increase
power and reduce fuel consumption and emissions; and the use of intercooling systems that
increase the density of the intake air, which in turn increases
the amount of air and fuel entering the cylinder, allowing for Honeywell
better combustion. Common rail injection systems allow for greater control of fuel injection rates
across all engine speeds by storing fuel at high pressures along a common rail connected to each
cylinder. By controlling the point in the engine cycle when the fuel is injected into the cylinder
and the duration of the injection, the engines perform better and with greater combustion
efficiency. Additionally, the high-pressure injection creates a fine atomization of the fuel,
yielding more efficient combustion.

Genesee & Wyoming Inc.

Genset yard or short-haul locomotives use multiple smaller (generally 700 horsepower) diesel
engines rather than the more common single 2,000 horsepower diesel engine. These smaller
diesel engines are newer and comply with more stringent emission standards than the current
engines. 221 Gensets’ improved efficiency results from the use of electronic controls that regulate
engine performance to optimize fuel consumption and reduce emissions. For example, these
engines reduce fuel consumption by 35 to 50 percent and provide an 80 percent reduction in NOx
and PM emissions. Electronic engine controls reduce wheel slippage, which enhances traction. 222

Similarly, hybrid locomotives also operate using small, highly efficient diesel engines that power
banks of long-life, recyclable batteries which run electric motors and turn the wheels. The small
diesel engines operate only when the batteries need to be recharged. Hybrid locomotives improve

220
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2008). Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions of Air Pollution
from Locomotive Engines and Marine Compression Ignition Engines Less Than 30 Liters per Cylinder.
221
http://www.gwrr.com/about_us/community_and_environment/gwi_green/genset_locomotives
222
U.S. Department of Transportation (2010). Transportation’s Role in Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

6-9
efficiency because diesel engines have an
optimal operating load, outside of which,
fuel consumption and emissions increase.
By operating hybrid engines only at a
constant optimal load when the batteries
require charging or greater power allows
the locomotive to avoid operating in less
efficient load conditions.

Estimates of GHG reductions as well as the cost-effectiveness of the various strategies are based
on a comprehensive review of the existing literature on the impacts of individual strategies.
Table 6-3 summarizes the results of this analysis. Note that where possible operational
differences for yard and long-haul locomotives were accounted.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

6-10
 Table 6-3. Table Summary of Rail Freight Technology Options

Annual Fuel Annual GHG

Fuel Savings Annual Fuel Cost Emissions
Reduction Incremental Capital (Thousand Savings Payback Reduction
Technology (%) Cost ($ Thousand) Gallons per Year) ($ Thousands) Period (Years) (Tons per Year)
Common rail diesel system 10 16 to 32 17.9 65.69 < 1 year 54.9
Genset yard locomotives 35 to 50 400 17.5 to 25.0 64.2 to 91.75 4 to 6 53.7 to 76.7
Hybrid line-haul locomotives 10 115 17.9 65.7 2 54.9
Light-weight cars 5 to 10 1,000 to 3,500 8.95 to 17.9 32.85 to 65.7 30 to 53 27.5 to 54.9
Wheel/rail lubrication 4 to 6 40 7.16 to 10.74 26.3 to 39.4 1 to 2 22.0 to 33.0

All options are evaluated based on incremental cost of the technology relative to a locomotive without the technology—except for wheel/rail lubrication, as it can
be applied as an add on technology. Yard locomotives were differentiated from long-haul operations; for example, yard locomotives were assumed to use 50,000
annual gallons per year and line-haul locomotives were assumed to use 179,000 gallons per year. Rail fuel cost was assumed to be $3.57 per gallon.

6-11
 6.3 Marine Cargo Strategies

Marine vessels have played and will continue

to play a critical role in integrating the global
economy. The International Maritime
Organization (IMO) anticipates that the 8
billion tonnes of cargo that ships currently
carry annually will grow to 23 billion in 2060,
increasing the global carbon foot print of
marine vessels by 300 percent under business-
as-usual operation.

Roberto Venturini
More than 90 percent of global trade is carried
by sea, of which developing countries account for the largest
share of global seaborne trade (60 percent of all goods loaded and 56 percent of all goods
unloaded). Developing countries account for the dominant share of ship construction and
ownership, with China and Korea alone accounting for 72 percent of world ship capacity (in
terms of dead weight tonnage, or DWT). There are currently 104,304 commercial marine vessels
operating greater than 100 gross weight tonnage. The global fleet used 370 million tonnes of fuel
and emitted 870 million tonnes of CO2 or 2.7 percent of global CO2 emissions in 2009. With this
noted, marine shipments represent some of the most efficient methods to move cargo based on
ton-miles (as noted in the intermodal section). The IMO suggests that efficiency can be further
improved and emissions reduced by 25 to 75 percent using existing reduction strategies
summarized below. 223

Most of the current commercial marine vessels use compression ignition engines (diesel) for
propulsion and auxiliary applications. These engines vary in size from relatively small engines
used for auxiliary power to run winches, cranes, pumps, and generators; to engines similar in size
and power rating to those found on
locomotives, used to power domestic vessels, Figure 6-3. Rising Marine Bunker Fuel
tugs, and towboats; to very large engines used Prices
by commercial marine vessels involved in
international freight movements on the open
seas. Over the last century, since these diesel
engines were first developed, they have
evolved and continue to evolve, able to burn a
wide range of distillate and residual fuels of
varying quality.

As fuel cost typically represents 60 to 80

percent of shipping expenses (depending on
length of trade route) and fuel prices continue
Alphaliner

223
International Maritime Organization/Maritime Knowledge Centre (2011). International Shipping Facts and
Figures—Information Resources on Trade, Safety, Security and Environment.

6-12
 to increase from decade to decade, 224 fuel costs are a significant driving force to reduce usage
through improvements in energy efficiency, use of alternative fuels, or changes in vessel
operation (e.g., slow steaming).

Figure 6-4. Boom in Shipping Trade

Emmanuelle Bournay, UNEP/GRID-Arendal

Vessels tend to last for 30 to 40 years; therefore,

engine technologies associated with older vessels do
not represent advances in engine design such as
improved fuel distribution through use of common
rail fuel system that provides fuel to the cylinders at
consistent and high pressure, improving combustion
efficiencies. Older engines also do not have
turbochargers or turbocompounding (which improve
fuel efficiency by increasing the density of air into
cylinders, which also enhances combustion). More
advanced diesel/electric engine configurations also
enhance fuel efficiency for tugs and roll-on/roll-off Xtrememachineuk/Wikimedia Commons

224
OECD Council Working Party on Shipbuilding (2013). Encouraging Construction and Operation for “Green
Ships.”

6-13
 ferries that operate over a wide range of loads. Green freight action plans that encourage
replacement of older engines with newer, more fuel-efficient, less-polluting engines need to
balance the replacement cost with the associated fuel savings. To help identify seagoing ships
that perform better in reducing air emissions, the World Port Climate initiative has developed the
Environmental Ship Index (ESI) and the Clean Shipping Network has developed the Clean
Shipping Index (CSI). The ESI evaluates the amount of nitrogen oxide (NOx) and sulfur oxide
(SOx) that is released by a ship and includes a reporting scheme on the greenhouse gas emission
of the ship. The ESI is a good indication of the environmental performance of oceangoing
vessels and will assist in identifying cleaner ships in a general way. 225 For the CSI, ships and
carriers are evaluated based on levels of emission of carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen oxides
(NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), and particulate matter (PM). CSI also includes use of chemicals, how
carriers take care of their wastes on board, and how they treat different discharges to water, such
as sewage and ballast water. 226

There are a variety of other fuel efficiency methods that use variable pitch propellers to match a
vessel’s operating load to the diesel engines optimal design efficiency (which is typically 80
percent of the maximum continuous rating). Counter-rotating propellers can also be used to
recover rotational energy from the main propulsion propellers: as the recovery propellers rotate,
they provide force to a generator which then provides electricity to the vessel. Enclosing
propellers or applying small winglets to them improves propeller performance by reducing drag
at the propeller tips. 227 Green freight action plans that encourage use of new propeller
technologies are often attractive as they can be incorporated into normal maintenance activities
and do not require costly replacement of engine or hull components.

More advanced technologies are being assessed that reduce hull friction through application of
high-tech bottom coatings, such as glass flake coatings (which are proving to be a durable
technology to reduce hull fouling). Also promising is bubble lubrication, in which air is forced
out of the bottom of a ship, lubricating the hull. Green freight action plans that encourage hull
friction reductions can see engine efficiency improvements of approximately 5 to 40 percent, 228 if
not higher. 229

As noted earlier, fuel pricing is a critical component of marine industries. Use of low-emitting
alternative fuels is possible as long as they are cost-competitive with current fuels, require
minimal changes to engines and existing fuel distribution infrastructure, and can withstand
extreme environmental conditions. Ultra-low-sulfur fuels will be required for emission control
areas in Europe and North America, but there is a concern that as demand for these fuels
increase, the cost will increase. Given the importance of fuel pricing, green freight action plans

225
http://esi.wpci.nl/Public/Home
226
http://www.cleanshippingindex.com/
227
U.S. DOT (2010). Transportation’s Role in Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Retrieved from
http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/32000/32700/32779/DOT_Climate_Change_Report_-_April_2010_-_Volume_1_and_2.pdf.
228
http://shippingefficiency.org
229
Mike Garside (2013). Measuring the fuel efficiency of hull coatings. Retrieved from http://www.maritime-
executive.com/article/Guest-Editorial-Measuring-the-Fuel-Efficiency-of-Hull-Coatings-2013-07-16/.

6-14
 that require use of ultra-low-sulfur fuel need to link noncompliance fines with the price
differential between high sulfur and compliant fuels.

Natural gas has low emissions and is

readily available in many developing and
developed countries. This makes it
attractive as a replacement fuel for diesel,
but its energy content is considerably less
than that of existing marine fuels, and
consequently a larger volume of fuel is
required to make the same journey. Given
Eidesvik
the issues of energy density, natural gas
fuels are probably most suitable for harbor
vessels and short sea shipping. Biofuels are potentially effective options, but there is a concern
with fuel availability and possible long term maintenance issues. Solar cells and wind power
(sails/rotors) are included as their applications can be used to address a vessel’s energy demand,
by providing electricity for non-propulsion activities such as navigation, lighting, and
communication (solar cells) or by taking advantage of prevailing winds (as seen in the example
to the left). 230 Both of these options are
appropriate for large vessels with large
surface areas for mounting solar cells or
vessels traveling long distances in
international waters.

In addition to fuel efficiency

improvement and use of alternative fuels,
there are operational changes that green
freight action plans can encourage to
further reduce fuel consumption and
emission of pollutants. These include
optimization systems that match load with the engine’s most efficient operating speed; route
optimization systems that provide the most direct route to a destination, avoiding storm systems
and allowing for changes in port destination based on port terminal traffic; idle reduction systems
© Skysails (cold ironing); and expansion of reduced
speed zones. A 10 percent reduction in
vessel speed will reduce fuel usage by 20 percent. 231 Note that operating at too slow a speed for
long periods can damage the engine, though engine manufactures such as Wärtsilä have kits to

230
U.S. DOT (2010). Transportation’s Role in Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Retrieved from
http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/32000/32700/32779/DOT_Climate_Change_Report_-_April_2010_-_Volume_1_and_2.pdf.
231
Santa Barbara County APCD (n.d.) Vessel speed reduction initiative fact sheet. Retrieved from
http://www.edcnet.org/learn/current_cases/save_the_whales/vsr_factsheet.pdf.

6-15
 retrofit older engines for slower operations. 232 Newer engines are being designed to address the
issue of engine maintenance at slower speed such that kits will no longer be needed. 233

Marine vessel emissions can also be reduced through the add-on application of closed crankcase
ventilation, diesel particulate filters, selective catalytic reduction, diesel oxidation catalysts, and
lean NOx catalysts. Note that using most of these control devices requires that engines use low-
sulfur fuels, as sulfur compounds can poison the catalysts, rendering them useless. As well, green
freight action plans that encourage use of these add-on controls must be coupled with appropriate
fuel standards.

Estimates of these strategies’ GHG reductions and cost-effectiveness are based on a

comprehensive review of the existing literature on the impacts of individual strategies. The
following table summarizes the results of this analysis. Note that where possible operational
differences for harbor and long-haul vessels were differentiated.

232
http://www.wartsila.com/en/engine-services-2-stroke/slow-steaming-upgrade-kit
233
Mersk (2011). Slow steaming: The full story. Retrieved from
http://www.maersk.com/Innovation/WorkingWithInnovation/Documents/Slow%20Steaming%20-%20the%20full%
20story.pdf.

6-16
 Table 6-4. Table Summary of Marine Freight Technology Options

Annual Fuel Annual GHG

Fuel Incremental Savings Annual Fuel Cost Emissions
Reduction Capital Cost (Thousand Savings Payback Period Reduction (Tons
Technology (%) ($ Thousand) Gallons per Year) ($ Thousands) (Years) per Year)
Enhanced ship design 2 to 7 500–2,000 56.24–196.84 158.6–555.1 3–4 649–2,272
Bubble lubrication 10 to 15 75–750 281.2–421.8 793–1,189 <1 3,245–4,868
Diesel electric configuration 15 to 20 300–3,000 562.4 1,586 < 1–2 6,490
Hybrid engines 35 600 492.1 1,388 <1 5,807
Counter rotating propellers 10 to 15 Not available 370.6 1,045–1,568 Missing capital cost 4,374–6,560
Propeller nozzles 5 Not available 185 522.6 Missing capital cost 2,187
Propeller winglets 4 Not available 148 418.1 Missing capital cost 1,749
Wind power 5 to 30 510–1560 140.6–843.6 396.5–2,379 < 1–2 1,623–9,735
Solar power 5 to 7 1,400 140.6 396.5–555.1 2–4 1,622–2,272

All options are evaluated based on incremental cost of the technology relative to a vessel without the technology—except for bubble lubrication, wind power,
solar power, and advanced propeller technologies, as these can be applied as add on technologies. For this analysis, efforts were made to account for the different
types of vessels that would be candidates for these technologies; for example, hybrid engines were considered appropriate for harbor vessels that have an annual
fuel usage of 1,406,000 gallons in contrast to medium and large long-haul vessels that have an annual fuel usage of 2,812,000 and 3,706,415 gallons,
respectively, and would be candidates for enhanced ship design, advance propellers, bubble lubrication, diesel electric configuration, wind, and solar power
options. ERG used the IMO annual GHG emission estimates from the April 2009 GHG study. Marine fuel costs were assumed to be $2.056 per gallon.

6-17
 6.4 Air Freight Strategies

Worldwide, there are approximately 2,500 aircraft involved in freight shipments. These aircraft
are either associated with the cargo division of large air carriers such as Delta Cargo, China
Airlines Cargo, Emirates SkyCargo, or approximately 1,650 aircraft 234 provide dedicated cargo
services such as UPS, Federal Express, DHL, Eva Cargo, and Etihad. These large corporations
have modern international fleets equipped with engines that comply with existing International
Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) engine standards. As with the other transportation modes,
fuel usage represents a significant fraction of their expenditures (20 to 30 percent), 235 so green
freight action plans associated with air cargo should encourage application of technologies that
reduce fuel consumption and better utilization of the aircraft fleet (e.g., facilitate quick
turnaround times in shifting cargo at airports).

Commercial aircraft used for air freight range in size from medium-sized regional aircraft such
as the Beech 1900, 236 equipped with twin turboprops (jet engines that turn propellers), to large
747 Boeings and massive Airbus Beluga aircraft (shown below), equipped with turbo fan jet
engines.

Because aircraft use relatively large

volumes of fuel, engines that are more
fuel-efficient provide companies with a
competitive advantage over competitors
with older fleets equipped with less fuel-
efficient engines. Over the last 40 years,
aviation fuel efficiency has improved by 70
percent. 237 ICAO anticipates that an
additional 20 percent improvement in fuel
efficiency is possible by 2024. 238

General Electric (GE) has been promoting

a new line of engines that employs new
Duch.seb/Wikimedia Commons; CC BY-SA 3.0 designs and materials, such as ceramic
matrix composite turbine blades, that
reduce fuel consumption by 10 to 15 percent which equates to a cost saving of over a million
dollars per year per aircraft. 239

Pratt & Whitney (P&W) has developed a high-bypass geared jet engine (PW1000 G) which will
be installed in the Bombardier C-Series aircraft in 2015, and is being considered for aircraft such
as Boeing’s 747-SP and Airbus’ A340-600. This geared jet engine allows the engine fan to

234
Airbus (2013). Global Market Forecast: Future Journeys: 2013–2032.
235
World Bank (2009). Air Freight: A Market Study with Implications for Landlocked Countries. Section 4.
236
https://www.evernote.com/shard/s2/sh/a9549bec-fd15-48fc-9bdc-
4b96d28cd316/e672917a1c97e90b343aa761d2085452
237
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1999). Special Report: Aviation and the Global Atmosphere.
238
International Civil Aviation Organization (2013). 2013 Environmental Report.
239
http://www.geaviation.com/

6-18
 operate at a slower, more optimal speed while the low-pressure compressor and turbine operate
at their optimized higher speed. This engine is anticipated to reduce fuel consumption by 20
percent and noise by 75 percent. 240

Several companies such as GE, Rolls Royce, and P&W are working on an open rotor engine
where propeller blades are geared to the turbine and mounted outside the casing. Such designs
can be lighter and provide higher fuel efficiency (25 to 30 percent improvement), but they tend
to be noisier than similar turbo fans of equivalent power rating. 241

Note that there is a significant secondary benefit to improving jet engine efficiency. As less fuel
is needed, the total weight of the aircraft (that includes the weight of the fuel) is reduced, which
further reduces fuel consumption and emissions.

An aircraft’s main engines use fuel and emit pollutants

while taxiing in and out of a terminal gate; this can be
particularly problematic for high-volume airports, where
delays are regularly encountered. Boeing and several other
companies have developed an electric wheel 242 that is
powered by the aircraft’s auxiliary power unit (APU),
which is a much smaller, more fuel-efficient way to
maneuver around the runways than operating the main jet
engines at their least-efficient loads. Single-engine taxi
has also been used to reduce aircraft taxi emissions.
Consideration of electric wheel or single-engine taxiing in
a green freight action plan will reduce aircraft fuel
consumption and improve local air quality.
WheelTug
In addition to engine improvements, alternative aviation
fuels—specifically biofuels and synthetic fuels—can be considered. There have been several
successful test flights using biofuel since 2011, when it was approved for use in aviation
operations. 243 Depending upon the source of the biofuel, GHG emissions can be reduced by up to
85 percent. But there are still unresolved issues concerning the storage life of the fuel and its
performance at higher altitudes, where lower temperatures cause it to gel. The military has been
investigating the use of synthetic aviation fuels derived from coal, natural gas, or biomass, using
the Fischer-Tropsch process. Synthetic aviation fuels tend to emit fewer pollutants than
conventional jet fuels due to their high purity and lack of contaminants. Because they have a
higher energy content relative to the carbon content of the fuel, they emit less CO2. Depending
on the feed stock for the synthetic fuel, lifecycle assessment of GHG emissions indicate that coal
to liquid fuels have a 147 percent higher carbon footprint than traditional petroleum-based fuels.

240
http://www.purepowerengine.com/
241
Warwick, G. (2007). Open debate on open rotors. Flight Global. Retrieved from
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/graham-warwick/2007/06/open-debate-on-open-rotors/.
242
http://www.wheeltug.gi/
243
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_biofuel

6-19
 Green freight action plans that encourage use of these fuels need to account for infrastructure
changes required for fuel storage and distribution. 244

In addition to the aircraft engine and fuel options,

improvements to the airframe are possible that reduce
friction and enhance lift, thereby improving the
overall efficiency of the aircraft. These improvements
include wing lengthening, laminar flow wings,
multilayer wings, winglets (shown to the left), and
low-friction surface coatings. 245

Alternative aircraft types such as blimp-like cargo

ships are currently being developed that reduce fuel
FlugKerl2/Wikimedia Commons; CC BY-SA 3.0 consumption, emissions, and freight costs. 246 These
aircraft are ideal for applications where roads are relatively scarce
and cargo is a shape and size that is not suitable for flatbed trucks.

Lastly, green freight action plans may want

to consider operational changes such as the
U.S. FAA’s NextGen system, which is
anticipated to save 1.6 billion gallons of fuel
and reduce CO2 emissions by 16 million
metric tons between 2013 and 2020. 247
These benefits will be achieved by reducing
time delays, ensuring that aircraft operate at
their optimal elevation and fly directly to
their destination airport, and making in-
flight adjustments to avoid storms that could Aeroscraft
affect the flight. Most of these operational
enhancements are derived from better use of satellite navigation.

Estimates of GHG reductions, as well as cost-effectiveness of these various strategies, are based
on a comprehensive review of the existing literature on the impacts of individual strategies. The
following table summarizes the results of this analysis.

244
Stratton, R.W. (2010). Life Cycle Assessment of GHG Emissions and Non-CO2 Combustion Effects from Alternative
Jet Fuels. Retrieved from http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/59694#files-area.
245
U.S. DOT (2010). Transportation’s Role in Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Retrieved from
http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/32000/32700/32779/DOT_Climate_Change_Report_-_April_2010_-_Volume_1_and_2.pdf.
246
RT.com (2013). Super-Zeppelin: Revolutionary airship may become cargo-carrying champion. Retrieved from
http://rt.com/news/aeroscraft-revolutionary-airship-cargo-187/.
247
FAA (2013). NextGen Implementation Plan. Retrieved from
http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/implementation/media/NextGen_Implementation_Plan_2013.pdf.

6-20
 Table 6-5. Table Summary of Air Freight Technology Options

Fuel Annual Fuel Savings Payback Annual GHG Emissions

Reduction Incremental Capital (Thousand Gallons per Annual Fuel Cost Period Reduction (Tons per
Technology (%) Cost ($ Thousand) Year) Savings ($ Thousands) (Years) Year)
Engine improvement 10–15 65,000 290–435 965.7–1,449 > 40 years 3,059–4,589
Geared-jet 10–15 19,000 290–435 965.7–1,449 13–20 3,059–4,589
Rotor 10–30 12,000 290–870 965.7–2,897 4–13 3,059–9,178
Wing tip device 2–10 500–1,000 49.3–290 164–965.7 1–3 520–3,059

All options are evaluated based on incremental cost of the technology relative to an aircraft without the technology—except for wing tip devices, as these can be
applied as add-on technologies. Annual fuel usage was assumed to be 2,900.000 gallons per aircraft. Aviation jet fuel cost was assumed to be $3.33 per gallon.

6-21
 7.0 Conclusions and Prospects for Harmonization
7.1 Summary

The CCAC’s Global Green Freight Action Plan will provide guidance for the advancement and
harmonization of green freight programs around the world, with the aim of reducing CO2 and
black carbon emissions. The successful implementation of the Action Alan will accelerate the
adoption of advanced fuel efficiency and emission control technologies and operational
strategies in multi-modal goods movement. This document provides an overview of global
freight operations; the environmental impacts of freight emissions; available in-use technologies
and strategies; and green freight program status and initiatives, while highlighting gaps in our
knowledge with regard to emissions data, program implementation status or specific regional
conditions. The goal of this document is to provide a foundation for the CCAC to move forward
in the development of the Action Plan.

A number of general observations can be made from the preceding analysis. First, heavy on-road
trucks were responsible for over 50 percent of total global freight-related energy use in 2009.
On-road domestic goods transport generally dominates other modes, although 80 percent of
internationally traded goods were carried by marine vessels in 2011. 248 In addition, the carbon-
intensity of freight movement, as measured in g CO2/tonne-km, varies widely by mode, as
summarized in Table 7-1 below.

Table 7-1. Carbon-Intensity of Freight Travel by Mode, g CO2/Tonne-km 249

Aircraft, short-haul ~1,200–2,800

Aircraft, long-haul ~220–1,000
On-road diesel trucks, light commercial truck/van ~500–1,200
On-road diesel trucks, Class 3–6 ~250–750
On-road diesel trucks, Class 7–8 ~75–180
Diesel rail ~25–60
Waterborne barge ~25–60
Container ships ~15–45
Ocean-going bulk carriers/tankers ~10

As evidenced by the table above, switching from high- to low-carbon-intensity modes can have a
substantial impact on overall fuel consumption and emissions in those areas where the transport
network and infrastructure allows. As an alternative to mode switching, a variety of technologies
and operational strategies are also available to improve the fuel efficiency and reduce emissions
associated with in-use freight trucks, including aerodynamic retrofits, idle reduction, low-rolling-
resistance tires, alternative fuels, telematics, and improved logistics, among many others.
Adopting packages of these strategies can frequently reduce fuel consumption by 10 percent or
more, depending upon site- and fleet-specific factors.

248
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2013). Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Draft
final report. Chapter 8, p. 11.
249
Ibid., Figure 8.6.

7-1
The type of fuel used for freight movement also has a significant impact on climate change.
Diesel and marine bunker fuel have high energy densities and dominate global freight transport.
Combustion of these fuels also generates substantial emissions of black carbon, a powerful short-
lived climate forcer. While switching to gaseous fuels such as natural gas, or electricity, can
dramatically reduce black carbon emissions relative to diesel, fuel delivery systems and vehicle
conversion costs frequently limit these options to niche applications (e.g., to centrally fueled
urban delivery fleets). However, the widespread provision of ultra-low-sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuel
enables the introduction of new emission control technologies coupled with more stringent
emission standards for new vehicles. ULSD fuel also allows vehicle owners to retrofit their in-
use fleet with highly effective PM emission control devices such as diesel particulate filters.
Green freight programs can promote the adoption of these measures by packaging them with
fuel-saving strategies such as aerodynamic retrofits or idle reduction technologies. In this way,
the resulting fuel savings can help cover the incremental costs associated with black carbon
control measures.

Freight markets vary widely around the world in terms of volume and types of goods transported,
operational efficiency, available modes, fleet condition/age, etc. The mix of these factors in turn
impacts the preferred strategies for each region. Chapters 5 and 6 identify a variety of potentially
cost-effective technology and operational strategies for fleets of differing operating categories,
conditions, and modes.

As discussed in Chapter 3, there are a number of green freight programs in operation around the
world tailored for a variety of regions, stakeholders, and transport modes. These programs have
consistently demonstrated potential for significant emission reductions in a wide variety of
locations and operating conditions. The most successful green freight programs are based on the
business case for fuel savings; they incentivize investments in fuel savings technologies and
operational strategies, such as those described in this report, resulting in substantial cost savings
to operators. In this way these programs generate a “win-win” outcome, with both financial and
environmental benefits. For example, the figures below clearly demonstrate how fuel cost
savings and CO2 reductions for the SmartWay program go hand in hand.

Figure 7-1. Truck CO2 Emissions Reductions, U.S. EPA SmartWay Program, 2004–2013

7-2
 Figure 7-2. Fuel Cost Savings, U.S. EPA SmartWay Program, 2004–2013

7.2 Lessons Learned, Findings, and Recommendations

Draft sections of this technical background report were also provided to representatives of the
green freight programs described in Sections 3.1 (“Detailed Program Summaries”) and 3.2
(“Other Programs”). In addition to asking for input regarding the technical content of the report,
ERG requested follow-up interviews with program representatives. Interview questions sought to
obtain opinions on the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the respective programs, lessons
learned, and recommendations for future expansion and potential harmonization with other
programs, among other topics. (A complete list of interview questions is provided in Appendix
A.) 250

These program representatives made the following recommendations.

7.2.1 Program Design

• Develop a clear roadmap for program scope, modes, schedule for expansion, etc., and ensure
senior management sign-off and ongoing support.
• Identify staff resource needs and funding requirements early in program design.
• Clearly define staff roles explicitly for client support and retention.
• Obtain active input and support from high-profile industry leaders during program
development and launch. This greatly aids in establishing credibility from the outset.
Continuous industry and other stakeholder support is crucial to success.
• Ensure frequent communication and data sharing through the distribution of customized
benchmarking reports, webinars regarding tool use and data analysis, technology evaluation

250
Interviews were conducted via conference call in April 2014, with representatives from the following programs:
SmartWay (both U.S. EPA and Natural Resources Canada), Green Freight Asia, Clean Cargo Working Group, and
Smart Freight Centre/Global Logistics Emissions Council.

7-3
 summaries and toolkits, and driver training outreach to provide significant added value to
partners, and help with recruitment and retention efforts. 251
• Establish legal guidelines and policies regarding privacy and data security during the
program development phase, before implementing a database and data exchange procedures.
• To measure program success, develop a program benefit estimation methodology that is
simple to implement. Ensure that all the data required for the benefit assessment will be
collected during standard tool completion and submittal.
• Define program data needs based to support stakeholder goals and program evaluation
requirements. Data needs can vary with program objectives. For example, programs oriented
toward logistics providers may focus more on activity-based information rather than the
adoption of specific technologies.
• Balance tool simplicity (i.e., user-friendly and secure) vs. providing detailed data for
performance evaluations, metrics, and trend analysis. 252
• Identify opportunities for third-party data validation.

7.2.2 Implementation

• Have partner support materials ready for distribution at program launch (e.g.,
promo/website/tools).
• Establish frequent, personal communication between partner account managers (PAMs) and
partners to promote trust in, and commitment to, the program. Clear and frequent
communication with stakeholders is particularly crucial during the first years of the program.
• Leverage existing relationships with stakeholders in order to build momentum for the
program at the outset, especially relationships with large, influential shippers. 253 Also
encourage initiatives to recruit highly visible, international partners in order to garner
attention for the program. Greater visibility increases the chance to sustain public support and
maintain funding resources.
• Provide program support staff with background documentation on freight industry operation
and terminology before beginning engagement with stakeholders.

251
For example, NRCan successfully leveraged past relationships established through its successful FleetSmart Driver
Training program to identify recruits for the initial SmartWay Program launch.
252
Presentation of emissions performance can be complicated by the wide variety of metrics, ranking categories, and
transport modes, as well as stakeholder needs. The U.S. EPA developed the current “SmartWay 2.0” performance
evaluation and reporting system in order to meet shipper demands to quantify carbon footprints more accurately and
precisely. Nevertheless, the EPA representative acknowledged the difficulty in presenting performance reports at an
executive level while maintaining useful detail for developing action plans. EPA is investigating alternative
approaches to improving the usefulness and understandability of carrier performance data (e.g., the “partner report
card” currently under development).
253
As a counter-example, it was noted that the China Green Freight Initiative may have relative difficulty incentivizing
carrier cooperation—since only shippers are included in the program, CGFI must rely on governments to require
carrier action.

7-4
 • Be aware of region- or mode-specific sensitivities (e.g., try to incentivize each mode to
provide company-specific operations data).
• Develop a partner retention strategy based on a strong value proposition (e.g., providing
toolkits, driver training, fleet manager training).

7.2.3 Program Maintenance and Growth

Green freight programs need to grow over time in order to maintain stakeholder support.
Program representatives identified various obstacles to growth for their programs:

• The value proposition for green freight programs are frequently influenced by conditions in
the broader economy. “Environmental benefits” generally diminish in importance to
companies during difficult economic times. Alternatively, the business case for investing in
fuel savings strategies becomes more difficult when fuel prices fall.
• Time and resource requirements for joining a program can be onerous for small carriers such
as owner-operators which may not have the staff, data or computer skills and equipment to
conduct sophisticated data input and analysis. This limits the appeal of the program for this
significant portion of the freight sector.
• Budget constraints can place significant limitations on outreach activities including travel to
meetings and symposia, and advertising. 254

Program representatives suggested a variety of ways to maintain program support and encourage
growth.

• For programs in the early phase of development, consider creating a simplified “excellence
mark” to summarize overall performance level (e.g., similar to the Lean and Green star
designations).
• Make tools simpler and easier to use for small carriers to encourage participation.
• Consider placing tools online and pre-populating them with some data from the previous year
(e.g., contact information, fleet names) to ease subsequent years’ data submissions.
• Tools could link directly to each partner’s historical data to assist with trend evaluations.
• Verify the quality of the data submitted by program partners to ensure reliable program
performance evaluations.
• Apply a consistent calculation methodology over the years, ensuring reliability and
comparability of the performance data. 255

254
As a business-to-business effort green freight programs are inherently limited in their outreach efforts, having little
or no direct public relations target.
255
Similarly, introducing major programmatic changes (e.g., moving from SmartWay 1.0 to 2.0) can be very disruptive
to partners and cause confusion. Significant up-front planning is required to minimize program disruption, along
with frequent communication with partners regarding any upcoming changes.

7-5
• Conduct continual research into program impacts in order to publicize benefits at the fleet,
corporate, modal, and industry levels.
• Encourage dialogue directly between shippers and their carriers regarding best practices and
performance goals in order to facilitate the adoption of technical and operational efficiency
improvements.
• Foster a collaborative relationship with the freight industry. For example, the data collected
through the SmartWay technology verification process have been instrumental in the
development of subsequent regulatory efforts such as the heavy-duty vehicle fuel economy
rules recently adopted in the United States. In this way the voluntary nature of the program
helps counter the adversarial relationship often found in regulatory development efforts.
• Hold regular forums to obtain partner feedback regarding potential changes to data collection
and reporting procedures. For example, the CCWG program currently lacks data regarding
capacity utilization. The CCWG is working with partners to develop a revised data collection
methodology to consistently collect reported capacity data considering the range of different
utilization reporting procedures used by marine carriers.
• Consider using social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook to notify stakeholders
about program developments for a highly cost-effective means of enhancing outreach
strategies.
• Protect business-sensitive operation information through annual contract agreement renewals
with program partners.
• Establish a long-term task authorization contract mechanism with a single contractor to
facilitate the consistent execution of program support functions such as tool development and
database maintenance over multiple years.

7.3 Program Advancement, Expansion and Harmonization

7.3.1 Common Indicators for Success

Although the green freight programs evaluated in Chapter 3 differ in a number of substantive
ways, several common features lead to program success:

• Extensive stakeholder involvement in all aspects of program design, deployment and

operation is crucial to long-term success. Although the business-to-business nature of green
freight programs presents unique challenges, these can be overcome through strong
stakeholder commitment and participation in developing a program vision, quantification
methodology, and measurement methods, as well as balancing concerns for transparency
with confidentiality and data security.
• Broad programs should have representatives from across the entire supply chain, including
shippers, carriers, and logistics providers, as well as key affiliates such as trade associations
to help foster a sense of mutual trust between partners and program administrators.
• Successful programs integrate both “push” (carrier-driven) and “pull” (shipper-driven)
elements to varying degrees, reflecting the strategic and market value of performance
measurement and evaluation for carriers, as well as the importance of reliable carbon

7-6
 footprinting and benchmarking for shippers. The integrated, dynamic nature of these drivers
is summarized in the following diagram.

Smart Freight Centre

• Programs can be successful under a variety of administrative structures, with active

leadership coming from industry, government, and/or other research organizations/NGOs.
The appropriate structure will depend upon the data needs and preferences of the region,
transport modes, and target participants. The key is to provide industry with a trusted,
impartial arbiter ensuring that performance data are reliable and secure.
• Programs should be provided with consistent, reliable funding (commensurate with program
goals and commitments) and qualified, trained staff in order to ensure sustained
communication with partners, effective data management, reliable program performance
assessments, and successful outreach and recruiting efforts.

7.3.2 Prospects for Harmonization

Long-term program harmonization appears to be essential to ensure the success of green freight
goals at the global level, and in ways that foster reductions in energy use and emissions. While
green freight programs will continue to have substantial positive impacts domestically and
regionally, global harmonization is critical to continued expansion and greater emissions
reductions. Until programs are harmonized or aligned across modes and with standard metrics,
programs will be limited in their ability to reach and fully inform the market, help shippers and
carriers improve their efficiency, and foster additional emission reductions.

The green freight programs identified in this study focus on a variety of different goals and
strategies, posing potential challenges to future integration. Programs exist along continua across
a number of different “dimensions”:

7-7
• Predominantly shipper- vs. carrier-driven.
• Government vs. industry administered.
• Large vs. small partner focus.
• Target mode (truck, multi-modal, marine, logistics, etc.).

The representatives frequently emphasized that successful green freight programs can fall
anywhere along the above continua, depending upon the opportunities and constraints of the
regional freight market, carrier fleets, and regulatory environment.

However, green freight programs at differing stages of development may present challenges for
harmonization. For example, the GFCI is currently focusing on technology demonstrations and
education rather than actual data collection. On the other hand, collaboration and coordination
across programs at an early stage also provides an opportunity to align future data collection and
measurement methods with a broader harmonized network.
Other potentially challenging differences across existing programs are described below.

7.3.2.1 Institutional/Administrative Challenges

• Regulatory requirements and constraints on the local freight industry. Opportunities for
implementing technology and operational strategies will vary by region and mode due to
region-specific constraints. In addition, certain modes may be more reluctant than others
when it comes to providing company-specific performance data, for a variety of reasons.
• Legal frameworks and policies regarding partner privacy and data security. Even the
highest-quality performance data will be of limited value in a broader global network if
distribution of information is restricted or even forbidden due to differing legal, regulatory,
and industry policies. Data reporting methodologies that promote transparency and
accountability will help minimize these concerns.
• Levels of available funding and resources. Programs face numerous challenges
maintaining adequate funding levels. At any given time certain programs may be well-funded
and staffed, while others struggle to find adequate resources. For example, government-led
programs are subject to potentially frequent changes in legislative budgeting priorities. In
addition, governments in developing countries face particularly significant budget constraints
and may be less inclined to focus resources on voluntary programs. Privately funded
programs, or those funded by participant fees face similar challenges raising funds in difficult
markets.
• Language barriers. For example, informational materials and trademarked branding/logos
must be translated and reviewed by technical and legal staff before dissemination.
• Overlapping functions and skill sets among program staff. Some programs target the
same modes and even the same companies. Up-front coordination may be needed to limit
redundancy in skill sets and “competition” for specific partners and possibly even for funding

7-8
 7.3.2.2 Data Collection/Management Challenges

• Data reporting requirements, quantification methodologies, and reporting metrics.

Truly uniform, harmonized programs must have integrated these elements in order to provide
consistent, useful performance data. For example, even though CCWG and SmartWay both
collect highly reliable data from their partners, it would be necessary to establish
equivalencies between CCWG’s volumetric performance measures and SmartWay’s mileage
and tonne-mileage measures.
• Access to reliable activity performance data. Many developing countries do not have
extensive logistical data collection systems in place, making collection of accurate activity
data more challenging. Nevertheless, as programs grow their measurement methodologies
can also evolve to take advantage of newly available data sources.
• Data management systems. Differences in platforms (e.g., reporting formats, databases)
potentially constrain data sharing potential across programs. Establishing simple terms of
agreement between agencies can greatly facilitate information exchange. 256
• Data quality. As noted above, differences in data quality limit the reliability of supply chain
assessments depending upon location and mode. Such differences could be addressed by
establishing common data quality rating criteria. Alternatively, encouraging third-party data
validation, as the CCWG program does, will go a long way toward ensuring the credibility of
program data. Nevertheless, programs with less robust data quality and verification
procedures should not be discouraged from participating. 257

7.3.3 Considerations for Developing Countries

Programs in developing countries can present particular challenges for harmonization:

• A lack of familiarity with technology and operational efficiency options. In this case
there is a role for pilot programs and platforms for sharing best practices, such as through the
GFA network. Establishing early research and demonstration projects requires careful
assessment of what is achievable in terms of funding, technologies, local regulatory
requirements, and general region priorities. For example, given the extremely high empty
backhaul rate in China, investments in infrastructure and logistics systems may prove to be
the “lowest-hanging fruit” for their programs.
• A greater preponderance of small operators, which entails a number of other challenges.
For instance, carriers in these regions frequently operate on extremely small margins,
increasing their effective discount rate and limiting their ability and willingness to invest in
efficiency improvements. In turn, such companies typically have less access to financing.
These operators are even less likely to invest/participate in a green freight program when

256
Integration of the U.S. and Canadian programs has been very successful, with data now shared seamlessly between
the programs. A strong relationship has also been developed between EPA and NRCan, fostered by frequent
exchange of presentations and support documentation. Up-front coordination between program management and
technical staff was deemed to be critical to the successful merging of the programs.
257
It was also noted that data quality differences are somewhat less of a concern between countries (at least for road
freight) as carriers operating in the same region are often subject to the same data quality constraints.

7-9
 relative fuel costs are flat or falling. In addition, they are particularly vulnerable to economic
downturns and decreased demand for freight services, making long-term commitment to and
participation in voluntary programs less likely.
• Even less access to funding and qualified staffing resources than in developed countries.
• Inconsistent regulatory and burdensome bureaucratic requirements placed on potential
partners in the freight industry by a variety of agencies. On the other hand, fleets in
developing countries often have the oldest, dirtiest equipment and thus offer the greatest
potential for efficiency gains and emission reductions.

Although many challenges lie ahead, these goals are attainable. For example, there has already
been significant movement in regional harmonization efforts. In addition to the CCAC initiative,
these efforts include SmartWay’s expansion to Canada, coordination efforts between GFE, Lean
and Green, and the Smart Freight Centre, and the development of the GFA country networks.
The CCWG is also seeking a strategic alignment with the Clean Shippers Index, and is
coordinating planning efforts with GFE, GFA, and many others.

As harmonization efforts progress over time, the above challenges will likely be addressed in
ways not currently foreseen. The CCAC Partners are currently responding to the Green Freight
Call to Action in a variety of creative ways, leveraging both public and private
resources to expand the adoption of cost-effective CO2 and black carbon reduction strategies
across all freight sector modes and regions of the globe. Working together, these stakeholders
are well-positioned to develop a successful roadmap for the next steps of green freight program
expansion and integration.

7-10
8.0 References
8.1 Sources for Truck Strategies

• Clean Air Task Force (2009). The Carbon Dioxide-Equivalent Benefits of Reducing Black
Carbon Emissions from U.S. Class 8 Trucks Using Diesel Particulate Filters.
• Danish Institute for International Studies (2005). Development of Freight Transport in
Africa—The Case of Kenya.
• Diesel Technology Forum (2009). Climate Change, Black Carbon and Clean Diesel.
• Environmental Defense Fund. (2010). The Good Haul—Innovations That Improve Freight
Transportation and Protect the Environment.
• Fabian, Bert (2010). Freight and its impact on air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and
fuel consumption in Asia. Presentation to Expert Group Meeting on Sustainable Transport
Development: Eco-Efficiency in Freight Transportation and Logistics.
• Federal Railroad Administration (2009). Comparative Evaluation of Rail and Truck Fuel
Efficiency on Competitive Corridors. Publication no. 13.4841.21.
• International Council on Clean Transportation (2011). European Union Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Potential for Heavy-Duty Vehicles. TIAX reference no. D5625.
• International Council on Clean Transportation (2013). Survey of Best Practices in Emission
Control of In-Use Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles.
• International Council on Clean Transportation (2013). Zero Emissions Trucks—An Overview
of State-of-the-Art Technologies and Their Potential. Publication no. 13.4841.21.
• International Transport Forum (2010). Reducing Transport Greenhouse Gas Emissions:
Trends and Data.
• ITM (2011). Black Carbon—Possibilities to Reduce Emissions and Potential Effects.
• Kahn Ribeiro, S., S. Kobayashi, M. Beuthe, J. Gasca, D. Greene, D. S. Lee, Y. Muromachi,
P.J. Newton, S. Plotkin, D. Sperling, R. Wit, and P.J. Zhou (2007). Transport and its
infrastructure. In Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2007:
Mitigation.
• KPMG International (2011). Competing in the Global Truck Industry. Publication no.
110604.
• National Academy of Sciences (2010). Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the Fuel
Consumption of Medium and Heavy-Duty Vehicles.
• Northeast States Center for a Clean Air Future, International Council on Clean
Transportation, Southwest Research Institute, and TIAX (2009. Reducing Heavy-Duty Long
Haul Combination Truck Fuel Consumption and CO2 Emissions.
• Swedish Road Administration (2007). On the Road to Climate Neutral Freight
Transportation. Publication no. 2008:92.

8-1
• Schubert, R., and M. Kromer (2008). Heavy-Duty Truck Retrofit Technology: Assessment
and Regulatory Approach.
• U.N. Centre for Regional Development (2011). Best Practices in Green Freight for an
Environmentally Sustainable Road Freight Sector in Asia. Retrieved from
http://cleanairinitiative.org/portal/sites/default/files/BGP-
EST5A_Green_Freight_Best_Practices_-_CAI-Asia_Dec2011.pdf.

• U.N. Economic and Social Council (2009). Africa Review Report on Transport—A Summary.
Publication no. E/ECA/CFSSD/6/6.
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2012). Reducing Black Carbon Emissions in South
Asia—Low Cost Opportunities.
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2013). SmartWay Technology: About the SmartWay
Technology Program. http://epa.gov/smartway/forpartners/technology.htm.
• World Bank (2011). Africa’s Transport Infrastructure—Mainstreaming Maintenance and
Management.

8.2 Sources for Rail Strategies

• Association of American Railroads (2007). An Evaluation of Natural Gas-Fueled

Locomotives.
• California Air Resources Board (2009). Technical Options to Achieve Additional Emissions
and Risk Reductions from California Locomotives and Railyards.
• California Energy Commission (2008). Analysis of Transportation Options to Improve Fuel
Efficiency and Increase the Use of Alternative Fuels in Freight and Cargo Movement in the
California/Mexico Border Region. Publication no. CEC-600-2008.
• Frey, C., and P. Kuo, P. (2007). Best Practices Guidebook for Greenhouse Gas Reductions in
Freight Transportation.
• Gaines, L. (2010). Reduction of impacts from locomotive idling. Presentation by Argonne
National Laboratory.
• International Union of Railways (2012). Railway Handbook 2012: Energy Consumption and
CO2 Emissions. Retrieved from http://www.uic.org/IMG/pdf/iea-uic_2012final-lr-2.pdf.
• International Union of Railways (2012). Energy efficiency technologies for railways.
Retrieved from http://www.railway-energy.org/tfee/index.php.
• Lai, Y.-C., C.P.L. Barkan, and Ö. Hayri (2008). Optimizing the aerodynamic efficiency of
intermodal freight trains. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation
Review 44(5): 820–834.
• Lai, Y.-C., N. Ahuja, C.P.L. Barkan, J. Drapa, J.M. Hart, C.V. Jawahar, A. Kumar, L.
Milhon, P.J. Narayanan, and M. Stehly (2007). Machine vision analysis of the energy
efficiency of intermodal freight trains. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers Volume 221 Part F: Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit: 353–364.

8-2
• MECA (2009). Case Studies of the Use of Exhaust Emission Controls on Locomotives and
Large Marine Diesel Engines. Retrieved from
http://www.meca.org/galleries/files/Loco_Marine_Case_Studies_update_0909.pdf.
• Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (2003). Non-road Diesel Emission Reduction Study.
Retrieved from http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/air/pdfs/non-roaddieselstudy.pdf.
• Transportation Canada (2010). Emission reduction initiatives.
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/programs/environment-ecofreight-about-voluntary-
voluntaryagreementsrail-1855.htm.

• U.S. Department of Transportation (2010). Transportation’s Role in Reducing U.S.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. MARKAL dataset.

8.3 Sources for Marine Strategies

• American Association of Port Authorities (2007). Use of Shore-Side Power for Ocean-Going
Vessels.
• American Clean Skies Foundation (2012). Natural Gas for Marine Vessels.
• Brett, B. (2008). Potential Market for LNG-Fueled Marine Vessels in the United States.
• Bureau of Transportation Statistics (2001). America’s Container Ports: Linking Markets at
Home and Abroad.
• California Energy Commission (2008). Analysis of Transportation Options to Improve Fuel
Efficiency and Increase the Use of Alternative Fuels in Freight and Cargo Movement in the
California/Mexico Border Region. Publication no. CEC-600-2008.
• Cooper, D., and T. Gustafsson (2004). Methodology for Calculating Emissions from Ships.
• Corbett, J., H. Wang, and J.J. Winebrake (2009). The effectiveness and costs of speed
reductions on emissions from international shipping. Transportation Research Part D:
Transport and Environment 14(8): 593 ans.
• CORDIS (2013). Greening Europe’s seaports and freight terminals. Retrieved from
http://cordis.europa.eu/fetch?CALLER=EN_NEWS&ACTION=D&RCN=35966.
• Fournier, Anthony, Controlling Air Emissions from Marine Vessels, February 2006.
• Frey, C., and P. Kuo, P. (2007). Best Practices Guidebook for Greenhouse Gas Reductions in
Freight Transportation.
• International Maritime Organization (2011). International Shipping and World Trade Facts
and Figures.
• International Maritime Organization (2009.) Second IMO GHG Study.
• Maritime Administration (2010). The Use of Biodiesel Fuels in the U.S. Marine Industry.
• McCollum, D., G. Gould, and D. Greene (2009). Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Aviation
and Marine Transportation: Mitigation Potential and Polices.

8-3
• MECA (2009). Case Studies of the Use of Exhaust Emission Controls on Locomotives and
Large Marine Diesel Engines.
• Nikopoulou, Z. (2008). Reduction of NOx and SOx in an Emission Market—A Snapshot of
Prospects and Benefits for Ships in the Northern European SECA Area. Retrieved from
http://www.sweship.se/Files/080222slutversionReport.pdf.
• Oceana (2008). Shipping Impacts on Climate.
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2008). The Impacts of
Globalization on International Maritime Transport Activity. Retrieved from
http://www.oecd.org/greengrowth/greening-transport/41380820.pdf.
• Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (2005). Analysis of Vessel Dwelling Emissions
and Offset Reduction Measures.
• Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (2003). Non-road Diesel Emission Reduction Study.
Retrieved from http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/air/pdfs/non-roaddieselstudy.pdf.
• Rightship (2013). Calculating and Comparing CO2 Emissions from the Global Maritime
Fleet.
• Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers Technical and Research Program Panel
(2011). Greenhouse Gases and Economics, Marginal Abatement Costs and Cost
Effectiveness of Energy-Efficiency Measures.
• U.N. Conference on Trade and Development (2012). Review of Maritime Transport 2012.
Retrieved from http://unctad.org/en/pages/PublicationWebflyer.aspx?publicationid=380.
• U.S. Department of Transportation (2010). Transportation’s Role in Reducing U.S.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2005). Emission Reduction Incentives for Off-Road
Diesel Equipment Used in the Port and Construction Sectors.
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. MARKAL dataset.
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2009). Tug/Towboat Emission Reduction Feasibility
Study.
• Wärtsilä (2010). Boosting Energy Efficiency.
• Wik, C., and B. Hallbäck (2008). Reducing emissions using 2-stage turbo charging. Wärtsilä
Technical Journal 2008(1): 35–41.

8.4 Sources for Air Strategies

• California Energy Commission (2008). Analysis of Transportation Options to Improve Fuel

Efficiency and Increase the Use of Alternative Fuels in Freight and Cargo Movement in the
California/Mexico Border Region. Publication no. CEC-600-2008.
• McCarthy, J.E. (2010) Aviation and Climate Change. Congressional Research Service
publication no. 7R40090. Retrieved from
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R40090_20100127.pdf.

8-4
• U.S. Department of Transportation (2010). Transportation’s Role in Reducing U.S.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
• Federal Aviation Administration (2012). United States Aviation Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Reduction Plan. Retrieved from
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/environ_policy_guidance/poli
cy/media/Aviation_Greenhouse_Gas_Emissions_Reduction_Plan.pdf.
• Frey, C., and P. Kuo, P. (2007). Best Practices Guidebook for Greenhouse Gas Reductions in
Freight Transportation.
• International Civil Aviation Organization (2013). 2013 Environmental Report.
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1999). Special Report: Aviation and the Global
Atmosphere.
• Jha, A. (2008) Rolls-Royce brings propeller engines back in vogue. Guardian, October 20.
• McCollum, D., G. Gould, and D. Greene (2009). Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Aviation
and Marine Transportation: Mitigation Potential and Polices.
• National Aeronautics and Space Administration (2006). Solid Oxide Fuel Cell APU
Feasibility Study for a Long Range Commercial Aircraft Using UTC ITAPS Approach.
Publication no. NASA CR—2006-214458/VOL1.
• National Aeronautics and Space Administration (2008). Alternate Fuels for Use in
Commercial Aircraft.
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2012. Green Growth and the
Future of Aviation.
• Omega (2009). A Framework for Estimating the Marginal Costs of Environmental
Abatement for the Aviation Sector.
• Pratt & Whitney (2008). Pure Power, PW 1000G geared jet engine. Press release.
• SBAC (2008). Open rotor engines. SBAC Aviation and Environment Briefing Paper 3.
Retrieved from http://www.sustainableaviation.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/open-rotor-engine-
briefing-paper.pdf.
• Transportation Research Board (2009). Guidebook on Preparing Airport Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Inventories. ACRP Report 11. Retrieved from
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/acrp/acrp_rpt_011.pdf.
• Transportation Research Board (2011). Handbook for Considering Practical Greenhouse
Gas Emission Reduction Strategies for Airports. ACRP Report 56. Retrieved from
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/acrp/acrp_rpt_056.pdf.
• Turner, A. (2007). Cryoplane revisited as Airbus seeks zero-emission aircraft. Flight
International. October 23.
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. MARKAL dataset.

8-5
8.5 Other Links and Resources

8.5.1 Websites of Green Freight Organizations

• Official SmartWay homepage: http://epa.gov/smartway

• SmartWay Canada: http://smartway.nrcan.gc.ca
• Transporte Limpio (Mexico): http://www.transportelimpio.gob.mx (under construction)
• EcoStation (Australia): http://www.ecostation.com.au
• GreenFreight Europe: http://www.greenfreighteurope.eu
• Green Distribution Partnership (Japan): www.greenpartnership.jp
• Green Freight Asia Network: http://greenfreightasia.org/
• Green and Smart Transport Partnership ( Korea):
http://cleanairinitiative.org/portal/sites/default/files/presentations/PM-2-korea_2_-
_GreenSmart_Partnership_CGFI.pdf
• Clean Cargo Working Group: http://www.bsr.org/en/our-work/working-groups/clean-cargo

8.5.2 Websites of Relevant Associations and Stakeholder Groups

• Clean Air Asia: http://www.greenfreightandlogistics.org

• ATA Trucks Deliver a Cleaner Tomorrow: http://trucking.org/cleaner_tomorrow.aspx
• EPA National Clean Diesel Campaign: http://epa.gov/diesel
• EPA Clean Diesel Collaboratives: http://epa.gov/cleandiesel/collaboratives.htm
• International Council on Clean Transportation: http://theicct.org
• American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy:
http://www.aceee.org/sector/transportation
• DieselNet: http://www.dieselnet.com/
• Consignment Carbon: http://www.consignmentcarbon.org/index.php
• Climate and Clean Air Coalition Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicles and Engines Initiative:
http://www.unep.org/ccac/Initiatives/HeavyDutyDieselVehiclesandEngines/tabid/130319/lan
guage/en-US/Default.aspx
• Green Freight Asia: http://greenfreightasia.org
• Partnership on Sustainable Low Carbon Transport: http://www.slocat.net/

8.5.3 Other Resources

• NRCan and SmartWay’s SmartDriver E-learning:

http://fleetsmartlearning.nrcan.gc.ca/Saba/Web/Main

8-6
• EPA Heavy-Duty Regulations and Standards: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regs-heavy-
duty.htm
• NHTSA Fuel Economy website: http://www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy
• CARB Heavy-Duty Greenhouse Gas Regulation: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/hdghg/hdghg.htm
• Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator: http://epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-
resources/calculator.html
• Detailed EPA emissions standards document: http://epa.gov/oms/highway-diesel/regs/diesel-
engine-standards.htm
• SmartWay Verified Technologies list: http://www.epa.gov/cleandiesel/verification/verif-
list.htm
• National Clean Diesel Verified Technologies list:
http://www.epa.gov/cleandiesel/verification/verif-list.htm
• California Air Resources Board Verified Technologies list:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/vt/cvt.htm
• National Academy of Sciences technology overview:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12845

8.5.4 Region-Specific Articles and Other Resources

8.5.4.1 Asia

• Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities Center (2011). Design of Green Freight China Program:
Review of Freight Logistics Solutions. Retrieved from
http://cleanairinitiative.org/portal/sites/default/files/2c._GFCP_-
_Review_of_Green_Freight_Logistics_Solutions_-_May2011.pdf
• Clean Air Asia (2012). Evaluating impact of green freight technologies. Presentation to
Better Air Quality conference. Retrieved from http://www.gms-
eoc.org/uploads/resources/141/attachment/Gota_CAI_evaluating_impact_green_freight_tech
nologies.pdf
• U.N. Centre for Regional Development (2011). Best Practices in Green Freight for an
Environmentally Sustainable Road Freight Sector in Asia. Retrieved from
http://cleanairinitiative.org/portal/sites/default/files/BGP-
EST5A_Green_Freight_Best_Practices_-_CAI-Asia_Dec2011.pdf.

8.5.4.2 Africa

• World Bank (2012). Towards sustainable transport under SSATP DP2: Building support for
an environmentally sustainable transport forum in Africa. Presentation to SSATP Annual
Meeting. Retrieved from
http://www4.worldbank.org/afr/ssatp/Resources/HTML/Conferences/Addis12/Tuesday/04_S
ustainable%20Transport%20Forum_FR-EN/01-Sustainable-Transport-Forum_EN.pdf.

8-7
• De Swardt, A. (2007). Green supply chains—The best of planet and profit. Retrieved from
http://www.enviropaedia.com/topic/default.php?topic_id=349.
• 25degrees.net (2012). Fuelling green transport. 25º in Africa 7(6). Retrieved from
http://www.25degrees.net/component/k2/item/1718-fuelling-green-transport-.html.

8.5.4.3 Latin America

• Clean Air Institute (n.d.) The Clean Air Institute: Reducing emissions from transport.
Presentation to the Working Meeting for Black Carbon Emissions Reductions from Heavy
Duty Vehicles and Engines. Retrieved from
http://www.unep.org/ccac/Portals/50162/docs/Diesel_Presentations/JOANNE_GREEN_CLE
AN_AIR_INSTITUTE.pdf.

8.5.4.4 Europe

• Dow (2012). Dow engaged in sustainable transportation at launch ceremony for Green
Freight Europe. Press release. Retrieved from http://www.dow.com/news/press-
releases/article/?id=5683.

8.5.4.5 International Logistics

• DHL (2014). Green solutions for air, ocean and road freight. Retrieved from
http://www.dhl.com/en/about_us/green_solutions/air_ocean_road_freight.html.

8-8
 Appendix A
Interview Questions for Green Freight Program Representatives
1) What elements of your program are the most successful and worthy of highlighting in the
Technical Background Document?

2) What lessons or best practices have you learned over the course of your program’s
development? i.e., What could have been done differently to improve the effectiveness and
extent of your program?

3) What recommendations do you have regarding best practices for green freight program
design, development and implementation? (Break down by: 1) program design and features,
2) program implementation (e.g., stakeholders and partner engagement), 3) Administration
and management, and 4) program growth and expansion)

4) What data do you most need in order to improve program performance? What constraints
limit your access to this data?

5) What limits the growth of your program? What are the greatest challenges that you foresee?
(e.g., institutional, regulatory, funding, market factors, information, other factors?)

6) What types of resources would be most valuable in overcoming these obstacles, helping you
to sustain and grow your program? (Financial, staff training, educational outreach, other)

7) What international resources are you, or do you plan to, take advantage of? (information
from other programs, Green Freight Charter, COFRET, other)

8) Do you see opportunities with coordinating or collaborating between your program and
others at the global level? If so, what do you envision as the goal?

9) The CCAC GF initiative hopes to encourage the integration and harmonization of national
and regional green freight programs over time, creating a global standard for freight carrier
performance assessments and benchmarking. What opportunities or advantages do you see
with cooperating and harmonizing with other programs? Do you anticipate institutional
limitations or other constraints?

A-1
 Appendix B
CCAC Stakeholder Proposal, Executive Brief, and Call to Action
 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION PROPOSAL
Developing a Global Green Freight Action Plan
Background
• The Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC) is developing a Global Green Freight Action Plan to provide
a blueprint and roadmap for the advancement and harmonization of Green Freight programs globally
with the aim of reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) and black carbon (BC) emissions. Please see the
Executive Brief and Call To Action, attached for more information.

What is being proposed?

• The CCAC is seeking the participation of industry-leading multinational firms who ship or carry goods
through a multimodal supply chain, CCAC member countries, development banks, civil society and
other stakeholders to provide input, insight and guidance on the development of a Global Green
Freight Action Plan.

Who will participate?

• Freight logistics firms, carriers and shippers in retail, manufacturing and other key economic sectors
are invited to designate a transportation, logistics or environmental leader from within the
organization to participate in a near term stakeholder process.
• Government officials from CCAC member countries are invited to lend expertise and resources to
participate in this process, in addition to providing political support and engagement on a global scale.
• The Green Freight Steering Group leads the process with government officials from the U.S. and
Canada, the International Council for Clean Transportation, World Bank, Clean Air Asia, and Smart
Freight Centre.

What is the process and when and where is participation needed?

• A series of roundtable meetings, conference calls and discussions will form a consultative process
through which firms and CCAC member countries will be invited to provide leadership, input, insight
and guidance on the needs, challenges and opportunities to develop and launch a Global Green
Freight Action Plan. The consultative process will commence spring 2014 and conclude with the
launch of the Action Plan by December 2014. Companies, countries and other stakeholders will be
asked to:

1) Assist with the development of the Global Green Freight Action Plan: May – August 2014
• Provide input, insight and information for the development of the Action Plan with emphasis
on needs of countries, industry and marketplace, best practices, lessons learned from existing
Green Freight programs, gaps and global needs.
• Roles and commitments of the various stakeholders and participants will be defined in the
Action Plan, with emphasis on how each will contribute to the successful implementation of
the Plan.

2) Champion and endorse the Global Green Freight Action Plan: May – December 2014
• Stakeholders may be invited to join the United Nations Secretary General Climate Summit
Sept 23rd in New York to announce their commitment and progress on developing the Action
Plan.

B-1
 • As industry leaders, companies will be encouraged to lead the way for their peers, including
promoting and educating others through forums, meetings, and other outreach, as well as
commitments to participate in the implementation of Green Freight programs in the countries
in which they operate.
• Governmental engagement at the Ministerial level will support the piloting of Green Freight
programs in three CCAC member countries, with the participation of CCAC and other
stakeholders.
3) Implement the Global Green Freight Action Plan: December 2014 and onward
• All stakeholders will be invited to participate at a launch press event in late 2014 or early 2015
to share global efforts and announce finalization and launch of the Action Plan.
• Stakeholders will commit to use the Action Plan as a template or roadmap for their firms and
their industry, to move forward and support ongoing development and implementation.
• Governments, civil society, development banks and other stakeholders will also participate
and have clear roles in implementing the Plan.

What are the benefits of participating?

• Industry leaders committed to shaping the marketplace and public policy landscape have the
opportunity to provide input to policy makers at a global level, and drive the advancement of Green
Freight initiatives globally.
• Stakeholders will gain opportunities to assert their corporate citizenship and create visibility for their
leadership with policy makers in countries where they have operations.
• Firms can help guide the evolution of global efforts in ways that enhance their competitiveness,
generate cost savings, and develop markets.
• Countries can build capacity to develop their own Green Freight initiatives based on established
efforts.
• Civil society, development banks and other stakeholders can help advance their sustainability and
development agendas.

What are the goals and outcomes?

Once fully implemented, the Action Plan will help ensure that complementary multimodal Green Freight
programs will have been implemented at the national or regional level in many of the world’s largest
economies with the aim to reduce CO2 and BC from goods movement. Multinational shippers and carriers
of freight will be able to optimize multimodal freight supply chain energy and environmental efficiency
across the network of these programs. A global network of Green Freight programs will provide for
programs and supporting engagement which will ideally have some or all of these common features:
• Voluntary public-private partnerships, that support and complement efforts to reduce emissions,
based on market mechanisms, information sharing and training;
• Supply chain freight transportation carbon quantification, through the use of harmonized reporting
and benchmarking methods and tools, that will allow for mode and carrier optimization and ongoing
efficiency improvement;
• Quantifiable fuel and cost savings which subsequently produce health and climate benefits through
the reduction of CO2 and BC;
• Technology verification programs, which can quantify the fuel and cost savings of technologies and
strategies, and accelerate their adoption in the marketplace;
• Financing and incentive programs which facilitate retrofits of emission reducing technologies on in-
use vehicles and/or fleet turnover;
• Promotion and sharing of operational strategies which further reduce emissions and costs; and

B-2
• Freight performance reporting, disclosure and data sharing, freight supply chain assessment, mode
and carrier optimization, across mode, regions and programs (via global information sharing
platform).

For More Information Please Contact:

Environment Canada U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Sonja Henneman Buddy Polovick
+ 1-819-953-9483 +1-734-214-4928
sonja.henneman@ec.gc.ca polovick.buddy@epa.gov

B-3
 EXECUTIVE BRIEF
8.6 Introduction

Green freight and logistics organizations are beginning to lead global discussions on the reduction of
greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide (CO2), climate forcing agents such as black carbon (BC), (a
component of fine particulate matter), and other conventional air pollutants. From global initiatives by
the private sector to unifying methodologies for calculating emissions of freight services, to regional and
national programs aimed at finding appropriate implementation measures for local circumstances, the
drivers for and the approaches to green freight and logistics are multiplying.

This document outlines the role of the Climate and Clean Air Coalition in helping to ensure that these
programs and methodologies are coming together at a global level to result in a harmonized, compatible
approach to measuring and reducing the emissions of CO2 and BC from the freight sector.

What is the Climate and Clean Air Coalition?

The Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC) to Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants (SLCPs) is a growing
voluntary international coalition of State and non-State Partners who have pledged to enhance global,
regional, and national public and private efforts to reduce SLCPs with an initial focus on methane, black carbon
(soot) and many hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). The CCAC is the first global effort to treat SLCPs as an urgent and
collective action.

SLCPs are chemical agents that have a relatively short-life time in the atmosphere – a few days to a few
decades – and a warming influence on climate. Some SLCPs are also dangerous air pollutants and can have
detrimental impacts on human health, agriculture and ecosystems.

The CCAC carries out its core functions by:

• raising awareness of SLCPs and their impacts;
• enhancing existing and developing new national actions to reduce SLCPs;
• encouraging existing and new regional actions, and promoting opportunities for greater international
coordination;
• reinforcing and tracking existing efforts to reduce SLCPs and developing and improving inventories;
• identifying barriers to action and seeking to surmount them;
• promoting best practices or available technologies and showcasing efforts to address SLCPs;
• improving understanding of and reviewing scientific progress on SLCPs, their impacts and the benefits
of mitigation, and disseminating knowledge; and
• mobilizing targeted support for those developing countries that require resources to develop their
capacity and to implement actions consistent with national strategies to support sustainable
development.

Since its launch, the CCAC has made substantial progress with over 80 State and non-State Partners providing
political and technical support and resources to reduce SLCPs through ten focal areas or “initiatives”. One of
the first initiatives to be approved by the Coalition was the initiative Reducing Black Carbon Emissions from
What
Heavyis theDiesel
Duty CCAC Heavy
Vehicles andDuty Diesel Vehicles and Engines Initiative (HDDI)?
Engines.

Additional information on the CCAC can be found at:

http://www.unep.org/ccac/Home/tabid/101612/Default.aspx

B-4
8.7 The CCAC Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicles and Engines Initiative: Green Freight
The strength of the CCAC comes from its broad-based partnership of over 80 governments,
intergovernmental organizations and international non-government organizations working together
under a voluntary international framework to support concrete actions to reduce short-lived climate
pollutants from key source sectors. In determining the Coalitions’ activities, Partners take into account
the catalytic effect of the activity to complement, scale-up, accelerate, and leverage existing efforts
beyond the Coalition.

The objective of the Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicles and Engines initiative (HDDI) under the CCAC is to virtually
eliminate fine particles, including black carbon emissions from new and existing heavy duty diesel vehicles
and engines. Black carbon is a potent, near term climate pollutant of which diesel engines are a major
source.

In order to make the largest impact, CCAC Partners have agreed that the HDDI will focus on four main
elements:

• Country and regional work to support the establishment of more stringent emission standards
with interested nations and parties;
• Development of a global strategy to reduce sulfur in diesel fuel;
• Efforts to clean up existing fleets, especially in cities and ports; and
• A green freight initiative to enhance existing global, regional and national public and private
green freight efforts.

Recognizing the need for coordination and collaboration at a global level, and the ability of the CCAC to
catalyze action by leveraging high–level government and non-government support for the continued
development of green freight programs, CCAC Partners adopted a Green Freight Call to Action at the High
Level Assembly in Warsaw Poland in November 2013 (attached).

In making the Green Freight Call to Action, CCAC Partners committed to providing a forum to foster
cooperation among countries, and with international organizations and a platform from which to engage
the private sector and other stakeholders in the development and deployment of a Global Green Freight
Action Plan that can be implemented through public-private partnerships worldwide. The Green Freight
Action Plan is to be finalized by December 2014.

The Action Plan will clearly define roles, responsibilities and opportunities for governments, private sector,
civil society and other stakeholders. While the CCAC will support the development and launch of the
Global Green Freight Action Plan, it is intended that this plan will act as a catalyst for stakeholder
engagement and cooperation over the coming years. The development of the Green Freight Action Plan
is led by Canada, the United States, the International Council for Clean Transportation (ICCT), World Bank,
Clean Air Asia and Smart Freight Centre.

8.8 About Green Freight

“Green Freight” within the context of the CCAC Green Freight Initiative

For the purposes of the CCAC Green Freight Initiative, the term “Green Freight” is defined as activities
that could reduce the energy use and emissions footprint of the in-use freight fleet with a combination of

B-5
market-driven voluntary actions undertaken by private sector stakeholders (carriers, shippers, and
logistics providers), in partnership with governmental or administrative authorities. This may include the
adoption of uniform systems to measure the carbon footprint of a supply chain, and/or the adoption of
various after-market technologies (such as low rolling resistance tires, aerodynamics, telematics devices,
etc.) and strategies (such as modal shifts, for example from truck to rail) that increase vehicle fuel-
efficiency, drawing on the experience of programs such as the SmartWay Transport Partnership in the U.S.
and Canada.

Why is the CCAC promoting the development of Green Freight programs globally?
1. An Efficient Global Freight Sector Is Essential to Sustainable Economic Growth
The strength of national, regional and global economies is becoming more dependent on growing
international trade, raising the significance and impact of having an efficient and competitive freight
transport sector. The continued growth in the globalization of supply chains means that an energy efficient
and sustainable global freight industry is essential to economic growth and sustainable development
across the world.

2. Goods Movement Has Significant Environmental Impacts

Globally, CO2 emissions from freight transport are growing at a faster rate than passenger vehicles. In
particular, heavy duty vehicles, the workhorse of the freight sector, are expected to be the largest emitters
of CO2 from all transportation modes by 2035 if left unaddressed. Therefore, improving the energy and
environmental efficiency of the freight transport sector is a critical element of reducing global black
carbon and CO2 emissions.

Heavy duty vehicles will be the largest emitter of CO2 emissions by 2035
International Council for Clean Transportation (2013). Global Transportation Energy and Climate Roadmap

3. Powerful Market Forces Can Be Leveraged to Drive Demand for Green Freight
Multinational freight shippers are under increasing pressure from shareholders, customers, and insurers
to reduce their carbon footprint and the risks associated with higher fuel prices. These market forces can

B-6
be applied by global freight shippers to freight carriers and logistics providers, to drive freight
performance benchmarking and reporting as well as new efficiencies and emission reductions from their
freight supply chains. However, industry requires accurate and reliable performance benchmarking and
freight efficiency data in order to inform decision-making and optimize freight efficiency. Providing the
market with information about proven successful technologies and operational strategies to reduce the
emissions intensity of freight, can help bring these high-potential opportunities to scale.

How do green freight programs contribute to black carbon reductions?

Green freight programs reduce CO2 and BC emissions by improving the fuel efficiency of vehicle and
freight operations, which reduces fuel use and fuel expenditures, thus resulting in environmental, health,
and economic benefits simultaneously. In addition, green freight programs can provide the framework
needed to accelerate the adoption and penetration of cleaner fuels, particulate filters and other measures
to reduce particulate matter (i.e., black carbon) and other emissions from in-use vehicles.

What is the status of green freight programs around the world?

Green freight programs have been established in a number of countries and regions, including in many
CCAC Partner countries, and through public-private partnerships around the world. In North America, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) SmartWay Transport Partnership is the most-widely
adopted national program targeting the fuel efficiency of freight transport. SmartWay is a public-private
partnership launched in 2004 by the U.S. EPA, and its success has led to the Government of Canada
adopting the program in 2012. In addition to the SmartWay Transport Partnership, other national green
freight programs exist in various countries such as Mexico, China, France, Korea, Japan and Australia.

As these countries demonstrate success, other countries such as India, Thailand, Vietnam, Laos, Indonesia
and others around the world have begun to initiate policy discussions within their governments and
industries to move towards greener freight and logistics. Efforts of development banks such as the Asian
Development Bank, development agencies such as GIZ, non-government organizations such as Clean Air
Asia, and intergovernmental organizations such as the United Nations Commission on Regional
Development (UNCRD) in Asia, are beginning to scale up green freight national programs on a regional
basis across Asia.

Furthermore, regional initiatives such as Green Freight Europe and Green Freight Asia have recently been
established by the private sector. Green Freight Europe was launched in 2012 as an independent voluntary
program for improving environmental performance of road freight transport in Europe involving more
than 100 multinational carriers, shippers and logistics service providers. Similarly, Green Freight Asia,
formally incorporated in October 2013, is a consortium of private sector companies that builds on the
success of Green Freight Europe and is working to expand their network of member countries and
partners. Both differ from SmartWay, in that they are administered by a consortium of private companies
and are not funded by a public agency.

These programs have demonstrated improved energy and environmental efficiency of freight
transportation, emissions reductions and cost savings which enhance energy security, improve public
health and support economic development. In addition, green freight programs have fostered the
accelerated adoption of advanced technologies and strategies in multimodal goods movement, including
through modal shifts, for example from truck to rail.

Other organizations and initiatives complement these global programs with supporting engagement. The
Clean Cargo Working Group was established for maritime freight and the International Air Transport

B-7
Association (IATA) initiated the Air Cargo Carbon Footprint initiative for the airline industry. The Smart
Freight Centre plays a critical role in the CCAC process by bringing together these industry-led initiatives
and leading companies through the Global Logistics Emissions Council to create global harmonized
methodologies. This important work supplements and strengthens the CCAC process by providing the
longer term facilitation of the harmonization process which the Action Plan will include.

8.9 The CCAC Global Green Freight Initiative:

What are the goals of the Green Freight Action Plan?
The goals of the Green Freight Action Plan are to:

• Provide a vision and framework that allows all relevant stakeholders to understand what is
needed to enhance freight sector energy and environmental efficiency and significantly reduce
CO2 and BC emissions from freight movement;
• Provide a common roadmap and blueprint that will catalyze the coordinated and ongoing
development of green freight programs between regions and countries, ease implementation,
and incorporate a large knowledge base of previous efforts;
• Ensure long term success by establishing roles and responsibilities for key actors to implement
and support the Action Plan after its launch, as well as clear benefits and opportunities leveraged
by participating in these efforts; and
• Provide a platform for companies and other stakeholder to share best practices and freight
efficiency data, promote innovation, and communicate sustainability improvements on freight.

What work has been accomplished so far under the Green Freight Initiative?
To support the Global Green Freight Action Plan, the Green Freight Steering Group has developed the
following documents:
• A SmartWay Transport Partnership Implementation Guide and Workbook to help build capacity
for other countries to design, build and implement their own green freight programs.
• A Technical Background Report to assess the available and proven fuel efficiency technologies for
all transport modes, as well as detailed summaries and analyses of the established green freight
programs globally.

The Steering Group is also in the process of identifying three countries with which to engage over the next
several months to build or enhance existing green freight programs.

8.10 Development of the Green Freight Action Plan: Barriers and Challenges
As part of the development of the Green Freight Action Plan, the CCAC Green Freight Steering Group has
identified some of the perceived barriers that limit the growth and expansion of green freight, from both
the private and public perspective, in order to understand what role and actions the CCAC could play in
advancing green freight. The barriers and potential actions by the CCAC, and subsequent stakeholder
engagement listed below, are for discussion with stakeholders from all sectors:

Barrier 1: Multimodal performance benchmarking tools are not available globally for multinational
companies to reliably and consistently measure, calculate, report and optimize their
emissions and fuel use. Without these tools, it is difficult for companies to compare and
benchmark their global, regional or national CO2 and BC emissions, across mode and/or

B-8
 between countries, nor to fully assess the efficiency of their freight operations internally, nor
compare with their industry peers.

Potential actions to overcome barrier:

• CCAC and participating partners will provide initial training and support to advance the
adoption of the tools to measure and calculate freight transport emissions for
national/regional green freight programs.
• CCAC will initiate work with three countries to help build and demonstrate freight
transportation calculation and reporting tools.
• CCAC will provide initial support to interested governments via training and capacity building,
e.g., sharing best practices and lessons learned to facilitate the calculation and reporting of
freight emissions through policies and national green freight programs.
• The Global Green Freight Action Plan will be designed to facilitate ongoing longer term
collaboration and facilitation through organizations such as the Smart Freight Centre.

Barrier 2: The lack of harmonization between the different existing freight emissions reporting systems
is creating an added burden for companies that have global freight operations and is limiting
the efficiency and efficacy of their reporting.

Potential actions to overcome barrier:

• The Global Green Freight Action Plan will showcase research on the different existing freight
emissions and reporting systems.
• CCAC will support initial discussions between national, regional, global and private reporting
systems on opportunities for harmonization of reporting methodologies.
• CCAC will seek to leverage Ministerial level support and other global policy making influence
to advance the collective public and private sector goals of harmonizing green freight
programs, tools and methods.
• CCAC will work with new enterprises such as the Smart Freight Centre, and its work with the
Global Logistics Emissions Council as well as within existing global dialogues committed to carry
on this harmonization work.

Barrier 3: CO2 and not black carbon, has been the focus of currently existing green freight reporting
systems. Without including black carbon in the tools, it is difficult for the private sector to
measure and manage their black carbon emissions.

Potential actions to overcome barrier:

• The Global Green Freight Action Plan could showcase a review of existing tools and assess the
viability of incorporating black carbon into these tools.

Barrier 4: Credible information is essential for carriers and shippers to gain the confidence that the
available fuel savings technologies and strategies are technically, practically and financially
feasible.

Potential actions to overcome barrier:

• CCAC will facilitate initial discussions with governments to incorporate technology verification
and certification into their national green freight programs and to seek harmonization with
other countries where applicable.

B-9
 • The Global Green Freight Action Plan will establish roles for governments and industry-led
initiatives to support the piloting of technologies and strategies and sharing the results of these
pilots with carriers and shippers across a trusted platform.

Barrier 5: Other than cost savings from fuel efficiency gains, and compliance where regulatory pressures
exist, additional incentives may be needed for multinational firms to invest in green freight
programs, technologies and strategies to reduce CO2 and BC.

Potential actions to overcome barriers:

• The Global Green Freight Action Plan will seek the input, insight and engagement of firms to
better understand the needs and challenges they face, and thus work to advance globally
harmonized green freight policies and programs which make sense for industry.
• CCAC will create greater visibility at the global, regional and national level for firms who elect
to support and advance global green freight efforts.
• CCAC will enhance education and recognition efforts for industry leaders who support green
freight efforts, including global forums and recognition events.
• The Global Green Freight Action Plan will be designed to facilitate ongoing longer term
collaboration.

Outstanding Questions for Discussion:

• Are there other barriers that limit the growth of green freight?
• Are there other suggestions on actions that are required to overcome the identified barriers?
• What roles do freight stakeholders envision as the most appropriate for their organizations?
• How can governments and civil society best help business and industry advance freight efficiency
goals?
• What opportunities or incentives can be developed to advance green freight and grow support?
How can the CCAC best ensure that the Global Green Freight Action Plan will continue to be
implemented and supported by governments, industry and civil society after its launch?

B-10
 HLA/NOV2013/3
Adopted for support by the High Level Assembly, 21 November 2013, Warsaw

CLIMATE AND CLEAN AIR COALITION TO REDUCE SHORT-LIVED CLIMATE

POLLUTANTS
Green Freight Call to Action

The movement of freight is a major and rapidly increasing contributor of black carbon and
carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Black carbon is a powerful climate forcer and a dangerous air
pollutant with multiple impacts on health and ecosystems.

The Climate and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants (CCAC) is a
growing voluntary international partnership, bringing together over 70 State and non-State
Partners pledged to enhancing global, regional, and national public and private efforts to reduce
SLCPs with an initial focus on black carbon, methane and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). As part
of its initiative on Reducing Black Carbon Emissions from Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicles and
Engines, the CCAC is working to achieve substantial reductions of fine particulate matter and
black carbon emissions from the transportation sector.

As Partners in the CCAC, we declare our determination to improve the energy efficiency and
environmental performance of freight operations worldwide.

In a number of countries, including CCAC Partner countries, public-private partnerships through

“green freight” programs have demonstrated the capacity to improve the environmental
performance and energy efficiency of freight transportation, as well as enhance the energy
security of participating countries while reducing emissions of black carbon and CO2. Significant
efficiency gains and emissions reductions can be achieved by accelerating the adoption of
advanced technologies and strategies in multimodal goods movement, including through modal
shifts, for example from truck to rail. Such measures would also deliver considerable clean air
and near term climate protection benefits.

Many countries and private sector associations are in various stages of developing and
implementing green freight programs. Greater consistency between programs through
performance benchmarking, tools, metrics, and methods will facilitate the improvement of the
environmental performance of the international movement of goods in an economically efficient
way. The result will be a pathway for protecting public health, reducing near term climate
change, and enhancing energy security and sustainable economic development.

Recognizing existing efforts, we, the CCAC Partners, will provide a forum to foster cooperation
among countries and with international organizations, and a platform from which to engage with
the private sector to expand and harmonize green freight programs.

In making this Green Freight Call to Action, we, the CCAC Partners, will collaborate with
stakeholders to develop and deploy a coordinated Global Green Freight Action Plan that can be
implemented through public-private partnerships worldwide. The Action Plan will provide a
common roadmap that can help to harmonize and coordinate the development of green freight
programs, ease implementation, and incorporate a large knowledge base of previous efforts. It

B-0
will also provide a platform for companies to share best practices, promote innovation, and
communicate sustainability improvements on road freight.

We recognize that participation from the private sector is critical for the success of this initiative
and invite multinational shippers and cargo owners, their freight transportation carriers, and third
party logistics companies as well as other global stakeholders to join the effort and engage with
the CCAC in the development and launch of a Global Green Freight Action Plan by December
2014. We will take stock of progress at our next High Level Assembly.

B-1