Advertisement

EPA Proposes 10-to-20-Percent Gas Mileage Rise for Big Trucks

Follow John

New EPA rules taking effect in six years could mean big pollution cuts in tractor trailers — and big diesel price increases, say the oil companies.

New EPA rules taking effect in six years could mean big pollution cuts in tractor trailers — and big diesel price increases, say the oil companies.

Well, now we know the numbers. And there are a lot of them.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Transportation jointly proposed cutting greenhouse-gas emissions from medium and heavy duty trucks by 10 to 20 percent, starting in 2014 and extending through 2018. (The actual numbers vary greatly depending on the class of truck, of which there are many.)

That equates to raising the gas mileage for those vehicles by the same percentage. And because those trucks' fuel efficiency is so low to start with (anywhere from 4 to 10 miles per gallon), proponents say that even a 10- or 15-percent improvement could save enough money to cover the extra cost of necessary new technology.

10 to 20 percent, plus AC

For combination tractors, the propsed rules reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and fuel consumption up 20 percent from 2014 to 2018.

Heavy-duty pickups and vans will have separate standards depending on their engines; gasoline engines will emit up to 10 percent less, diesels up to 15 percent less. An additional 2 percent for each will come from reducing the leakage of greenhouse gases from those vehicles' air-conditioning systems.

And finally, for the huge category of heavy trucks known as "vocational vehicles" (special-purpose trucks for specific industries), the reductions will be up to 10 percent by 2018

The emissions rules measure not grams per mile of carbon emitted, as for passenger cars, but grams per ton-mile of carbon--reflecting an attempt to apply a single measurement across a huge variety of vehicle types. Similarly, fuel economy is not measured in miles per gallon but in consumption, using gallons per ton-mile.

Ray LaHood and President Barack Obama

Ray LaHood and President Barack Obama

Enlarge Photo

U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson held a press conference this afternoon at which they announced the proposal. It applies only to on-road vehicles, meaning that mining trucks and similar specialized equipment is not covered.

'Win-win-win': $70 billion could be saved

Margo Oge, director of the EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality, told the Detroit News last week that the rules would be "historic," saying they would "advance energy security, climate change and will be a win-win situation."

Secretary LaHood added a third "win," saying that the rules would reduce reliance on oil, strengthen the country's energy security, and help mitigate climate change.

Last May, the EPA estimated the savings at 500 million barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicles, representing $70 billion in foregone diesel fuel costs. Net benefits to truckers, LaHood said, could be as high as $35 billion after the increased costs of higher-efficiency trucks.

Engines, tires, aero, and idling

Those costs would represent smaller, more fuel-efficient engines, lower rolling resistance tires, aerodynamic improvements, and a reduction in engine idling when vehicles are stopped. The agencies consider all of those "currently available" technologies, without radical new engineering required to implement them.

A reduction in idling, especially among certain types of semis and sleeper trucks that may idle up to 7 hours a day, could have huge paybacks. In the case of tractor-trailers, senior agency officials said, incremental costs of $6,000 or less could produce a lifetime payback of as much as $74,000.

The rules have been a long time coming, and they represent the first time that fuel economy requirements have been levied on the medium and heavy duty truck segments, whose carbon emissions represent approximately 20 percent of the transportation sector's total.


Advertisement
 
Follow Us

 

Have an opinion?

  • Posting indicates you have read this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use
  • Notify me when there are more comments
Comments (4)
  1. Got to wonder why the "free market" hasn't been supplying higher efficiency trucks already. Fleet managers are clearly interested. But perhaps it takes some arm twisting of the government to make it happen.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  2. No fleet operator wants to cough up the cash for such improvements because 1) they are political dictates that are easily retracted, and 2) the ROI may not pencil out if oil/gas/diesel prices stay where they are. The logical thing to do is institute a significant gas tax ($1+) whose proceeds ONLY go to pay down the national debt. Send the funds in any other direction and politicians are sure to lose (more of) the public's confidence.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  3. I'm not paying a penny back to the Chinese for all the crap they sent our way on their fixed yuan. We should just default one day. I also hope that nukes, switch grass, and alt. electricity will solve most of our energy needs and cut off the saudis - one can always hope - otherwise we'll become the third world nation as the current #1 destination for poor and uneducated third-world country residents (legal and illegal)...
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  4. Another good aspect are the jobs created to make this technology available. Thousands of skilled engineers are required to perform these improvements.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

 

Have an opinion? Join the conversation!

Advertisement
Advertisement

Find Green Cars

Go!

Advertisement

 
© 2014 Green Car Reports. All Rights Reserved. Green Car Reports is published by High Gear Media. Send us feedback. Stock photography by izmo, Inc.