Navigating the road to zero-emission trucking

From the March-April 2025 edition of Supply Chain Management Review.

March-April 2025

Inside this month's issue of Supply Chain Management Review, we look at the complicated process of managing parts for military aircraft and what private sector supply chain managers can learn. Plus, understanding…

Browse this issue archive.

Access your online digital edition.

Download a PDF file of the March-April 2025 issue.

The state of California recently withdrew from a mandate that would have required truckers to buy battery-electric and hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles. The retreat is part of a changing carbon emissions-reduction landscape in the U.S., shaped largely by the new Trump administration. As these changes take effect, this is an ideal time for shippers, carriers, and brokers to reassess their strategy and develop a cohesive approach to carbon reduction.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, transportation was responsible for 28% of U.S. GHG emissions in 2022, the largest share of any sector, with medium and heavy-duty trucks contributing 23% of transportation’s GHG load.

To help trucking companies understand future emissions demands, the MIT Center for Transportation & Logistics hosted a roundtable titled Approaching Zero Emission Trucking: Challenges and Opportunities, on Nov. 6-7, 2024. The MIT FreightLab and the MIT Sustainable Supply Chain Lab facilitated the event, bringing together 30 stakeholders, including motor carriers, shippers, brokers, non-government organizations, researchers, and government experts. 

Weighing the options

Carbon emissions for a vehicle can be divided into two phases: well-to-tank for the production and distribution of the fuel and tank-to-wheel for the operational stage. Over the last decade, significant regulatory preference has been for transitioning all vehicles from internal combustion engines (ICE) to battery electric vehicles (BEV). Considering just the operational or “tank-to-wheel” phase of a truck’s lifecycle, BEV is essentially the only choice for zero-emission trucks. The technology is well-developed, there are various EV models to choose from, and government tax incentives can enhance this option.

However, Class 8 electric trucks are relatively expensive, “a $350,000 asset,” said one roundtable participant. Other classes of vehicles are less costly by comparison. A shipper with a fleet of last-mile delivery vans maintained that smaller EVs could be less expensive than equivalent gasoline-powered units.

When comparing EVs to other low-carbon freight transportation options, operational factors must be considered. Variables such as load weight, route topography, and driver behavior influence a vehicle’s travel range per charge. A roundtable attendee gets around 250 miles on a single charge for its EV-supported drayage operation. In contrast, a shipper achieves a single-charge range of over 400 miles but limits its private fleet vehicles’ geographic area of operation. Differences in electricity charges also affect the economics of EVs.

Serious doubts about the effectiveness of a single solution, BEVs, in reducing carbon emissions during the entire well-to-wheel lifecycle surfaced at the roundtable. Industry research on the total emissions generated by EVs (including external sources such as the emissions from mining the lithium required to make batteries) found only a 30% reduction in carbon footprints compared to vehicles that burn diesel fuel, when considering the entire well-to-wheel lifecycle. 

Still, some participants were optimistic that Class 8 EVs would gain ground. “The economics are starting to look more attractive. If we can make the economics work in the U.S., that will incent adoption,” said a shipper. However, “making the economics work” is a massive challenge limiting widespread adoption.  

Many participants’ main grievance with the single-minded push to BEVs is that it dictates a solution and thereby discourages and penalizes any innovation attempts that do not use electric vehicles. The objective of the regulations should be to lead to the continuing reduction of carbon emissions by all players. Keeping this strict goal but staying flexible on how different companies reduce their emissions is a better regulatory approach. 

There are many other options for significantly reducing trucking emissions. These include the use of different fuels. Biodiesel, renewable diesel, and renewable natural gas are among the “green” fuels roundtable participants use. Factors to consider when evaluating these alternatives include varying fuel energy density, cost differences, and availability across the U.S. It was also pointed out that even “clean” fuels generate pollutants when combusted. According to one attendee, it costs about $30,000 to modify a truck to burn 100% renewables. However, another company blends biodiesel and regular diesel without significantly modifying its trucks. A major national carrier described natural gas as the fuel of the future since it can reduce emissions by about 70%. However, new engine technology is required for natural gas to become a top choice for truckers.

Speed bumps

Regardless of their chosen path, companies must navigate a bumpy road to achieving net—or near-net-zero trucking. Here are some of the main obstacles highlighted at the roundtable.

Measuring and reporting emissions. Emissions-reduction goals vary widely from company to company. One enterprise at the roundtable aims to achieve a 32% carbon reduction by 2034, but others have set more modest targets implemented over 5, 10, and 20-year time frames. 

There was much uncertainty over how to measure and allocate GHG emissions to the emitters involved. Examples of approaches used include tallying gallons of fuel purchased and measuring ton-miles. A participant commented that the more granular the measurements, the more difficult it is to maintain a high level of accuracy. The task can be made easier by focusing on factors significantly impacting emissions reduction. Measuring methods should incorporate decision “levers,” such as new equipment purchase plans, suggested an MIT CTL researcher at the event.

There are many other options for significantly reducing trucking emissions. These include the use of different fuels. Biodiesel, renewable diesel, and renewable natural gas are among the “green” fuels roundtable participants use. Factors to consider when evaluating these alternatives include varying fuel energy density, cost differences, and availability across the U.S. It was also pointed out that even “clean” fuels generate pollutants when combusted. According to one attendee, it costs about $30,000 to modify a truck to burn 100% renewables. However, another company blends biodiesel and regular diesel without significantly modifying its trucks. A major national carrier described natural gas as the fuel of the future since it can reduce emissions by about 70%. However, new engine technology is required for natural gas to become a top choice for truckers.

Whichever approach is used, emissions reporting can be a significant challenge. Participants noted that RFPs from large customers increasingly require minimum scores on sustainability practices. Gaining certifications from organizations like EPA SmartWay can help companies meet these demands. However, the certification process can be onerous. A roundtable company said that preparing a submission can take over 100 hours. Another participant described how it had to create a special supplier code of conduct to support its emissions reduction program.

The discussions also touched on what motivates companies to measure and report truck-related carbon emissions, given this is not a simple task. Motor carriers take on the work for two key reasons: to comply with regulations and to demonstrate their achievements to customers and investors.

Where is the ROI? Setting goals for cutting GHG emissions may be laudable but challenging without a sound economic case for the required investments. Every carrier at the roundtable agreed that most customers are unwilling to share the financial burden of these programs, even if they incur relatively modest charge increases of $60 to $90 per load.

Burdensome regulations. Complying with the patchwork of GHG emissions regulations at state and local levels in the U.S. imposes significant cost burdens on carriers and shippers.

Some delegates at the roundtable wondered whether states might become more aggressive if the new federal administration loosens environmental regulations. For example, an NGO at the event cited a consortium of 17 states that wants 30% of new heavy-duty vehicles to be net-zero models by 2030.

Technology and infrastructure barriers. According to participants, one of the top impediments to net-zero trucking is expanding battery capacity and range for Class 8 trucks. Another barrier is a lack of high-capacity electric supply. Utilities can take three to five years to provide the necessary supply infrastructure. Also, the lack of charging stations on interstate and state highways severely constrains EV travel. So, even if the BEV option was economically viable for trucking companies, the supporting infrastructure is years or decades away. 

Next steps

The roundtable discussions underscored all stakeholders’ need for vigorous and widespread innovation. The goal of dramatically reducing trucking emissions should be kept as a strict target while remaining flexible on how companies achieve it. Transition paths from one technology to another are never smooth, continuous, and known in advance. Federal, state, and local governmental agencies must accept that there is no single solution to achieving net-zero trucking. Meeting this goal requires collaboration between the stakeholders and flexibility in approaches.

While flexibility is required in different approaches, the goals must be strictly defined, and the method of measuring, allocating, and reporting emissions must be standardized. 

In order to assist in decarbonizing the freight transportation industry, the MIT Center for Transportation & Logistics (MIT CTL) is forming a research consortium of shippers, brokers, and trucking companies. The MIT FreightLab and the MIT Sustainable Supply Chain Lab are collaborating to establish the Sustainable Transportation Consortium. This group will feature a strong governance framework incorporating representatives from all stakeholder groups, ensuring that diverse perspectives are considered in project selection and the overall
research agenda.

Possible projects among the many under consideration are the following:

• Exploring the environmental and operational trade-offs of different energy sources (like hydrogen, electricity, and so on) and the financial effects and long-term economic benefits of decarbonization strategies.
• Defining better strategies to estimate carbon emissions.
• Creating industry-wide sustainability standards to make green logistics practices more consistent and frameworks for cost-sharing models for sustainable investments.
• Developing mutually beneficial CO2 emissions allocations.

* Organizations interested in joining MIT CTL’s Sustainable Transportation Consortium should contact the authors for more information.

About the authors

Dr. Chris Caplice is founder and director of the MIT FreightLab and he can be contacted at [email protected]. Dr. Josué C. Velázquez Martinez is director of the MIT Sustainable Supply Chain Lab and he can be contacted at [email protected].

SC
MR