WORKING PAPER 2019-04

Zero-emission tractor-trailers in Canada

Author: Ben Sharpe Date: March 2019 Keywords: zero-emission vehicles, tractor-trailers, Canada, greenhouse gas emissions, technology cost

Introduction 100% There is growing interest in deploy- Other transport ing electrified drivetrains in heavy- Other 90% 13% duty freight vehicles for a number of reasons, including climate change, 80% Heavy energy diversification, and local air industry quality. Climate change provides a key overarching motivation for most major 70% Electricity national and local governments, and Light-duty vehicles the contribution of trucking activity 60% 49% to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions Buildings helps underscore the imperative to 50% focus not just on cars, but on heavy- duty freight vehicles as well. 40% Oil & gas As shown in Figure 1, the transpor- tation sector represents about 25% 30% of Canada’s CO -equivalent (CO e) 2 2 Heavy-duty emissions. Of that 25%, heavy-duty 20% trucks & rail trucks make up roughly 35% of trans- 38% port emissions (rail represents about 3 Transport 10% percentage points of the heavy-duty trucks and rail portion) and 8% of total 0% GHGs in Canada (Environment and Climate Change Canada 2018). Figure 1. Breakdown of CO2e emissions in Canada by sector in 2016 Figure 2 summarizes the breakdown of the vehicle population, travel activity, vehicle stock and 21% of total vehicle In Canada, the majority of goods that and GHG emissions for the on-road kilometers driven, heavy-duty freight are transported by road are borne by fleet in Canada. Heavy-duty trucks trucks accounted for approximately heavy-duty combination tractor-trail- account for a large and growing share 37% of the life-cycle road vehicle GHG ers. As a result, tractor-trailers account of local pollutant and GHG emissions. emissions (International Council on for the largest percentage of vehicle Despite representing merely 14% of the Clean Transportation 2019). kilometers traveled (VKT) and thus the

Acknowledgements: This study was funded by Transport Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada. This report reflects the views of the authors only and does not reflect the views or policies of the Government of Canada. The Government of Canada is not responsible for the accuracy or completeness of the report and does not endorse any products or companies mentioned. The author appreciates the reviews of Oscar Delgado, Felipe Rodriguez, and Nit Lutsey of the ICCT, as well as those by Transport Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada. Their input was helpful in strengthening the data sources and methodology used in this study.

© INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION, 2019 WWW.THEICCT.ORG ZERO-EMISSION TRACTOR-TRAILERS IN CANADA

most fuel consumption and emissions 100% Two- and three-wheelers from the heavy-duty vehicle sector. Buses Figure 3 illustrates the contribution of 80% tractor trucks to CO2e emissions from 2015 projected through 2050. Based Light-duty vehicles on business-as-usual vehicle efficiency 60% trends for policies currently in place, the share of fuel use and GHGs from tractor- 40% trailers is projected to grow from 18% in 2015 to 29% in 2050 (International 20% Council on Clean Transportation 2019). Freight trucks

Many governments seek to break 0% down barriers to decarbonize heavy- Vehicle population Annual kilometers Fuel use and CO2 duty freight trucks by leveraging progress on electric cars. Given the Figure 2. Canada vehicle stock, distance traveled, and life-cycle road transport GHG activity and emissions trends intro- emissions by vehicle type in 2015 duced above, it is increasingly clear that long-term climate and air-quality 100% goals will require that all major trans- 90% port modes move toward much lower emissions, including through the 80% broad application of plug-in electric and hydrogen fuel cell technology. 70% Many of these technologies, in greater Other on-road vehicles 60% use in light-duty vehicles, are also being explored for deployment in 50% heavy-duty freight vehicles. 40% To inform such government activities on zero-emission heavy-duty vehicles, 30% it is important to gain a clearer under- 20% standing of the potential viability for Heavy-duty freight trucks Percent of on- road vehicle emissions the various zero-emission heavy-duty 10% vehicle technologies. In this study, we focus on the following zero-emis- 0% 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 sion technology options, which are all in the very early stages of devel- Figure 3. Contribution of tractor-trailers in Canada to total CO e emissions from 2015 to 2050 opment and commercialization for 2 Class 7 and 8 trucks: hydrogen fuel of electric trucks in Canada: vehicle diesel for certain high-volume trucking cell, battery electric, and overhead weight and cold temperatures. We corridors in Canada. Finally, we sum- catenary electric. The primary objec- then assess vehicle-related cost of marize and discuss the results. tive of this study is to estimate the ownership for diesel, diesel hybrid, Canada-specific operations costs and natural gas, hydrogen fuel cell, battery CO e emissions for these zero-emis- Weight and temperature 2 electric, and overhead catenary trucks sion trucks as compared with their in the 2025–2030 time frame. We then considerations for battery diesel and natural gas counterparts. analyze these technologies by their electric tractor-trailers This research builds on an earlier ICCT life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, study (Moultak, Lutsey et al. 2017). While few zero-emission heavy-duty including upstream fuel cycle emis- commercial freight vehicles are on We first review the literature to sions. We next analyze the costs and the road today, a number of studies explore two issues that are of particu- emissions benefits of battery electric over the past five years have con- lar significance for the performance trucks compared with conventional sidered the feasibility of a variety of

2 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION WORKING PAPER 2019-04 ZERO-EMISSION TRACTOR-TRAILERS IN CANADA

technologies and their potential to Table 1. Parameters for battery electric tractor-trailer energy demand analysis reduce emissions. A previous ICCT paper summarizes several research Component Parameter Value Source studies that examine the technical Total tractor-trailer weight (kg) 36,287 - Chassis prospects and fuel use and emission Aerodynamic drag coefficient (-) 0.36 Tesla (2019) reduction potential of zero-emission Final drive Final drive ratio (-) 2.64 propulsion options for medium- and Drive tire coeff. of rolling resistance (CRR) 4.5 heavy-duty vehicles (Moultak, Lutsey Delgado & Wheel axle Steer tire CRR 4.3 et al. 2017). Those authors also discuss Lutsey (2015) Trailer tire C 4 the current state of technology and RR commercial status for zero-emission Accessories Electrical (kW) 1.35 options, including battery electric and Simulated hydrogen fuel cell, as well as electric energy demand Kilowatt-hours per kilometer 1.6 This study trucks that are dynamically charged at the wheels —via overhead catenary transmission, on-road conductive tracks, or in-road In terms of performance, there are two we analyzed the vehicle at 36,287 kg inductive wireless charging. areas that are of particular concern (80,000 lb), which is the weight limit for zero-emission trucks: heavier curb for the combination tractor-trailer Of these zero-emission options, (empty) weights of the vehicles and in many jurisdictions across North battery electric and hydrogen fuel reduced driving range in cold tem- America. Though this analysis is done cell trucks are emerging as the early peratures. In the following two sub- at 80,000 lb, an important consider- leaders in terms of prototypes and sections, we review the literature and ation is that while the large majority commercialization in the Class 7 and 8 use publicly available data to estimate of tractor-trailers in the United States 1 trucking space. In the past year, there the additional weight and cold-tem- are subject to an 80,000-lb weight have been product launch announce- perature impacts of a battery electric limit, Canada has a much larger per- ments from startups (e.g., Tesla, Thor, truck. Hydrogen fuel cell trucks are centage of tractor-trailers carrying Nikola) and more well-established not included in the weight analysis due heavier payloads. In Canada, where vehicle and engine manufacturers to limitations in our vehicle simula- tractor-trailers are often heavier than (e.g., Daimler, Cummins, Toyota). tion software. Regarding temperature, 120,000 lb, zero-emission trucks must Many of these companies have rolled data from several years of fuel cell bus operate at these heavy loads if they evaluations indicate that the range out prototypes and are in the begin- are going to eventually replace diesels and performance of fuel cell vehicles ning stages of deploying trucks into completely. real-world service in Canada and the is not compromised in cold weather United States. (Nikola Corporation (Eudy and Post 2018). For the remaining vehicle parameters, 2016, Claflin 2017, Visnic 2018, Daimler we used inputs based on a 2015 study Trucks North America LLC 2019, Tesla WEIGHT CONSIDERATIONS (Delgado and Lutsey 2015) and our 2019, Thor Trucks Inc. 2019). OF BATTERY ELECTRIC best judgment. We ran the vehicle over the highway cruise portion of Financial considerations aside, for TRACTOR-TRAILERS the Heavy Heavy-Duty Diesel Truck zero-emission trucks to reach large- For this analysis, we simulated a (HHDDT) cycle2, where speeds hover scale deployment, they must be able to generic electric truck in Autonomie around 105 km/h (65 mph). The result- meet or exceed the performance, reli- using the vehicle input parameters ing energy demand at the wheels is ability, and durability of diesel trucks. shown in Table 1. Autonomie is a vehicle approximately 1.6 kilowatt-hour per performance evaluation software kilometer (kWh/km). 1 In North America, a Class 7 truck is classified platform that was developed by the as a vehicle with a maximum weight U.S. Department of Energy’s Argonne (including payload) of 26,501 to 33,000 lb 2 The heavy heavy-duty diesel truck (HHDDT) and a Class 8 truck as greater than 33,000 National Laboratory (UChicago is a chassis dynamometer test that consists of lb. Virtually all tractor-trailers are either Class Argonne LLC 2019). With several four modes: idle, creep, transient, and cruise. 7 or 8 vehicles, though many other truck of the battery electric truck makers A fifth mode, also known as the high-speed and bus types are included in these weight cruise HHDDT65 cycle, represents higher categories (e.g., transit buses, refuse trucks, claiming their vehicles can perform speed freeway operation at 65 mph and delivery trucks, cement mixers). well at maximum allowable weight, combines elements of each of these modes.

WORKING PAPER 2019-04 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION 3 ZERO-EMISSION TRACTOR-TRAILERS IN CANADA

With this data point for total energy Table 2. Vehicle parameters for battery electric tractor-trailer energy demand analysis demand at the wheels, we are able to calculate an estimated weight of the Parameter Formula Value Source battery pack. Table 2 summarizes the A Power demand at the wheels (kWh/km) 1.6 This study various steps and data used in the cal- B Nominal range (km) 805 Tesla (2019) culation. With 1.6 kWh/km needed to C Usable battery capacity 80% Tesla (2019) power the truck, if we assume a range D Required battery pack size (kWh) A x B / C 1,643 - of 805 km (500 miles) and a usable EVANNEX (2019) 3 battery capacity of 80% , that results E Battery pack energy density (kWh/kg) 0.20 and author’s best in a battery size of roughly 1,640 kWh. judgment Based on information from existing F Battery pack weight (kg) D / E 8,378 - light-duty electric vehicles and G Motor rated power (kW) 175 Motor Trend (2017) assumed improvements that will be Number of motors needed for semi H 4 InsideEVs.com (2019) achieved for heavy-duty applications, truck we estimate a battery pack energy I Total rated power (kW) G x H 700 - density of 0.2 kWh/kg (EVANNEX Weight of motor, inverter, and gearbox J 0.88 Teslarati (2013) 2019). Dividing the battery size (1,643 (kg/kW) kWh) by 0.2 kWh/kg gives a total Weight of motor, inverter, and gearbox K I x J 618 - pack weight of about 8,400 kg. We (kg) then estimate the weight of the power Total weight of battery and power L F + K 8,996 - electronics (i.e., inverter, motors, and electronics (kg) gearboxes), again using data from the Weight of powertrain and fluids in diesel U.S. DOE, EERE M 3,000 passenger vehicle segment (Teslarati truck (kg) (2019) 2013, Motor Trend 2017, InsideEVs. NET ADDITIONAL WEIGHT OF BATTERY L – M 5,996 - com 2019). Altogether, we estimate ELECTRIC TRACTOR-TRAILER (kg) nearly 9,000 kg for the weight of the battery pack and power electron- ics. Removing the powertrain and 7,000 900 fluids from a diesel truck eliminates 800 6,000 about 3,000 kg (U.S. Department of Net additional weight, holding range constant (805 km) 700 Energy: Office of Energy Efficiency 5,000 600 and Renewable Energy 2019), so the 4,000 500 electric truck in this example would Resulting range, holding vehicle weight constant (36,287 kg) have a net weight increase of about 3,000 400

6,000 kg compared with a conven- 300 Range (km) tional vehicle. At roughly 36,300 kg, 2,000 200 the maximum payload a diesel truck 1,000 can haul is about 21,600 kg (assuming 100 roughly 14,700 kg empty weight). 0 0 Thus, the 6,000 kg of additional 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% Net additional weight vs. diesel truck (kg) weight of the battery electric truck Increase in battery pack energy density in this example represents a loss of Figure 4. Battery pack density impacts on electric tractor-trailer weight and range payload of 28%. This is a significant reduction in maximum payload, and are significant advances in battery pack. At the left end of the figure, the fleets that tend to carry heavy loads energy density. Even with a 50% baseline battery energy density is 0.2 would have great difficulty in deploy- improvement in energy density (0.3 kWh/kg, which increases in 10 percent- ing battery electric trucks unless there kWh/kg), the battery electric truck age point increments moving to the in this example would have a roughly right. The blue curve is the resulting 3 According to the CALSTART study on truck 3,200-kg loss of payload. additional net weight of the electric electrification (2014), fleets typically apply truck, assuming a constant range of a safety factor to the advertised maximum range limit. We use the same 80% value as in Figure 4 shows the impacts of increas- 805 km. For the electric truck in this the CALSTART analysis. ing the energy density of the battery example to be at maximum weight

4 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION WORKING PAPER 2019-04 ZERO-EMISSION TRACTOR-TRAILERS IN CANADA

(36,287 kg) and successfully complete 0% 805 km of driving without any weight penalties versus a conventional diesel, -5% the battery energy density would need to be 0.69 kWh/kg. The orange curve -10% shows the resulting vehicle range if we No cabin heating hold the total truck weight constant -15% at 36,287 kg. As shown, the baseline energy density of 0.2 kWh/kg results -20% in a range of about 230 km, and this With cabin heating value grows linearly as battery pack -25% energy density increases. -30% Continued improvements in battery Reduction in driving range technology are expected, and battery -35% pack energy densities in vehicle appli- cations are projected to double over -40% the next 5 to 7 years (Cano, Banham et -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 al. 2018). Heavy-duty electric vehicle Temperature (degrees Celsius) manufacturers will certainly depend on Figure 5. Estimated loss in driving range of battery electric tractor-trailer as a function these advancements in battery tech- of temperature nology to be competitive with diesel and other fossil fuel-powered trucks. auxiliary loads, we used the same approximately 2.5 million trips. vehicle modeling parameters as in the Compared with tractor-trailers, light- previous section, though we assumed duty vehicles typically have much TEMPERATURE IMPACTS ON a vehicle test weight of 31,900 kg. This shorter trips and therefore spend a BATTERY ELECTRIC TRACTOR- test weight was selected because it is higher percentage of time with the TRAILER PERFORMANCE roughly the weight under which Class battery operating at colder tempera- In additional to the weight concerns, 8 tractor-trailers are evaluated in the tures, and range impacts are more reduced battery performance in cold GHG regulation for on-road commer- significant. To account for the fact temperatures is an important barrier to cial vehicles in Canada and the United that cold temperature impacts on large-scale commercialization of zero- States. For the increased power demand driving range are more significant for emission trucks, especially in Canada. of a cabin heater, we assumed an addi- shorter trips, Taggart analyzes driving There are several studies that analyze tional 5 kW of constant load (CalStart range as a function of temperature the effects of cold temperatures on the 2014). With this additional accessory for different trip distances. Figure 3 in battery performance and driving range load, energy consumption over the that study estimates the relationship of light-duty electric cars (Christenson, HHDDT 65 mph cycle and HHDDT tran- between ambient temperature and Loiselle-Lapointe et al. 2014, Loiselle- sient cycle increased by 4% and 13%, reduction in driving range for trips Lapointe, Conde et al. 2015, Taggart respectively. The increase in energy of three different ranges including 2017, Loiselle-Lapointe, Pedroso et al. 80-plus mile trips, the longest trips 2018), and one study examines this consumption is larger over the transient issue for commercial trucks (CalStart cycle because accessory loads make within the dataset. We translated the 2014). According to the literature, up a larger percentage of overall losses Taggart data from 80-plus mile trips colder temperatures affect battery in cycles with lower speeds and more into percentage reduction in driving electric vehicle performance in two acceleration and deceleration events range, which is shown in the blue curve ways: 1) increase in auxiliary power (Delgado and Lutsey 2015). in Figure 5. The “No cabin heating” consumption for cabin heating and scenario represents the reduction in We did not estimate the reduction window defrosting, and 2) battery range due solely to battery tempera- chemistry is less efficient in severe in range due to battery temperature ture effects. temperatures (cold or hot). effects in Autonomie, but rather we adapted the data provided in Figure To estimate the loss in driving range To estimate the reduction in battery 3 in Taggart (2017), which analyzed due to increased cabin heating electric truck range due to increased electric vehicle performance from demands, we assumed an additional

WORKING PAPER 2019-04 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION 5 ZERO-EMISSION TRACTOR-TRAILERS IN CANADA

heating power demand of 5 kW at Technology cost analysis the owner over the vehicle lifetime. -20°C and a linear reduction of this The fuels and technologies consid- To assess zero-emission vehicle tech- accessory load down to zero at 25°C, ered in the analysis are diesel, diesel nology costs, in the two subsections where we assume the battery pack hybrid, compressed natural gas, lique- below we develop a cost of ownership operates at maximum efficiency. The fied natural gas, overhead catenary evaluation of the various vehicle tech- orange curve in Figure 5 represents line electric, and hydrogen fuel cells. nology alternatives. the decrease in range due to both All costs in the analysis are in 2018 battery temperature effects and addi- Canadian dollars. The analysis is con- tional cabin heating over the HHDDT VEHICLE COST OF OWNERSHIP strained to vehicle and fuel costs. Motor vehicle taxes, insurance costs, transient cycle. Because the losses To gain an understanding of the viabil- driver wages, tolls, and road fees are due to additional accessory loads are ity of various zero-emission heavy- excluded. We make a series of assump- larger in the transient cycle than in duty technologies for long-haul heavy- tions on average annual vehicle use, the highway cruise cycle, the orange duty tractor-trailer applications, we efficiency technology, cost, and fuel curve represents our estimated upper analyzed the technologies under cost to develop bottom-up cost bound for the total losses in driving a vehicle-related cost of ownership models for the various tractor-trailer range for battery electric trucks as a framework. We base the analysis on technologies. Vehicle technology and function of temperature. the research and available data on maintenance costs are taken directly vehicle technology costs, efficiency, As battery electric tractor-trailers from our 2017 study (Moultak, Lutsey and emissions from Moultak et al. are increasingly deployed as replace- et al. 2017), so the focus here will be on (2017). We report on results for 2015 ments for diesel (and other fossil-fuel- highlighting the Canada-specific fuel through 2030 to show our best esti- powered) vehicles, trucking fleets cost inputs in the analysis. mates of the progression of the costs are going to expect that the per- over time. The data and methods used to estimate formance is roughly comparable to historical and projected end user fuel their conventional counterparts. As The objective of the cost analysis is costs for diesel, natural gas, hydrogen discussed in this section, the battery to illustrate the cost differences of (natural gas-sourced and renewable- weight concerns and cold temperature various tractor-trailer technologies sourced), and electricity are summa- impacts are considerable barriers to over different periods of time. The rized in the bottom portion of Table 3. the accelerated deployment of battery analysis includes capital costs (tractor- electric trucks across the full spectrum trailer purchase price), maintenance Figure 6 shows the vehicle-related cost of trucking applications. costs, and fuel costs experienced by of ownership for 2015 through 2030.

1,600 Capital cost Maintenance cost Fuel cost 1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400 Cost (thousand CAD)

200

0 2015 2020 2025 2030 2015 2020 2025 2030 2015 2020 2025 2030 2015 2020 2025 2030 2015 2020 2025 2030 2015 2020 2025 2030 2015 2020 2025 2030 2015 2020 2025 2030 2015 2020 2025 2030

Diesel Diesel Natural gas Natural gas Natural gas Fuel cell Fuel cell Electric Electric hybrid LNG-CI LNG-SI CNG-SI (natural gas) (renewable) (overhead) (battery)

Figure 6. Cost of ownership for each tractor-trailer technology for a vehicle purchased in 2015–2030 broken down by capital cost, maintenance cost, and fuel cost, excluding infrastructure costs. No battery replacements are assumed for either type of electric truck.

6 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION WORKING PAPER 2019-04 ZERO-EMISSION TRACTOR-TRAILERS IN CANADA

Table 3. Canada-specific data inputs

Parameter Value and/or method Source U.S. dollars (2015) to Canadian (1) Convert USD 2015 to 2018 (annual average) (Bureau of Labor Statistics dollars (2018) (2) For 2018 annual average, convert USD to CAD 2019, USForex Inc. 2019)) (Cheminfo Services Inc. and Average annual vehicle 90,000 km the North American Council for kilometers traveled Freight Efficiency 2017)) Carbon intensity of fuels

Diesel 94.2 gCO2e/MJ Hydrogen (gaseous) from ((S&T) Squared Consultants Inc. 105.7 gCO e/MJ natural gas 2 2019))

Compressed natural gas 64.4 gCO2e/MJ (California Air Resources

Liquefied natural gas 68.9 gCO2e/MJ Board 2018, (S&T) Squared Consultants Inc. 2019))

Electricity grid mix and CO2e

emissions, and carbon intensity Carbon intensity calculated by dividing total CO2e emissions by total (Environment and Climate 1990–2016. National average generation capacity Change Canada 2018)) and by province and territory. Electricity grid mix and CO e 2 Using baseline (2016) electricity grid mix from Environment and (National Energy Board 2017, emissions, and carbon intensity Climate Change Canada, 2017–2040 values are estimated using Environment and Climate 2017–2040. National average National Energy Board projections. Change Canada 2018)) and by province and territory. End user prices for fuels (Natural Resources Canada Historical: 2015–2018 2019)) Diesel (International Energy Agency Growth rate derived from IEA projections out to 2040 2017)) (1) Price from the STEPS study for liquid hydrogen from natural gas is adjusted based on the average price difference between natural gas in the United States and Canada and the estimated portion of Hydrogen (gaseous) from (National Research Council hydrogen fuel costs due to natural gas feedstock costs. natural gas and National Academy of (2) The price of gaseous hydrogen is estimated based on ratio of the Engineering 2004, Fulton and price of gaseous to liquid natural gas. Miller 2015, U.S. Department of Energy: Office of Energy (1) The price from the STEPS study for liquid hydrogen from Efficiency and Renewable renewables is adjusted based on the average price difference Energy 2016, BP 2018)) Hydrogen (gaseous) from between electricity in the U.S. and Canada and the estimated portion renewables of hydrogen fuel costs due to electricity costs. (2) The price of gaseous hydrogen is estimated based on ratio of the price of gaseous to liquid natural gas. Historical and projected values for Canada based on a ratio of the difference between U.S. and Canadian price data from BP. The (U.S. Energy Information Natural gas difference in price between Canada and the United States is assumed Administration 2017, BP 2018)) to be constant over the study period. U.S. price data for 2015– 2040 comes from the U.S. EIA. Historical: 2015– 2018 (Hydro-Québec 2018)) Electricity: national average (U.S. Energy Information and major cities Growth rate derived from U.S. EIA projections out to 2050 Administration 2017))

WORKING PAPER 2019-04 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION 7 ZERO-EMISSION TRACTOR-TRAILERS IN CANADA

The graphs show the breakdown of The figure shows how conventional projected costs for electric tractor- the tractor-trailer capital cost, mainte- diesel vehicle costs increase incremen- trailers would bring their upfront costs nance cost, and fuel cost over 10 years tally, but are relatively consistent into in line with conventional diesel trailers of operation. The cost analysis excludes future years, as compared with the in the 2025–2030 time frame. infrastructure cost for overhead alternative fuel technologies. Essentially catenary technologies. By analyzing all the other technologies see reduced PROVINCE AND TERRITORY- the 10-year operating cycle, we intend cost of ownership over time, primarily SPECIFIC COST RESULTS FOR to cover at least the first phase of because their capital technology costs BATTERY ELECTRIC TRACTOR- the tractor life while it is in long-haul drop from 2015 through 2030. Natural TRAILERS operation. With uncertainties about gas trucks consistently yield the lowest total electricity throughput, charging- cost of ownership. We used electricity price data for com- discharging cycles, and any degrada- mercial customers in several cities in The zero-emission vehicle technolo- tion over time for catenary and in-road Canada to estimate average prices at gies show the greatest cost reductions charging electric tractors, we do not the provincial and territorial level, and from 2015 to 2030. Fuel cell technol- Figure 7 shows the results. In the figure, include battery replacements. The ogy shows the largest reduction in each of the 10 provinces and three results are summarized for the various cost over time, due to the expected territories has two bars: the solid bar vehicle technologies as compared with drops in fuel cell costs and hydrogen conventional diesel (which increases costs. Excluding infrastructure costs, represents the difference in electricity in efficiency over time), diesel hybrid the two electric vehicle scenarios, prices versus the national average, and (which retains an efficiency advan- catenary and battery electric, ulti- the dashed bar shows the difference tage over conventional diesel), and mately arrive at among the lowest in total costs, factoring in capital and three natural gas technologies: lique- total vehicle cost in the 2025–2030 maintenance costs. Because fuel costs fied compression ignition (LNG-CI), time frame, similar to natural gas. As are a subset of the total costs, the dif- liquefied spark ignition (LNG-SI), and compared with diesel vehicles in the ference in fuel costs (solid columns) compressed spark ignition(CNG-SI). 2030 time frame, overhead catenary for each province is larger in absolute Two fuel cell technology pathways are and battery electric result in roughly value than the difference in total costs. shown: the first for natural gas-derived 30% to 35% lower costs, and hydrogen Provinces with red columns—Alberta, hydrogen and the second for renew- fuel cells result in 15% to 25% lower British Columbia (BC), Manitoba, able source-derived hydrogen. costs to own, operate, and fuel. The Newfoundland and Labrador, and

250% Fuel costs Total costs

200%

164% 154% 150% 137%

100%

50% 36% 42% 34% 30% 22% 19% 21% 13% 9% 3% 5% 4% 5% 0% -3% -4% -7% -4% -5% -12% -17% -19% -24% -34% -50% Di erence from national Canada average

-100% Alberta Manitoba Newfoundland Nova Scotia Ontario Quebec Yukon and Labrador BC New Northwest Nunavut Prince Edward Saskatchewan Brunswick Territories Island Figure 7. Battery electric tractor-trailers: Factor difference in electricity costs and vehicle cost of ownership from the Canada average

8 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION WORKING PAPER 2019-04 ZERO-EMISSION TRACTOR-TRAILERS IN CANADA

Quebec—have electricity costs lower Table 4. Fuel carbon intensities (gCO2e/MJ) for 2015 and 2030 and the percentage than the national average, and the reduction in emissions from 2015 to 2030 opposite is true for the remaining eight Fuel carbon intensity provinces. The three northern-most (gCO e/MJ) 2 Greenhouse gas emission territories—the Northwest Territories, a Fuel 2015 2030 reductions in 2030 Nunavut, and Yukon—have the highest electricity costs, at roughly 2.5 times Diesel 94 94 - the national average. These higher Compressed natural gas 64 64 - electricity costs translate to between Liquefied natural gas 69 69 - 30% and 36% increased cost of own- Hydrogen 106 64 -40% ership for an electric truck versus the Electricity 42 21 -50% national average. For the remaining 10 a Greenhouse gas emission reductions include on-vehicle efficiency improvement (i.e., relative mega- provinces, the cost of ownership for an joule (MJ) per kilometer) electric truck is within plus/minus 10% associated with the production of the to assume that progressive policy is of the Canada average. various fuel. The data and methods we in place to ensure that fuel supply is used to estimate fuel carbon intensi- increasingly low-carbon. The carbon Analysis of emissions ties were summarized in Table 3. intensity of electricity for 2015 and impacts 2016 is based on the National Inventory Table 4 shows the assumed fuel carbon Report, and projections are based on intensities that we apply to our life- the data provided in Canada’s Energy PER-VEHICLE LIFETIME cycle analysis. Carbon intensities for Future report (National Energy Board GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS diesel and natural gas are assumed to 2017, Environment and Climate Change To gain an understanding of the emis- remain constant from 2015 through Canada 2018). We note that there are sions impacts of the various tractor- 2030, while the carbon intensity of certain provinces (e.g., BC, Manitoba, trailer technologies, we analyze the hydrogen is expected to decrease sig- and Québec), where the electricity life-cycle GHG emissions for each nificantly as hydrogen transitions from carbon intensity is already near zero, technology for a truck purchased being produced mainly from fossil fuels due to electricity generation predomi- from 2015 to 2030. In addition to the through steam-methane reformation to nantly coming from renewable energy assumptions used above in the cost being produced from renewable energy sources—namely hydro. In Ontario, of ownership analysis, we include the sources. For hydrogen’s carbon inten- hydro and nuclear together account upstream fuel cycle emissions impacts sity, we apply a 5% annual reduction for nearly 80% of electricity generation,

1,500 1000 e) 2

800 1,000

600 e/km) 2

400 500 (gCO

200 Lifecycle emissions (tons CO Lifecycle emissions per kilomete 0 0 2015 2020 2025 2030 2015 2020 2025 2030 2015 2020 2025 2030 2015 2020 2025 2030 2015 2020 2025 2030 2015 2020 2025 2030 2015 2020 2025 2030 2015 2020 2025 2030 Diesel Diesel Natural Gas Natural Gas Natural Gas Fuel Cell Electric Electric Hybrid LNG-SI LNG-CI CNG-SI (Hydrogen) (overhead) (battery)

Figure 8. Life-cycle CO2 emissions over vehicle lifetime (left axis) and per kilometer (right axis) by vehicle technology type

WORKING PAPER 2019-04 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION 9 ZERO-EMISSION TRACTOR-TRAILERS IN CANADA

which also leads to a relatively low Table 5. Fuel carbon intensities (gCO2e/MJ) for 2015 and 2030 in Canada and the United overall carbon intensity. In such cases, States and the percentage difference electric trucks offer a more than 95% 2015 2030 reduction in carbon emissions versus conventional diesel vehicles. United United Fuel Canada States Difference Canada States Difference The total life-cycle wheel-to-well GHG Diesel 94 102 -8% 94 102 -8% Compressed emissions in carbon dioxide equiva- 64 81 -21% 64 81 -21% natural gas lents (CO2e) for each long-haul heavy- Liquefied duty freight truck technology pur- 69 86 -20% 69 86 -20% chased from 2015 through 2030 are natural gas shown in Figure 8. Hydrogen 106 151 -30% 49 70 -30% Electricity 42 144 -71% 21 49 -57% Major emission differences across the technologies and over time are the vehicle. On the electric and fuel cell estimate electric truck life-cycle CO2e apparent from the figure. The electric technologies, the emission reductions emissions at the provincial level, and heavy-duty trucks have by far the are driven primarily by the reduced fuel Figure 9 shows the results. The five lowest lifetime emissions. The two carbon intensity. The diesel tractor- provinces with near-zero emissions electric truck technologies have 84%, trailer is shown with greatly reduced —BC, Manitoba, Newfoundland and 86%, 87%, and 88% lower lifetime carbon intensity, with a 35% reduc- Labrador, Prince Edward Island, and CO e emissions than conventional 2 tion from 2015 to 2030. The fuel cell Quebec—get virtually all electricity diesel vehicles in 2015, 2020, 2025, technology sees reduced carbon emis- from hydro power. Ontario’s grid is also and 2030, respectively. In those four relatively clean, as it derives roughly sions from 2015 to 2030 by 73%. The years, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles have 80% of its electricity from hydro and catenary and battery electric vehicle 32%, 53%, 62%, and 72% lower emis- nuclear power. The remaining prov- technology both show a reduction of sions than diesel vehicles. The natural inces and territories have a higher 54% by 2030. gas technologies have emission levels percentage of their electricity coming that are roughly 15% to 20% lower from fossil sources, though carbon than diesel over the study period. As PROVINCE- AND TERRITORY- intensities are projected to drop 15% to shown, there is the potential for major SPECIFIC EMISSIONS RESULTS 45% between 2015 and 2030. reductions in all the vehicle technology FOR BATTERY ELECTRIC types in the 2025–2030 time frame. In Using the region-specific carbon TRACTOR-TRAILERS the case of the diesel and natural gas intensities for electricity, we per- technologies, the emission reductions We used electricity feedstock mix data formed route-specific analyses for are driven by efficiency technology on from the National Energy Board to five high-volume trucking corridors

e) 1,500 2 1000 e/km)

800 2 1,000 600

500 400 200 0 0 Lifecycle emissions pe kilometer (gCO 201 5 2020 2025 2030 201 5 2020 2025 2030 201 5 2020 2025 2030 201 5 2020 2025 2030 201 5 2020 2025 2030 201 5 2020 2025 2030 201 5 2020 2025 2030 201 5 2020 2025 2030 201 5 2020 2025 2030 201 5 2020 2025 2030 201 5 2020 2025 2030 201 5 2020 2025 2030 201 5 2020 2025 2030 201 5 2020 2025 2030 Canada BC New Northwest Nunavut Prince Saskatchewan Brunswick Territories Edward Lifecycle emissions (tons CO Island Alberta Manitoba Newfoundland Nova Ontario Quebec Yukon and Labrador Scotia

Figure 9. Battery electric tractor-trailers: Province- and territory-specific life-cycle CO2 emissions over vehicle lifetime (left axis) and per kilometer (right axis)

10 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION WORKING PAPER 2019-04 ZERO-EMISSION TRACTOR-TRAILERS IN CANADA

Diesel Natural Gas Natural Gas Natural Gas Fuel Cell Electric Electric Diesel Hybrid LNG-SI LNG-CI CNG-SI (Hydrogen) (overhead) (battery)

0% 2015 2020 2025 2030 2015 2020 2025 2030 2015 2020 2025 2030 2015 2020 2025 2030 2015 2020 2025 2030 2015 2020 2025 2030 2015 2020 2025 2030 2015 2020 2025 2030

-10%

-20%

-30%

-40%

e emissions: Canada vs U.S. -50% 2

-60% Per-km CO -70%

-80%

Figure 10. Difference between Canada and the United States in per-km CO2e emissions for each vehicle technology type in Canada. These analyses are sum- are significant, with trucks in Canada presents an immense challenge. Yet marized in the Annex. responsible for over 70% fewer emis- there are many promising technolo- sions than in the United States. This is gies that have been demonstrated and due to the fact that Canada’s electri- announced that prove the technical DIFFERENCES IN PER-VEHICLE cal grid is dominated by hydro power viability and suggest how these tech- EMISSIONS BETWEEN CANADA (roughly 60% of electricity produced), nologies could eventually be deployed AND THE UNITED STATES while coal is the leading feedstock in on a large scale. Mass deployment As compared with the U.S. results from the United States. Out to 2030, as the of zero-emission vehicles can enable the Moultak et al. (2017) study, per-km U.S. grid is assumed to transition to greater impact on reducing emissions

CO2e emissions for Canada are lower a higher percentage of renewables, and energy use, while helping to enable for each fuel and technology option, Canada’s advantage on electric vehicle more renewable energy use. The as shown in Figure 10. For the diesel, emissions decreases, though by 2030 ongoing zero-emission truck projects natural gas, and hydrogen trucks, the per-km carbon emissions are still around the world in 2017 inform where differences in emissions are based nearly 50% lower in Canada. the sector can go if motivated govern- solely on the variance in the carbon ments and companies act to deploy intensity values in the Low Carbon Fuel the technology from 2020 on. Standard (used for the U.S. analysis) Findings and conclusions and GHGenius (used for this Canada Decarbonizing heavy-duty vehicle Table 6 summarizes the key data analysis), as summarized in Table 5. The activity by transitioning to zero-emis- sources and assumptions, method- differences in GHG emissions for the sion vehicle technologies, including ological shortcomings, and findings catenary and battery electric trucks electricity and hydrogen technologies, for the various elements of this study,

WORKING PAPER 2019-04 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION 11 ZERO-EMISSION TRACTOR-TRAILERS IN CANADA

Table 6. Summary of key data sources and assumptions, methodological shortcomings, and findings in the study

Primary shortcomings in the Key data sources and assumptions methodology Findings • For an 805-km (500 mile) range and • Energy demand assumptions are based at 36 tonnes (80,000 lb) test weight, on only one drive cycle (HHDDT 65 a battery electric truck with our • Battery pack energy densities for mph cruise) modeling parameters weighs ~ 6,000 kg more than a diesel (28% loss in electric trucks in the 2020 time frame • Battery pack energy density data and available payload capacity) Battery electric tractor- are 0.2 kWh/kg, or ~ 25% to 50% kW/kg assumptions for the weight of trailers: additional improvement compared with packs in power electronics come solely from the • Assuming no additional weight vs. a weight vs. diesels available light-duty vehicles light-duty vehicle sector diesel, this battery electric truck has ~ 230-km range • Vehicle simulation tool: Autonomie, • Road load (i.e., aerodynamic and rolling Version 16 resistance drag) assumptions are based • Significant advances in battery pack on unverified manufacturer data and energy density are needed for battery our best judgment electric trucks to more effectively compete with diesels

• Temperature effects on the battery • From battery temperature effects, packs of tractor trucks will be driving range is reduced by ~ 25% at comparable to the light-duty sector; • Lack of literature regarding -20° C Battery electric based on Figure 3 in Taggart (2017) temperature impacts as a function of • Losses due to additional cabin heating tractor-trailers: cold battery pack size result in greater percentage increase in temperature impacts on • Cabin heating poses a maximum fuel consumption for transient cycle as driving range additional load of 5 kW • Virtually all available literature is centered around light-duty vehicles compared with highway cruise cycle • 31,900-kg test weight • At -20° C, the estimated upper bound • Evaluation from -20° to 25° C for the total loss in driving range is 35% • Capital and maintenance costs for all vehicle types are identical to the values used in Moultak et al. (2017) • Changes in fuel prices over time are • Natural gas trucks are the lowest TCO • Canada-specific fuel costs were an exogenous input and are not linked option over the entire study period available for diesel, natural gas, and to overall demand for the fuel in the • Due to relatively low-cost electricity, electricity transportation sector electric trucks are lower than diesels Zero-emission vs. fossil • We assume that over the entire study • Natural gas prices are indexed to on TCO over the entire study period (~ fuel-powered tractor- period (2015 to 2030), zero-emission the United States and based on an 5% lower in 2015, growing to over 30% trailers: vehicle-related trucks are comparable on performance, average difference in natural gas prices lower by 2030) cost of ownership reliability, and durability between Canada and the United States • Hydrogen fuel cell trucks (renewable since 1990 • Infrastructure costs for diesel, natural H2) have the largest TCO reduction gas, hydrogen, and electricity refueling • Changes in prices over time for diesel, between 2015 and 2030 (nearly 40%) are not taken into account natural gas, and electricity are based • In 2030, electric trucks have lower TCO on projections for the United States • We assume no battery replacements than fuel cell trucks by 7% to 20% over the 10-year life of the battery electric truck • Reduced emissions vs. diesels à • GHGenius data (Canada-specific) is electric trucks (~ 85% to 90%); used for the carbon intensity of all fuels hydrogen fuel cell (~ 30 to 70%) except electricity • More analysis is needed to better understand the differences in fuel • Provinces with a large percentage • Carbon intensities of diesel and natural carbon intensity factors in GHGenius of hydro-sourced electricity yield gas are assumed to be constant over (this study) vs. California’s Low Carbon battery electric trucks with nearly zero Zero-emission vs. fossil time, whereas hydrogen and electricity Fuel Standard (Moultak et al., 2017 emissions fuel-powered tractor- values decrease by 40% and 50%, study) • Electric trucks in Canada have ~ 70% trailers: CO e emissions respectively 2 • Life-cycle emissions estimates do not fewer emissions than those in the • Electricity carbon intensity is based on take into account emissions associated United States due to Canada’s large grid mix and emissions data from the with vehicle production or end-of-life reliance on carbon-free hydro power National Inventory Report (historical) disposal (and to a smaller extent, nuclear power, and the National Energy Board which is also relatively low carbon, (projections) after taking power plant construction emissions into account) • City-specific diesel prices and • City-specific electricity costs were not • Overall costs are between 15% and Route-specific costs and province-specific electricity prices are utilized 30% lower for the electric trucks vs.

CO2e for battery electric used in the analysis the diesel vs. diesel tractor-trailers • Grade and estimated vehicle speed (Appendix) • Trucks are assumed to fuel up in only data are not factored into the assumed • Emissions are nearly eliminated (92% the origin city energy consumption rates to 99% reduction)

12 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION WORKING PAPER 2019-04 ZERO-EMISSION TRACTOR-TRAILERS IN CANADA

including the route-specific analyses, widespread replacements for conven- for 2030 and beyond. With sustained which are summarized in the Appendix. tional trucks and tractor-trailers that government and private industry are typically diesel-fueled. These chal- investment, each of these electric- Zero-emission trucks offer the prospect lenges are somewhat different for the drive technologies has the potential of lower climate emissions, no tailpipe three zero-emission vehicle technolo- to overcome the various barriers faster pollutant emissions, lower fueling cost, gies. As a result, the three technolo- than the others. Considering the vast greater renewable energy use, and higher on-vehicle energy efficiency. gies have different truck segments for scale of the problem of decarbonizing The zero-emission vehicle technolo- which they offer the most promise for freight transport, it appears likely that gies do, however, present consider- widespread commercialization, based many of the battery and fuel cell tech- able challenges. They have a combina- on our assessment in 2017 (Moultak, nologies will need to grow in parallel tion of near- and long-term barriers, Lutsey et al. 2017). We emphasize the to meet medium- and long-distance issues, and questions that will have to high uncertainty in how these technol- freight demands as soon as they prove be addressed before they can become ogies could evolve over the long term themselves.

WORKING PAPER 2019-04 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION 13 ZERO-EMISSION TRACTOR-TRAILERS IN CANADA

high-volume trucking corridors in have identical CO e-per-km emissions Appendix 2 Canada. For each of the five routes based on the average electricity carbon TOTAL COSTS AND CO E (Toronto to Montreal; Montreal to intensity in Ontario. The Montreal- 2 Quebec City; Toronto to London, ON; RESULTS FOR HIGH-VOLUME to-Quebec City and Vancouver-to- Vancouver to Seattle; and Hamilton TRUCKING CORRIDORS IN Seattle trips use Quebec- and British to Woodstock, ON), we assume that Columbia-based carbon intensities, CANADA both the diesel and battery electric respectively. Finally, we do not take In the main body of the paper, we trucks are fully fueled in the origin city grade into account, and the analysis is describe the vehicle-related cost of and complete the route without refuel- set in the year 2020. ownership and emissions analyses for ing along the route. Thus, the battery the fuel and technology options that electric trucks have upstream emis- For each route, Figures 11 through 15 were included in this study. We also sions associated with the carbon inten- show the input assumptions for trip present province- and territory-specific sity of the electricity in the province length and fuel costs, as well as the results for the battery electric trucks. of origin. We do not have the required TCO and emissions results in terms data granularity to estimate electric- of percentage reduction versus the In this appendix, we perform route- ity carbon intensity at the city level, diesel truck. The geographic boundary specific comparisons for battery so the battery electric trucks leaving maps for the provinces were created in electric versus diesel trucks for five Toronto and Hamilton are assumed to Mapchart.net (Mapchart.net 2019).

0 200 Miles

0200 KM Montreal ¨ Quebec City MANITOBA Distance: 268 km NEWFOUNDLAND Diesel price: $1.26/liter AND LABRADOR Battery electric truck Electricity: $0.078/kWh

Total CO2e costs emissions QUEBEC Battery electric truck -16% Total CO2e costs emissions ONTARIO

-92% -27%

QUEBEC -100%

Toronto Montreal NEW ¨ BRUNSWICK Distance: 542 km Diesel price: $1.12/liter 0 200 Miles Electricity: $0.139/kWh ONTARIO 0 200 KM

Figure 11. Difference between battery electric and diesel trucks in Figure 12. Difference between battery electric and diesel trucks in costs and CO e emissions for the Toronto-to-Montreal corridor 2 costs and CO2e emissions for the Montreal-to-Quebec City corridor

14 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION WORKING PAPER 2019-04 ZERO-EMISSION TRACTOR-TRAILERS IN CANADA

0 200 Miles ONTARIO ALBERTA 0 200 KM

QUEBEC

Battery electric truck

Total CO2e costs emissions Battery electric truck Vancouver Seattle Total CO e ¨ 2 Distance: 229 km costs emissions -16% Diesel price: $1.27/liter Electricity: $0.125/kWh -27%

-92% -99%

BRITISH COLUMBIA

Toronto ¨ London Distance: 194 km Diesel price: $1.12/liter 0 500 Miles Electricity: $0.139/kWh 0 500 KM

Figure 13. Difference between battery electric and diesel trucks Figure 14. Difference between battery electric and diesel trucks in costs and CO2e emissions for the Toronto-to-London corridor in costs and CO2e emissions for the Vancouver-to-Seattle corridor

0 200 Miles

ONTARIO 0 200 KM

QUEBEC

Battery electric truck

Total CO2e costs emissions

-17%

-92%

Hamilton ¨ Woodstock Distance: 79 km Diesel price: $1.14/liter Electricity: $0.139/kWh

Figure 15. Difference between battery electric and diesel trucks in costs and CO2e emissions for the Hamilton-to-Woodstock

WORKING PAPER 2019-04 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION 15 ZERO-EMISSION TRACTOR-TRAILERS IN CANADA

References Fulton, L. and M. Miller (2015). Strategies for Transitioning to Low-Carbon Emission Trucks in the United States. Davis, CA, (S&T) Squared Consultants Inc. (2019). GHGenius. 5.0c. Institute of Transportation Studies - Davis. BP (2018). BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2018. Hydro-Québec (2018). Comparison of Electricity Prices in Major Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2019). “Consumer Price Index.” North American Cities. Montreal, QC. Retrieved January 19, 2019, from https://stats.bls.gov/ InsideEVs.com. (2019). “The Four Model 3 Motors that Power the cpi/#tables. Tesla Semi.” Retrieved January 20, 2019, from https://insideevs. California Air Resources Board. (2018, December 31). “LCFS com/four-model-3-motors-power-tesla-semi/. Pathway Certified Carbon Intensities.” Retrieved January 19, International Council on Clean Transportation. (2019). “Roadmap 2019, from https://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/fuelpathways/ model baseline results (August 2017).” Retrieved January 7, pathwaytable.htm. 2019, from https://www.theicct.org/transportation-roadmap. CalStart (2014). E-Truck Performance in Cold Weather. International Energy Agency (2017). World Energy Outlook 2017. Pasadena, CA. Paris, France. Cano, Z. P., D. Banham, S. Ye, A. Hintennach, J. Lu, M. Fowler and Loiselle-Lapointe, A., A. Conde and H. Ribberink (2015). “Chevrolet Z. Chen (2018). “Batteries and fuel cells for emerging electric Volt On-Road Test Programs in Canada Part 1: Effects of Drive vehicle markets.” Nature Energy 3(4): 279. Cycle, Ambient Temperature and Accessory Usage on Energy Cheminfo Services Inc. and the North American Council for Consumption and Electric Range.” World Electric Vehicle Freight Efficiency (2017). Heavy-Duty Vehicle Tire Market Journal 7(1): 142-153. Analysis Study. Ottawa, ON, Transport Canada. Loiselle-Lapointe, A., S. Pedroso, M. Gennaro, E. Paffumi, M. Christenson, M., A. Loiselle-Lapointe, I. Whittal and N. Meyer Christenson and M. Safoutin (2018). Impacts of Mileage (2014). Impact of Mileage Accumulation, Vehicle Aging, Accumulation and Fast Charging on EV Range and Energy Cold Ambient Temperature, and Driving Style on Range Usage. The 31st International Electric Vehicles Symposium & and Energy Consumption of Two Japanese Battery Exhibition (EVS 31) & International Electric Vehicle Technology Electric Passenger Vehicles. 2nd International Electric Conference 2018 (EVTeC 2018). Kobe, Japan. Vehicle Technology & Automobile Power Electronics Japan Mapchart.net. (2019). “Canada.” Retrieved January 18, 2019, from Conference. Yokohama, Japan. https://mapchart.net/canada.html. Claflin, B. (2017, August 29). “5 Cool Things About Our Electric Motor Trend. (2017, July 29). “Exclusive: Tesla Model 3 Powertrain Concept Truck.” Retrieved January 21, 2019, from First Drive Review.” Retrieved January 20, 2019, from https://www.cummins.com/news/2017/08/29/5-cool-things- https://www.motortrend.com/cars/tesla/model-3/2018/ about-our-electric-powertrain-concept-truck. exclusive-tesla-model-3-first-drive-review/. Daimler Trucks North America LLC. (2019). “Leading the Charge: Moultak, M., N. Lutsey and D. Hall (2017). Transitioning to zero- e-Mobility.” Retrieved January 21, 2019, from https://freightliner. emission heavy-duty freight vehicles. Washington, DC, The com/e-mobility/. International Council on Clean Transportation. Delgado, O. and N. Lutsey (2015). Advanced Tractor-Trailer National Energy Board. (2017, October 25). “Reference Case: Efficiency Technology Potential in the 2020-2030 Timeframe. Electricity Generation - Primary Fuel (GWh).” Retrieved Washington, DC, The International Council on Clean January 19, 2019, from https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/ftrppndc/ Transportation. dflt.aspx?GoCTemplateCulture=en-CA. Environment and Climate Change Canada (2018). National National Research Council and National Academy of Engineering Inventory Report 1990 - 2016: Greenhouse Gas Sources (2004). The Hydrogen Economy: Opportunities, Costs, and Sinks in Canada (Part 3). Ottawa, ON, United Nations Barriers, and R&D Needs. Washington, DC. Framework Convention on Climate Change. Natural Resources Canada. (2019, January 18). “Average Retail Eudy, L. and M. Post (2018). Fuel Cell Buses in U.S. Transit Fleets: Prices for Diesel in 2019.” Retrieved January, 2019, from http:// Current Status 2018 Golden, CO, National Renewable Energy www2.nrcan.gc.ca/eneene/sources/pripri/prices_bycity_e.cfm? Laboratory. productID=5&locationID=26&locationID=28&locationID=29&loc EVANNEX. (2019). “Battery Expert: Tesla Model 3 has ‘most ationID=17&locationID=2&locationID=81&frequency=D&priceYe advanced large scale lithium battery ever produced’.” ar=2019&Redisplay=. Retrieved January 20, 2019, from https://evannex.com/blogs/ Nikola Corporation. (2016, December 1). “Nikola One Truck news/tesla-s-battery-pack-is-both-mysterious-and-alluring- Revealed Tonight at 7:00 PM MST.” Retrieved January work-in-progress. 22, 2019, from https://nikolamotor.com/press_releases/ nikola-one-truck-revealed-tonight-700-p-m-mst-32.

16 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION WORKING PAPER 2019-04 ZERO-EMISSION TRACTOR-TRAILERS IN CANADA

Taggart, J. (2017). Ambient temperature impacts on real-world U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2017). “Annual Energy electric vehicle efficiency and range. IEEE Transportation Outlook 2017. Electricity: End-Use Prices: Transportation.” Electrification Conference and Expo (ITEC). Chicago, IL. Retrieved January 19, 2019, from https://www.eia.gov/ outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=8-AEO2017®ion=0- Tesla. (2019). “Tesla Semi.” Retrieved January 20, 2019, from 0&cases=ref2017&start=2015&end=2050&f=A&linechart=~~~ https://www.tesla.com/semi. ref2017-d120816a.63-8-AEO2017&map=&ctype=linechart&sid= Teslarati. (2013, July 19). “Tesla Model S Weight Distribution.” ref2017-d120816a.63-8-AEO2017&sourcekey=0. Retrieved January 20, 2019, from https://www.teslarati.com/ U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2017). “Annual Energy tesla-model-s-weight/. Outlook 2017. Natural Gas: Use by Sector: Transportation.” Thor Trucks Inc. (2019). “ET-One.” Retrieved January 22, 2019, Retrieved January 19, 2019, from https://www.eia.gov/ from https://www.thortrucks.com/et-one/. outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=13-AEO2017®ion=0- U.S. Department of Energy: Office of Energy Efficiency and 0&cases=ref2017&start=2015&end=2050&f=A&linechart=~ Renewable Energy (2016). Alternative Fuel Price Report. ref2017-d120816a.19-13-AEO2017&map=&ctype=linechart&sid= Washington, DC, Clean Cities. ref2017-d120816a.63-8-AEO2017&sourcekey=0. U.S. Department of Energy: Office of Energy Efficiency and UChicago Argonne LLC. (2019). “Welcome to Autonomie.” Renewable Energy. (2019). “Class 8 Truck Tractor Weight by Retrieved February 5, 2019, from http://www.autonomie.net/. Component.” Retrieved January 20, 2019, from https://www. USForex Inc. (2019). “Average annual exchange rate (2018): energy.gov/eere/vehicles/fact-620-april-26-2010-class-8- USD to CAD.” Retrieved January 19, 2019, from https:// truck-tractor-weight-component. www.ofx.com/en-us/forex-news/historical-exchange-rates/ monthly-average-rates/. Visnic, B. (2018, July 31). “Toyota launches second-gen fuel-cell Class 8.” Retrieved January 30, 2019, from https://www.sae. org/news/2018/07/toyota-project-portal-2.0-reveal.

WORKING PAPER 2019-04 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION 17