Expansion of intermodal and inland port capabilities can significantly lower transportation costs for commodity import and export flows, helping to make global markets more cost competitive, accelerating regional economic development, and attracting business. By extending the gates of container ports inland, inland port systems enable shippers to efficiently serve new logistics pathways supporting online business divisions and e-commerce. Being able to serve customers with next-day, same-day, or even one-hour parcel deliveries is highly valuable to businesses, and many have reorganized their supply chains into multichannel configurations by replacing regional distribution centers with smaller, forward distribution centers in urban areas. Many of these warehouses need to be replenished with multiple incoming truckloads each day, in addition to generating many outgoing trips for local deliveries. Such fulfillment centers are increasingly co-located with manufacturing centers and intermodal ports, leading to more numerous and larger freight clusters around intermodal rail heads. Three commodities, “mixed freight,” “plastics and rubber,” and “other foodstuffs,” appear in the top ten commodities in Georgia for both ton-miles and value. Mixed freight is a commodity group suggesting the cargo consists of a variety of different types of products. It is the most common commodity arriving at distribution centers as well as many retail businesses and restaurants because the commodity can include certain food items, hardware, office supplies, clothing, and much more. Because distribution centers often handle a variety of goods to serve their customers, the generalized nature of the mixed freight commodity make it a useful classification and reduce administrative burden, compared with using multiple specific product classifications. While not all mixed freight movements can be unequivocally associated with distribution centers, vertical cannabis freight flows for the commodity are more likely to be observed along intermodal freight systems in drayage movements between intermodal terminals and fulfillment centers, and beyond in delivery movements to customers and points of sale.

Because of its expected on-road behavior, the commodity is more likely to be one that could technically achieve high penetration of BE truck technology.The frequent proximity of forward distribution centers, intermodal ports, and population centers improve electrification prospects for vehicles on freight vocations connecting these locations by shortening typical trip distances and encouraging a “out-and-back” tour cycle, where trucks begin and end their routes at the same location, making charging equipment siting more straightforward. It is hypothesized that trips to and from intermodal ports could have a relatively high number of operational characteristics that make these flows high value opportunities for investment in BE deployments, especially as intermodal flows continue to grow. High utilization and miles traveled typically improve the economics of BEVs. Increasing trip frequencies could represent increasing electrification benefits, so long as BE technology can adequately fulfill service demands within the constraints of battery capacity and charging requirements. Exploring these parametric relationships and testing these hypotheses was central in the design of the use-case study.Container drayage is typically conducted using Class 8 combination tractor trailer day cab units. For this use-case, we assume that the fleet is a small privately owned and operated third-party logistics operation consisting of three MY 2008 Class 8 combination trucks, all performing similar drive cycles on the same route. The trucks are assumed to travel from ARP to the distribution center with a full 20-foot shipping container of payload. Upon arrival, the full container is unloaded on-chassis at a staging area or delivery bay. The truck then picks up an empty container chassis and returns to ARP. The total distance of the tour on public roads is 122.2 miles. The vehicles have been operating on this vocation since their acquisition.

The owner-operator is planning to evolve their fleet and is seeking to understand how the energy use and economic implications of fleet management decisions will affect their business. They have decided to replace their vehicles with new MY 2023 trucks and want to understand electrification potential for their operation. To quantify the pros and cons of fleet electrification compared to the purchase of new traditional diesel trucks, we analyze both onroad and upstream energy consumption and emissions for each technology and fuel type for this use-case. We also quantify fuel, maintenance, and capital costs of both purchasing scenarios. MOVES is the federal regulatory model for quantifying on-road emissions and energy consumption for any use-case. MOVES essentially calculates the second-by-second power demand for a vehicle in units of vehicle specific power , or in the case of heavy-duty vehicles, scaled tractive power .For this analysis, road grade impacts on energy consumption are not considered. This area of northern Georgia does possess considerable elevation changes and the presence of grade on truck routes could significantly improve or hinder electrification process. Route segments with high percentages of downgrade are opportunities for energy savings and charge regeneration via regenerative braking systems. Routes with steep upslopes increase energy demand on the driving cycle. Given that downgrades never recover all of the energy lost moving uphill, routes with significant grace can limit the feasibility of some routes for BE MHDV applications. Grade effects impact outcomes on a case-by-case basis and warrant inclusion in subsequent studies but are out of scope here. In the TCOST tool, which will be discussed in the next section, energy demand effects of road grade are captured by the fuel consumption user input which informs the model’s energy use assumptions.

To calculate VSP for every second of the vehicle’s driving cycle, a driving cycle with 1-hz speed and acceleration data is required. To capture the energy consumption effects of evolving driver behavior across different road types on this tour, a composite driving cycle was created using various standard regulatory cycles for heavy duty trucks with some modifications. In this manner, the generated driving cycle was crafted to be as realistic as possible until telematic device deployment can provide second-by-second data. The driving cycle is one-way between ARP and the distribution center. Its profile is depicted in Figure 6, which is color-coded to show how each segment of the trip was combined. The composite driving cycle was manufactured using various heavy heavy-duty truck cycles made available by Georgia Tech through the U.S. EPA and state regulatory agencies. The beginning of Segment 5, which is the leg of the trip on GA 140 between the I-75 exit ramp and the distribution center access road , is a modified version of a U.S. EPA HHD truck creep cycle used for characterization for truck emissions in California. The total travel time for this one-way driving cycle is 104.3 minutes. For simplification, we assumed a truck on this use-case would execute this driving cycle with a full container load before executing it again in reverse with an empty container as the return trip.Energy consumption for the driving cycle was 461.58 kWh for the MY 2023 truck in 2022. Assuming a ten metric ton payload, this equates to 1.324 ton-miles per kWh for the MY 2023 truck. Fuel consumption was 11.34 gallons. BEVs have higher curb weights than vehicles with traditional power trains because of the added weight of their battery packs. For weight-constrained shipments, studies have found electrification of freight trucks will require a maximum payload reduction anywhere from 1.25 to 2.0 or more tons to accommodate the increased weight of the electric power train.Reducing the tonnage of cargo per truckload can negatively affect profit margins and potentially disrupt supply chains and the effects of electrification on the ton-mile capabilities of a fleet must be considered for comprehensive analysis. In this example, we assume the payload is constrained by volume rather than tonnage such that an increased curb weight will not necessitate a decreased payload and should not have any effect on the quantity of goods delivered. More refined analyses can be performed if actual payload data can be collected for individual use cases. Electrification of this use-case is technically achievable. Many new electric Class 8 combination tractors on the market have battery capacities of 500 kWh or more. However, grow racks nameplate capacity is not representative of available charge, as BEV systems will typically prevent batteries from depleting below a certain threshold of total capacity to preserve battery health and longevity. Assuming a 550-kWh battery, the driving cycle could be completed so long as at least 84% of capacity was actually available.

The primary implementation challenge is operational. Designing charging schedules that are symbiotic with delivery schedules and do not cause unacceptable amounts of downtime is critical to the success of BE technology on this vocation. To be able to transition to BE trucks entirely, the vehicles would need to have an opportunity to charge after each one-way trip on the route, which might necessitate the acquisition of multiple chargers and garage locations near each terminus. To evaluate the financial aspect of BE truck purchases as compared to traditional ICE truck purchases, a series of assumptions guided by real-world conditions observed today and projected into the future were constructed. Purchase prices for Class 8 BE MHDVs were collected from PG&E’s vehicle catalogue. Diesel truck purchase prices were collected from OEM specification sheets and websites, as well as from California HVIP. For this use-case example, a new MY 2023 Class 8 diesel truck was estimated to cost $107,433 and a comparable BE option was estimated to cost $300,000. In Georgia, new vehicle purchases are subject to a 6.6% title ad-valorem tax . Additionally, all new Class 8 vehicles are subject to a 12% federal excise tax at the time of purchase. Diesel and electricity price projections were collected from EIA and are shown in Figure 9 and Figure 10. Maintenance costs per mile were gathered from AFLEET and California HVIP. All financial assumptions are displayed in Table 6.Using the parameter values in Table 6, the total cost of ownership of purchasing new BE trucks is compared to that of new diesel trucks. It was assumed the fleet manager would opt to pay a 10% down payment at the point of sale for the new vehicles and that they would finance the capital cost of the vehicles over a 72-month period at a 5% interest rate. Based on the composite driving cycle constructed for this use case, we assumed that a typical day’s operation would be about 140 miles round trip for 250 workdays per year, and that the average fuel economy was 5.38 miles per gallon. The new vehicles were assumed to have a 20- year lifespan, and retired vehicles were assumed to have no real resale or salvage value. With these assumptions, the total cost of ownership was modeled, including purchase price and financing, operation cost, and maintenance cost. All future cash flows were discounted using a 5% discount rate. BE powertrains are more efficient than ICE powertrains. CARB has found that heavy duty electric trucks have energy efficiency ratios ranging from 3.5 to more than 7 when compared to diesel trucks, depending on operational speed. The efficiency ratio curve produced by CARB is reproduced in Figure 11. The average speed on the composite driving cycle is 32.8 mph. By using the regression equation provided by CARB, the average speed equates to an efficiency ratio of 3.73. Based on the ICE efficiency calculated at 5.38 mpg, the BE efficiency is found to be 20.05 mpge, or 0.52 miles per kWh.Electrifying this use-case would save the fleet $3,732.41 per vehicle, if operations could be designed to accommodate the technology. This includes the cost of two Level 2 charging systems, which could in theory be deployed near either end point of the route to allow for charging as needed after each one-way trip. Of course, other real-world considerations, like acquiring property for a second depot to install the charger on, may also increase costs for the BE truck pathway. Overall, the break even point for the BE truck would not be until its 20th year of operation. Performing more than one round trip per day, leading to a greater number of miles travelled, would improve the economics of electrification on this route because the bulk of the savings are in per-mile operating cost and maintenance cost. If charging schedules can be designed to accommodate delivery needs, and the demand for deliveries is adequate,increasing the freight activity in this freight operation would make electrification much more attractive. Finally, BEVs do not have tailpipe emissions.