Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering North Carolina State University

1. BEST PRACTICES FOR GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS IN FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION H. Christopher Frey, Ph.D. and Po-Yao Kuo Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC 27695 Prepared for: Talking Freight Seminar Series Federal Highway Administration January 17, 2007

2. Objectives • Identify and characterizepotential best practices for reduction ofgreenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the freight transportation sector • Assess and compare these best practices • Develop a guidebook regarding these best practices

3. Introduction • Definition of Key Concepts • Study Methodology • List of Best Practices • Total Modal GHG Emissions Reductions • Comparisons of Best Practices Assessed Quantitatively • Inter-modal Substitutions • Overview of the Guidebook • Conclusions and Recommendations

4. GHG Emissions in U.S. FreightTransportation, 2003 Billion Tons CO2 eq. (9%) *U.S. Total includes Bunker fuel for international aviation and marine

5. Distribution of GHG Emissions by Mode within the U.S. Freight Sector, 2003 Rail 6% Air 5% Water 13% Truck 60% Pipeline 16% Total GHG Emissions: 7.20×108 Tons CO2 Equivalent

6. Definitions and Concepts Best Practices: • Technological or operational strategies • Existing or developing strategies or technologies • Reduce GHG emissions • Reduce energy use or use of alternative fuels • Reduce refrigerant leakage or increase use of low Global Warming Potential (GWP) refrigerants

7. Definitions and Concepts Subgroup: • A collection of best practices in a mode that have either common goals or attributes Greenhouse Gas Emissions: • Focus on CO2, CH4, and HFCs • Global Warming Potential (GWP): GWP = 1 for CO2 GWP = 21 for CH4 GWP = 1,300 for HFC-134a Developmental Status: New concepts, pilot tests, and commercially available systems

8. Study Methodology

9. Assessment of Potential GHG Emissions Reductions for Individual Best Practices Per-device reductions: • Differences in 2025 per-device emissions with vs. without the Best Practice (BP) • For alternative fuels, life cycle inventories were assessed • May apply only to a fraction of devices in a mode Modal reductions: • Differences in 2025 modal emissions with or without the BP • Best estimate of market penetration by 2025

10. Assessment of Potential GHG Emissions Reductions for Multiple Best Practices Aggregate reductions for a subgroup: • Linear combination of individual best practices • Mutual exclusion • Some BPs cannot be used simultaneously • Based on BP with the highest reduction potential • Interaction: • Some BPs can be used together but interact • Quantification of interaction is unknown or not reported • Used a linear combination as an estimate

11. Qualitative and Quantitative Assessment of Best Practices • Quantitative estimates of the reductions in GHG emissions, energy use and refrigerant use are made for all best practices • Quantitative Assessment of Costs of Best Practices: - Where sufficient cost data are available - Summarized in standardized reporting tables • Qualitative Assessment of Best Practices: - Lack of quantitative cost data - Summarized in simplified summary tables

12. Quantitative Assessment of Best Practices(Example: Auxiliary Power Units) A truck with sleeper cab is estimated to consume up to 0.85 gallons of diesel per hour while idling Source: Volvo Trucks North America, www.volvo.com/trucks/na/en-us/ Auxiliary power units (APUs) are estimated to consume 0.2-0.4 gallons of diesel per hour

13. Quantitative Assessment of Best Practices (Example: Auxiliary Power Units) Practice goals, 2025: - Trucks with sleeper cabs - ReduceCO2 by 15 million tons per year - Reduce energy use by 185 Tera BTU per year Practice summary: Auxiliary power units (APU) - Small diesel engine-generator - Used instead of base engine for idling - Supply power for electrical air conditioning, heating, and auxiliary loads

14. Quantitative Assessment of Best Practices (Example: Auxiliary Power Units) Standardized Reporting Table for Expected Reductions, 2025

15. Quantitative Assessment of Best Practices (Example: Auxiliary Power Units) Standardized Reporting Table for Expected Practice Costs and Cost Savings, 2025 *Positive values denote cost savings

16. Summary of Best Practices for Freight Transportation A total of 59 potential best practices have been identified

17. List of 33 Best Practices for the Truck Mode E *= mutually exclusive within a subgroup; I# = interaction within a subgroup.

18. List of 33 Best Practices for the Truck Mode (Continued) E* = mutually exclusive within a subgroup; I# = interaction within a subgroup.

19. List of 6 Best Practices for the Rail Mode E* = mutually exclusive within a subgroup; I# = interaction within a subgroup.

20. List of 10 Best Practices for the Air Mode E* = mutually exclusive within a subgroup; I# = interaction within a subgroup.

21. List of 5 Best Practices for the Water Mode E* = mutually exclusive within a subgroup; I# = interaction within a subgroup.

22. List of 5 Best Practices for the Pipeline Mode

23. Total 2025 Modal GHG Emissions Reductions Compared to 2025 Without Best Practices GHG Emissions Reductions (%)

24. Total 2025 Modal GHG Emissions ReductionsCompared to 2025 Without Best Practices Reductions in Total Modal GHG Emissions (Million Tons CO2 eq.)

25. Changes in GHG Emissions from 2003 to 2025 with Best Practices Total Modal GHG Emissions (Million Tons CO2 eq.)

26. Changes in GHG Emissions from 2003 to 2025 with Best Practices Percentage Change (%)

27. Comparisons of Best Practices Assessed Quantitatively • To date, sufficient information has been obtained to assess 13 practices quantitatively.

28. Comparisons of Best Practices Assessed Quantitatively (Continued)

29. Comparison of Best Practices Assessed Quantitatively (Continue) B20 Biodiesel Hybrid Trucks Auxiliary Power Units GHG Emissions Reductions (Million Tons CO2 eq. / Year) Pipeline Water Rail Truck

30. Comparisons of Best Practices Assessed Quantitatively (Continued) Hybrid Trucks Auxiliary Power Units B20 Bio- diesel Net Cost Savings (Million $ / Year) Truck Rail Water Pipeline

31. Inter-Modal Comparison of Average ModalGHG Emission Rates GHG Emissions per Unit of Freight Transport (lb CO2 eq. / ton-mile)

32. Overview of the Organization and Content of The Guidebook Background and Methodology Definitions and Methodology Fuel Properties Concepts Chapter 3 Appendix F Chapter 2 Assessments of Individual and Subgroups of Best Practices by Mode Mode Summary Material Supporting Details Chapter 4 Appendix A Truck Chapter 5 Appendix B Rail Chapter 6 Appendix C Air Chapter 7 Appendix D Water Chapter 8 Appendix E Pipeline Summaries of and Conclusions and Comparisons Recommendations Between Modes Chapter 10 Chapter 9

33. Conclusions • Aggressive implementation of best practices may lead to a net decrease in total GHG emissions in freight transportation • Even larger percentage reductions are possible if Inter-modal shifts (e.g., substitute rail for truck) are encourage

34. Conclusions • There is limited quantitative data upon which to base assessments of best practices • For 13best practicesfor which adequate data are available: - The normalized cost savings per unit of GHG emissions reduction was highly variable - The variability mostly depends on the magnitudes of their energy cost savings.

35. Conclusions • Some best practices (e.g., biodiesel for trucks) offer potential for large magnitudes in GHG emissions reductions, but may not be as cost-effective • From a national policy perspective, governments should promote research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) to foster best practices that lead to large absolute reductions in GHG emissions • Some best practices may lead to “no regrets” • e.g., net cost savings to an operator • Additional benefits of GHG emissions or energy use reduction

36. Recommendations • Update information as new information becomes available • Evaluate key assumptions (e.g., market penetration rates) that influence the selection of best practices via sensitivity analysis • Develop tools (e.g., a decision tree, a decision support framework) to support decision making regarding best practices

37. Acknowledgement/Disclaimer • This work is supported by the U.S. Department of Transportation via Center for Transportation and the Environment. • The authors are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. • The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of either the U.S. Department of Transportation or the Center for Transportation and the Environment at the time of publication. • This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.