Is This Leadership?

By Thomas Jelenić, Vice President

California has adopted stringent zero-emission vehicle (ZEVs) requirements that seek to have ZEV sales increasing from 2% to 5% to 10% over a number of years. Much concern was raised about whether such requirements are feasible or sensible. But California considers itself a leader and is moving forward with the certainty that the right regulatory signals will force the technology into the marketplace. The year was 1990. The 2% goal was to be achieved by 1998 and the 10% goal by 2003. By the end of 2019, pure ZEV sales only made up 5.3% of the California market. California now has a regulatory ZEV goal for 10% of new car purchases by 2025. Twenty-two years after the original deadline… was that leadership or has California become consumed by setting goals, rather than meeting them?

Demonstrating its belief that there is nothing to be learned from history, even recent history, California has once again issued a sweeping technology mandate before the needed technology has been proven. The mandate bans the sale of internal combustion engine cars by 2035 and requires all heavy duty trucks to be zero emission (ZE) by 2045, while calling out “drayage trucks” to complete the transition by 2035 (despite the fact there is no physical or operational difference between “trucks” and “drayage trucks”). The order also called out off-road equipment, like cargo-handling equipment (CHE) used in ports, to complete the transition to 100% ZE by 2035 even though off-road equipment is more diverse, has more severe duty-cycles, and is produced in fewer numbers than on-road vehicles. The most recent analyses by the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles have determined that there are currently no feasible ZE heavy duty trucks or CHE available for deployment. Yet, CARB is already proposing to ban new trucks from serving California ports unless the trucks are ZE beginning in 2024 even though the technology needed to meet the ports’ needs does not yet exist. Certainly, it must only be a matter of the proper regulatory signals.

In any case, the ZE clock is now running. California’s port terminal operators must figure out how to transition to ZE equipment over the next 15 years. The challenges are not trivial. First up, are the deadlines real? California has a history of setting audacious goals, then moving the finish line. That does not inspire confidence when a company must invest billions against an out-of-state competitor that does not have to make the same investment.

On the technological front, obstacles for heavy-duty equipment are more challenging than for passenger cars. By sales, it would seem that most Californians feel that electric vehicles do not meet their driving needs or their budget constraints. Scale that up to equipment that must move 80,000 pounds over steep grades and long distances and the technology limitations become more daunting. Yet, despite some window dressing, California officials remain solely focused on battery electric technologies. Unfortunately, the operational constraints of goods movement mean that all vying technologies have strengths and weaknesses.

Because of the years developing the passenger car market, battery technology has made significant progress. Still, it is limited by range. Worse, the cost of extended range for battery technology is linear. The more range needed; the larger the battery needed. With larger batteries, come higher costs and reduced load. With hydrogen fuel cells, these challenges vanish, but new challenges emerge. While potentially more viable than battery electric, hydrogen is further behind in terms of technological development, with additional concerns regarding fuel supply and price.

However, the growing interest in ZE technologies has spurred investment into alternatives to battery electric. There are a number of hydrogen demonstrations currently being conducted in the San Pedro Bay ports for both CHE and trucks. Unlike battery-electric, extending the range of hydrogen-powered CHE comes at the marginal cost for larger tanks, while hydrogen has operational characteristics similar to today’s existing operations that make it an attractive alternative.

Hydrogen technologies may also have some attraction for port authorities. The billions of dollars that will be needed to bring the necessary electrical infrastructure to marine terminals and installation of terminal charging infrastructure will stretch the budgets and construction capabilities of port authorities. By comparison, the shore power infrastructure capital program took a decade to implement. Electrical infrastructure for battery-powered CHE will likely require infrastructure five times the scale of shore power. Hydrogen-fueled equipment will not need any of this infrastructure, instead utilizing shared infrastructure similar to today’s diesel infrastructure.

There is one other way that hydrogen may be an interesting ZE alternative for port facilities. As ocean carriers consider solutions for future IMO mandates for greenhouse gas reductions, one possible solution being considered is ammonia. Whether ammonia makes the cut as a vessel GHG solution is anyone’s guess today, especially given concerns regarding ammonia toxicity. But the interesting element here is that ammonia is essentially a method of storing hydrogen.

Is it possible that both vessels and marine terminals that serve them move toward a mutual hydrogen economy to solve the question of reducing greenhouse gas emissions? Nobody today probably knows the answer. In California, though, the question has been reduced to: do we have time to determine the answer? Unfortunately, a clock, set by political expediency, is ticking.