While many in the logistics world still think of propane as a fuel for forklifts, that's only part of the story. It's also being used as a clean, cheap source of power for over-the-road trucks.
Susan Lacefield has been working for supply chain publications since 1999. Before joining DC VELOCITY, she was an associate editor for Supply Chain Management Review and wrote for Logistics Management magazine. She holds a master's degree in English.
Long before the EPA's SmartWay program, carbon mapping, and hybrid electric trucks, Schwan's Home Service trucks were running on an alternative fuel. But the fuel wasn't ethanol or biodiesel or one of the others you might expect. It was a fuel that's more often associated with lift trucks than their over-the-road counterparts: propane.
Why propane? "It started back in the '70s when ... fuel prices were rising," explains Jeff Schueller, director of fleet maintenance for Schwan's. "Marvin Schwan, the founder of the company, did not want the fuel prices back then to affect his company's growth and the routes that he was building, and so he looked for a more economical way to run the equipment."
Today, 75 percent of the 6,000-plus trucks in the company's fleet run on propane. That includes both the medium-duty vehicles and the light-duty trucks Schwan's uses to deliver its flash-frozen food to homes in suburban neighborhoods and rural areas throughout the country.
Does propane still have the cost advantage over mainstream fuels 35 years later? Schueller says it does. "Every year, we do an analysis—diesel vs. propane, or diesel vs. gas and propane—and operationally, the numbers continue to show that it is more economical for us to operate on alternative fuels," he says.
Cheap, clean, and available
While many in the logistics world still think of propane—also known as liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) or propane autogas—as a way to power forklifts, that's only part of the story. It has long since moved out of the warehouse and onto the highways. Today, there are approximately 15 million over-the-road vehicles running on propane worldwide, according to the Propane Education & Research Council (PERC), making it the third most-popular fuel source for vehicles after gas and diesel.
In the United States, most of the uptake has been in the commercial (as opposed to passenger) vehicle sector—particularly among fleets whose vehicles operate within a fixed range. For the most part, the vehicles running on propane are light- and medium-duty trucks.
For fleet owners, much of propane's appeal is its low cost. According to PERC, the price of propane tends to be about 30 percent below the national average price for gasoline.
And it's not just cheaper; it's cleaner too, advocates say. Depending on the application, propane-fueled vehicles generate 17 to 24 percent fewer greenhouse gas emissions than their gasoline-powered counterparts, says Brian Feehan, vice president of PERC.
Another advantage is that 90 percent of propane is derived from sources in the United States, which minimizes the risk of supply disruptions caused by geopolitical events. In comparison, the United States imports roughly 60 percent of its petroleum.
On top of that, propane is readily available. The lack of refueling infrastructure that has hampered the adoption of some other alternative fuels, like hydrogen, is less likely to be a concern with propane. Although most propane-based fleets handle refueling at the company's own locations, that's not their only option. A network of public fueling stations already exists. According to the Department of Energy, there are 2,500 propane refueling stations throughout the country.
Bumpy road to adoption
Yet for all its advantages, propane has made only limited inroads in the U.S. over-the-road truck market. Although it appeared to be poised for takeoff following the OPEC embargo and resulting oil crisis in the '70s, interest faded once oil supplies loosened up and fuel prices retreated.
Historically, this hasn't been the easiest of routes for a fleet manager to pursue. While propane itself may be relatively inexpensive and widely available, that's not necessarily true of the trucks that run on it. Even today, a fleet manager contemplating going over to propane will face a number of hurdles.
For one thing, the vehicles carry a high price tag. Propane-powered trucks cost on average $6,500 to $11,000 more than gasoline-powered ones.
For another, there's vehicle availability. Although Feehan says things are starting to change, one of the biggest barriers fleet owners have encountered to date has been simply finding a propane-powered truck that meets their needs.
Some companies have solved the problem by converting gasoline trucks to propane. Schwan's, for instance, buys its fleet vehicles with their original gasoline systems intact and uses certified technicians to install a liquid propane injection system. "Basically it just adapts right to the engine and wiring harness without any alterations to the original equipment," says Schueller.
"[Conversion] is not difficult to do," agrees Feehan. "The difficult part is getting the vehicle certified in terms of durability, drivability, emissions-testing compliance, and EPA standards. Once that's done—and that's usually [handled] by the fuel-system manufacturer—it takes eight hours for a certified installer to put in the fuel system."
But that still leaves the question of service and repairs. With propane not yet in widespread use, it's not always easy to find technicians who are familiar with the fuel and willing to work with it. To build a repair network, Schwan's ended up training potential service providers itself.
Although Schueller says the training required was minimal, he acknowledges that the prospect of starting over with, say, hydrogen or natural gas has deterred his company from investigating other alternative fuels. "After three decades of use, we have a well-trained [repair] network [staffed with operators who are] knowledgeable in that arena," he says, "so it hasn't been conceivable to start in with another alternative fuel system at this point."
The road ahead
When it comes to propane's prospects for widespread adoption, the biggest impediment of all may simply be a lack of visibility. In the trucking industry, overall awareness about propane remains low compared with other alternative fuels. The American Trucking Associations, for example, has published white papers addressing alternative fuels such as biodiesel and natural gas, but not propane.
A related problem is outdated perceptions about propane. Many people don't realize how much the technology has evolved since the '70s, advocates say. Feehan points to vehicle acceleration as an example. Although earlier propane vehicles didn't offer as much horsepower as their gasoline-powered counterparts, advances in liquid injection technology have essentially erased the difference, he says. Today, propane vehicles mirror gasoline models in terms of horsepower and acceleration. But Feehan adds that it's often necessary to get people to demo the vehicles to convince them of that.
To combat outdated perceptions and re-establish propane's credibility as a transportation fuel, the propane industry has made a concerted effort to educate the market over the last five or six years, says Feehan. And it appears the effort may be paying off.
One indication is the expanded availability of propane autogas vehicles. Roush CleanTech, a division of Roush Industries, now sells propane-powered light- and medium-duty Ford trucks and vans, while CleanFuel USA offers light- and medium-duty GMC trucks.
This past February, snack maker Frito-Lay announced that it would begin piloting a Ford E-350 light-duty truck from Roush that's powered by liquid propane autogas. If the pilot produces the expected cost and environmental benefits, Frito-Lay says it could convert as many as 2,000 gasoline-powered trucks to propane over the next few years.
These and other market developments have led at least one observer to conclude that propane's day may finally have come. "With the industry initiatives to go green, I would advise companies to consider propane," says Schueller. "In addition to conversion kits, the major manufacturers, Ford and GM, are going to be offering the option for fleet owners and buyers in the future. I think with the rising gasoline [prices], propane is a very viable option."
Congestion on U.S. highways is costing the trucking industry big, according to research from the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), released today.
The group found that traffic congestion on U.S. highways added $108.8 billion in costs to the trucking industry in 2022, a record high. The information comes from ATRI’s Cost of Congestion study, which is part of the organization’s ongoing highway performance measurement research.
Total hours of congestion fell slightly compared to 2021 due to softening freight market conditions, but the cost of operating a truck increased at a much higher rate, according to the research. As a result, the overall cost of congestion increased by 15% year-over-year—a level equivalent to more than 430,000 commercial truck drivers sitting idle for one work year and an average cost of $7,588 for every registered combination truck.
The analysis also identified metropolitan delays and related impacts, showing that the top 10 most-congested states each experienced added costs of more than $8 billion. That list was led by Texas, at $9.17 billion in added costs; California, at $8.77 billion; and Florida, $8.44 billion. Rounding out the top 10 list were New York, Georgia, New Jersey, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and Tennessee. Combined, the top 10 states account for more than half of the trucking industry’s congestion costs nationwide—52%, according to the research.
The metro areas with the highest congestion costs include New York City, $6.68 billion; Miami, $3.2 billion; and Chicago, $3.14 billion.
ATRI’s analysis also found that the trucking industry wasted more than 6.4 billion gallons of diesel fuel in 2022 due to congestion, resulting in additional fuel costs of $32.1 billion.
ATRI used a combination of data sources, including its truck GPS database and Operational Costs study benchmarks, to calculate the impacts of trucking delays on major U.S. roadways.
There’s a photo from 1971 that John Kent, professor of supply chain management at the University of Arkansas, likes to show. It’s of a shaggy-haired 18-year-old named Glenn Cowan grinning at three-time world table tennis champion Zhuang Zedong, while holding a silk tapestry Zhuang had just given him. Cowan was a member of the U.S. table tennis team who participated in the 1971 World Table Tennis Championships in Nagoya, Japan. Story has it that one morning, he overslept and missed his bus to the tournament and had to hitch a ride with the Chinese national team and met and connected with Zhuang.
Cowan and Zhuang’s interaction led to an invitation for the U.S. team to visit China. At the time, the two countries were just beginning to emerge from a 20-year period of decidedly frosty relations, strict travel bans, and trade restrictions. The highly publicized trip signaled a willingness on both sides to renew relations and launched the term “pingpong diplomacy.”
Kent, who is a senior fellow at the George H. W. Bush Foundation for U.S.-China Relations, believes the photograph is a good reminder that some 50-odd years ago, the economies of the United States and China were not as tightly interwoven as they are today. At the time, the Nixon administration was looking to form closer political and economic ties between the two countries in hopes of reducing chances of future conflict (and to weaken alliances among Communist countries).
The signals coming out of Washington and Beijing are now, of course, much different than they were in the early 1970s. Instead of advocating for better relations, political rhetoric focuses on the need for the U.S. to “decouple” from China. Both Republicans and Democrats have warned that the U.S. economy is too dependent on goods manufactured in China. They see this dependency as a threat to economic strength, American jobs, supply chain resiliency, and national security.
Supply chain professionals, however, know that extricating ourselves from our reliance on Chinese manufacturing is easier said than done. Many pundits push for a “China + 1” strategy, where companies diversify their manufacturing and sourcing options beyond China. But in reality, that “plus one” is often a Chinese company operating in a different country or a non-Chinese manufacturer that is still heavily dependent on material or subcomponents made in China.
This is the problem when supply chain decisions are made on a global scale without input from supply chain professionals. In an article in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Kent argues that, “The discussions on supply chains mainly take place between government officials who typically bring many other competing issues and agendas to the table. Corporate entities—the individuals and companies directly impacted by supply chains—tend to be under-represented in the conversation.”
Kent is a proponent of what he calls “supply chain diplomacy,” where experts from academia and industry from the U.S. and China work collaboratively to create better, more efficient global supply chains. Take, for example, the “Peace Beans” project that Kent is involved with. This project, jointly formed by Zhejiang University and the Bush China Foundation, proposes balancing supply chains by exporting soybeans from Arkansas to tofu producers in China’s Yunnan province, and, in return, importing coffee beans grown in Yunnan to coffee roasters in Arkansas. Kent believes the operation could even use the same transportation equipment.
The benefits of working collaboratively—instead of continuing to build friction in the supply chain through tariffs and adversarial relationships—are numerous, according to Kent and his colleagues. They believe it would be much better if the two major world economies worked together on issues like global inflation, climate change, and artificial intelligence.
And such relations could play a significant role in strengthening world peace, particularly in light of ongoing tensions over Taiwan. Because, as Kent writes, “The 19th-century idea that ‘When goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will’ is as true today as ever. Perhaps more so.”
Hyster-Yale Materials Handling today announced its plans to fulfill the domestic manufacturing requirements of the Build America, Buy America (BABA) Act for certain portions of its lineup of forklift trucks and container handling equipment.
That means the Greenville, North Carolina-based company now plans to expand its existing American manufacturing with a targeted set of high-capacity models, including electric options, that align with the needs of infrastructure projects subject to BABA requirements. The company’s plans include determining the optimal production location in the United States, strategically expanding sourcing agreements to meet local material requirements, and further developing electric power options for high-capacity equipment.
As a part of the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the BABA Act aims to increase the use of American-made materials in federally funded infrastructure projects across the U.S., Hyster-Yale says. It was enacted as part of a broader effort to boost domestic manufacturing and economic growth, and mandates that federal dollars allocated to infrastructure – such as roads, bridges, ports and public transit systems – must prioritize materials produced in the USA, including critical items like steel, iron and various construction materials.
Hyster-Yale’s footprint in the U.S. is spread across 10 locations, including three manufacturing facilities.
“Our leadership is fully invested in meeting the needs of businesses that require BABA-compliant material handling solutions,” Tony Salgado, Hyster-Yale’s chief operating officer, said in a release. “We are working to partner with our key domestic suppliers, as well as identifying how best to leverage our own American manufacturing footprint to deliver a competitive solution for our customers and stakeholders. But beyond mere compliance, and in line with the many areas of our business where we are evolving to better support our customers, our commitment remains steadfast. We are dedicated to delivering industry-leading standards in design, durability and performance — qualities that have become synonymous with our brands worldwide and that our customers have come to rely on and expect.”
In a separate move, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also gave its approval for the state to advance its Heavy-Duty Omnibus Rule, which is crafted to significantly reduce smog-forming nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from new heavy-duty, diesel-powered trucks.
Both rules are intended to deliver health benefits to California citizens affected by vehicle pollution, according to the environmental group Earthjustice. If the state gets federal approval for the final steps to become law, the rules mean that cars on the road in California will largely be zero-emissions a generation from now in the 2050s, accounting for the average vehicle lifespan of vehicles with internal combustion engine (ICE) power sold before that 2035 date.
“This might read like checking a bureaucratic box, but EPA’s approval is a critical step forward in protecting our lungs from pollution and our wallets from the expenses of combustion fuels,” Paul Cort, director of Earthjustice’s Right To Zero campaign, said in a release. “The gradual shift in car sales to zero-emissions models will cut smog and household costs while growing California’s clean energy workforce. Cutting truck pollution will help clear our skies of smog. EPA should now approve the remaining authorization requests from California to allow the state to clean its air and protect its residents.”
However, the truck drivers' industry group Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) pushed back against the federal decision allowing the Omnibus Low-NOx rule to advance. "The Omnibus Low-NOx waiver for California calls into question the policymaking process under the Biden administration's EPA. Purposefully injecting uncertainty into a $588 billion American industry is bad for our economy and makes no meaningful progress towards purported environmental goals," (OOIDA) President Todd Spencer said in a release. "EPA's credibility outside of radical environmental circles would have been better served by working with regulated industries rather than ramming through last-minute special interest favors. We look forward to working with the Trump administration's EPA in good faith towards achievable environmental outcomes.”
Editor's note:This article was revised on December 18 to add reaction from OOIDA.
A Canadian startup that provides AI-powered logistics solutions has gained $5.5 million in seed funding to support its concept of creating a digital platform for global trade, according to Toronto-based Starboard.
The round was led by Eclipse, with participation from previous backers Garuda Ventures and Everywhere Ventures. The firm says it will use its new backing to expand its engineering team in Toronto and accelerate its AI-driven product development to simplify supply chain complexities.
According to Starboard, the logistics industry is under immense pressure to adapt to the growing complexity of global trade, which has hit recent hurdles such as the strike at U.S. east and gulf coast ports. That situation calls for innovative solutions to streamline operations and reduce costs for operators.
As a potential solution, Starboard offers its flagship product, which it defines as an AI-based transportation management system (TMS) and rate management system that helps mid-sized freight forwarders operate more efficiently and win more business. More broadly, Starboard says it is building the virtual infrastructure for global trade, allowing freight companies to leverage AI and machine learning to optimize operations such as processing shipments in real time, reconciling invoices, and following up on payments.
"This investment is a pivotal step in our mission to unlock the power of AI for our customers," said Sumeet Trehan, Co-Founder and CEO of Starboard. "Global trade has long been plagued by inefficiencies that drive up costs and reduce competitiveness. Our platform is designed to empower SMB freight forwarders—the backbone of more than $20 trillion in global trade and $1 trillion in logistics spend—with the tools they need to thrive in this complex ecosystem."