Think there's nothing new in lift truck batteries and associated equipment? Not so. Here are four trends that could have a big impact on how you manage those assets.
Contributing Editor Toby Gooley is a writer and editor specializing in supply chain, logistics, and material handling, and a lecturer at MIT's Center for Transportation & Logistics. She previously was Senior Editor at DC VELOCITY and Editor of DCV's sister publication, CSCMP's Supply Chain Quarterly. Prior to joining AGiLE Business Media in 2007, she spent 20 years at Logistics Management magazine as Managing Editor and Senior Editor covering international trade and transportation. Prior to that she was an export traffic manager for 10 years. She holds a B.A. in Asian Studies from Cornell University.
Let's face it: Lift truck batteries and associated equipment—such as battery changing, monitoring, and charging systems—aren't the sexiest things in the warehouse. They're not as glamorous as robots or as attention-grabbing as high-speed conveyor systems. As a result, they're often taken for granted.
But these workhorses of the warehouse and DC are especially worthy of attention right now. Several factors—including technology, the economy, the environment, and regulatory controls—are having a notable impact on what buyers of batteries and associated equipment are purchasing and how they manage those assets.
What can you expect down the road? Here are four trends to watch.
1. Companies will adopt more efficient charging systems. Although high-frequency chargers have been available in Europe for years, they're now becoming a hot topic in North America. Most chargers for industrial batteries used here are ferroresonant or silicon-controlled rectifier (SCR) types, but these typically have only a 60- to 80-percent efficiency rate for converting AC current into the DC current needed to charge a battery, explains Steve Spaar, marketing director-Americas for the battery maker EnerSys. They also require large transformers that include costly commodities like steel and copper.
High-frequency charging technology, which uses a different type of switching componentry, doesn't require large transformers. These chargers have an efficiency rating of at least 90 to 92 percent and many are even higher, Spaar says. Fleets that use this technology typically see slightly lower electric bills. Electric utilities like these high "power factor" chargers, and many are willing to give a rebate to the end user for purchasing them, Spaar says. Buyers also can get LEED credit for installing these efficient charging systems.
There's no question that high-frequency chargers are becoming more prevalent, says Dan Dwyer, vice president and general manager of Sackett Systems, a manufacturer of battery handling equipment. "About 80 percent of the systems we've installed this year have some sort of high-frequency chargers involved," he says. For those installations, his company has had to modify the racking configuration in its multilevel battery changing systems because most high-frequency chargers have a smaller footprint and are mounted differently than traditional equipment, he says.
Concerns about electricity costs are encouraging lift truck fleet managers to reconsider not just how but when they charge their batteries, says Arun Patel, president of Access Control Group, a provider of asset management solutions for lift truck fleets. Charging during peak hours when electricity rates are highest, especially during the summer, can raise costs, he points out. By collecting and analyzing battery usage data, managers may find that they don't need to charge every battery at the same time or that some batteries are getting little enough use that they could be charged at night instead, he notes.
2. Regulatory restrictions will increase. Battery charging systems have come under scrutiny in California, where the California Energy Commission has proposed a regulation that would ban the sale of certain types of chargers in the state. The rule would apply to both consumer and industrial chargers.
The commission believes that charging devices that more efficiently convert AC electricity from the power grid to DC electricity stored in the battery will greatly reduce the billions of kilowatt hours of wasted energy generated by battery chargers in California each year. According to the commission's draft proposal, the regulation would require all chargers to shut off the flow of electricity after the battery has been fully charged. It would also set standards for the charge return factor (the amount of energy applied to a battery compared to the amount extracted from it) as well as for the efficiency in converting high-voltage AC to lower-voltage DC, power losses occurring in circuitry during charging, how well a charger synchronizes with the electric utility's 60 Hz cycle, and the amount of power the device draws to keep a battery at full charge. Finally, it would require that the charger draw no power when no battery is attached and the charger is in standby mode.
The proposed standards could make it illegal to sell SCR and ferroresonant chargers, according to Spaar. The commission is expected to issue its proposal this summer; if adopted, the standards could take effect as early as July 2013 for industrial chargers. It's believed that California is the only state planning to regulate chargers, but if the measure should prove successful, then other states might adopt similar rules.
For more information ...
Looking for a supplier of batteries, charging systems, handling equipment, or monitoring systems? Here are just some of the many companies that offer these products.
3. Battery rooms will get "lean." Lean systems are becoming ubiquitous in manufacturing, and lean processes have been making headway in logistics and warehousing. So why not in the battery room? Lean is all about the systematic elimination of waste. Of the eight wastes that lean processes address, six (transportation, inventory, motion, people, waiting, and defects) exist in battery rooms, says Hal Vanasse, vice president of sales and marketing for Philadelphia Scientific, a provider of battery management systems. "People are happy to throw money at battery rooms, but they do not look systemically at what's going on and how to reduce waste," he says.
Almost any process related to changing and charging batteries can be wasteful and inefficient, Vanasse points out. For example, if you're checking the water levels of batteries that don't need water, then you've wasted time, money, motion, and people. If operators are queuing for battery changes because of poor charging practices or slow watering, then you're wasting time and people. And having more batteries than are needed for the required work produces costly excess inventory. All this waste can add up to tens of thousands of dollars annually, even for a small fleet, he says.
Not surprisingly, Vanasse touts electronic battery management systems as a tool for ensuring that only necessary tasks are done, and in the most efficient way. But he's hoping that the concept of lean itself will catch on with every company that uses industrial batteries, whether they adopt battery management systems or not. "The interesting thing about the lean framework is that it has a feedback mechanism that requires you to measure what you are doing against a plan, then make decisions that will lead to improvement," he explains. "It's systematizing not what we do, but what we should do."
4. Fleet managers will look to get more productivity out of existing assets. There is tremendous pressure on fleet and battery room managers to improve their return on assets, says John Kim, general manager of Aerovironment's Power Systems Business Unit, which supplies battery charging systems and accessories. "Management wants more out of that same piece of machinery and the people who use it," he observes.
Vendors are responding to that pressure by developing new technologies specifically aimed at achieving more with less. Kim's company, for instance, currently has a product under development that will allow users of fast chargers to charge two trucks from a single port. Port Splitter, as the device is called, does "sequence charging," constantly checking the state of charge for two batteries and automatically charging one or the other as needed.
Other vendors have focused on devising ways to give customers better management information. One of Access Control Group's products, for instance, lets forklift fleet managers integrate data from disparate sources like asset management and battery management systems for analytical purposes. "That way, they can combine them in a single view of how the whole mobile asset is working," Patel says. "You need a good picture in one screen that includes information that comes from different sources."
The pressure to improve asset utilization is also behind the rapidly growing interest in electronic battery management systems, says Dwyer of Sackett Systems. "We're seeing an increase in requests for battery management systems software because it helps customers with both operational decisions and capital decisions—for instance, which batteries they need to replace and how much they need to allocate from a budgetary perspective."
Indeed, says Kim, battery management systems that used to be a luxury are now seen as a necessity. Those systems' ability to prolong battery life, which is what drives a battery's total life-cycle cost, makes them worthwhile investments, he says.
Technology is important, of course, but battery owners also are seeking personal advice on how to get more benefit from existing assets, according to Spaar. "Customers now are looking to us not just to sell batteries and charging systems to them; they want us to be more involved in that part of their business," he says. "They want us to be the experts in what we are selling to them and advise them on how to best utilize them."
Most of the apparel sold in North America is manufactured in Asia, meaning the finished goods travel long distances to reach end markets, with all the associated greenhouse gas emissions. On top of that, apparel manufacturing itself requires a significant amount of energy, water, and raw materials like cotton. Overall, the production of apparel is responsible for about 2% of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions, according to a report titled
Taking Stock of Progress Against the Roadmap to Net Zeroby the Apparel Impact Institute. Founded in 2017, the Apparel Impact Institute is an organization dedicated to identifying, funding, and then scaling solutions aimed at reducing the carbon emissions and other environmental impacts of the apparel and textile industries.
The author of this annual study is researcher and consultant Michael Sadowski. He wrote the first report in 2021 as well as the latest edition, which was released earlier this year. Sadowski, who is also executive director of the environmental nonprofit
The Circulate Initiative, recently joined DC Velocity Group Editorial Director David Maloney on an episode of the “Logistics Matters” podcast to discuss the key findings of the research, what companies are doing to reduce emissions, and the progress they’ve made since the first report was issued.
A: While companies in the apparel industry can set their own sustainability targets, we realized there was a need to give them a blueprint for actually reducing emissions. And so, we produced the first report back in 2021, where we laid out the emissions from the sector, based on the best estimates [we could make using] data from various sources. It gives companies and the sector a blueprint for what we collectively need to do to drive toward the ambitious reduction [target] of staying within a 1.5 degrees Celsius pathway. That was the first report, and then we committed to refresh the analysis on an annual basis. The second report was published last year, and the third report came out in May of this year.
Q: What were some of the key findings of your research?
A: We found that about half of the emissions in the sector come from Tier Two, which is essentially textile production. That includes the knitting, weaving, dyeing, and finishing of fabric, which together account for over half of the total emissions. That was a really important finding, and it allows us to focus our attention on the interventions that can drive those emissions down.
Raw material production accounts for another quarter of emissions. That includes cotton farming, extracting gas and oil from the ground to make synthetics, and things like that. So we now have a really keen understanding of the source of our industry’s emissions.
Q: Your report mentions that the apparel industry is responsible for about 2% of global emissions. Is that an accurate statistic?
A: That’s our best estimate of the total emissions [generated by] the apparel sector. Some other reports on the industry have apparel at up to 8% of global emissions. And there is a commonly misquoted number in the media that it’s 10%. From my perspective, I think the best estimate is somewhere under 2%.
We know that globally, humankind needs to reduce emissions by roughly half by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050 to hit international goals. [Reaching that target will require the involvement of] every facet of the global economy and every aspect of the apparel sector—transportation, material production, manufacturing, cotton farming. Through our work and that of others, I think the apparel sector understands what has to happen. We have highlighted examples of how companies are taking action to reduce emissions in the roadmap reports.
Q: What are some of those actions the industry can take to reduce emissions?
A: I think one of the positive developments since we wrote the first report is that we’re seeing companies really focus on the most impactful areas. We see companies diving deep on thermal energy, for example. With respect to Tier Two, we [focus] a lot of attention on things like ocean freight versus air. There’s a rule of thumb I’ve heard that indicates air freight is about 10 times the cost [of ocean] and also produces 10 times more greenhouse gas emissions.
There is money available to invest in sustainability efforts. It’s really exciting to see the funding that’s coming through for AI [artificial intelligence] and to see that individual companies, such as H&M and Lululemon, are investing in real solutions in their supply chains. I think a lot of concrete actions are being taken.
And yet we know that reducing emissions by half on an absolute basis by 2030 is a monumental undertaking. So I don’t want to be overly optimistic, because I think we have a lot of work to do. But I do think we’ve got some amazing progress happening.
Q: You mentioned several companies that are starting to address their emissions. Is that a result of their being more aware of the emissions they generate? Have you seen progress made since the first report came out in 2021?
A: Yes. When we published the first roadmap back in 2021, our statistics showed that only about 12 companies had met the criteria [for setting] science-based targets. In 2024, the number of apparel, textile, and footwear companies that have set targets or have commitments to set targets is close to 500. It’s an enormous increase. I think they see the urgency more than other sectors do.
We have companies that have been working at sustainability for quite a long time. I think the apparel sector has developed a keen understanding of the impacts of climate change. You can see the impacts of flooding, drought, heat, and other things happening in places like Bangladesh and Pakistan and India. If you’re a brand or a manufacturer and you have operations and supply chains in these places, I think you understand what the future will look like if we don’t significantly reduce emissions.
Q: There are different categories of emission levels, depending on the role within the supply chain. Scope 1 are “direct” emissions under the reporting company’s control. For apparel, this might be the production of raw materials or the manufacturing of the finished product. Scope 2 covers “indirect” emissions from purchased energy, such as electricity used in these processes. Scope 3 emissions are harder to track, as they include emissions from supply chain partners both upstream and downstream.
Now companies are finding there are legislative efforts around the world that could soon require them to track and report on all these emissions, including emissions produced by their partners’ supply chains. Does this mean that companies now need to be more aware of not only what greenhouse gas emissions they produce, but also what their partners produce?
A: That’s right. Just to put this into context, if you’re a brand like an Adidas or a Gap, you still have to consider the Scope 3 emissions. In particular, there are the so-called “purchased goods and services,” which refers to all of the embedded emissions in your products, from farming cotton to knitting yarn to making fabric. Those “purchased goods and services” generally account for well above 80% of the total emissions associated with a product. It’s by far the most significant portion of your emissions.
Leading companies have begun measuring and taking action on Scope 3 emissions because of regulatory developments in Europe and, to some extent now, in California. I do think this is just a further tailwind for the work that the industry is doing.
I also think it will definitely ratchet up the quality requirements of Scope 3 data, which is not yet where we’d all like it to be. Companies are working to improve that data, but I think the regulatory push will make the quality side increasingly important.
Q: Overall, do you think the work being done by the Apparel Impact Institute will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions within the industry?
A: When we started this back in 2020, we were at a place where companies were setting targets and knew their intended destination, but what they needed was a blueprint for how to get there. And so, the roadmap [provided] this blueprint and identified six key things that the sector needed to do—from using more sustainable materials to deploying renewable electricity in the supply chain.
Decarbonizing any sector, whether it’s transportation, chemicals, or automotive, requires investment. The Apparel Impact Institute is bringing collective investment, which is so critical. I’m really optimistic about what they’re doing. They have taken a data-driven, evidence-based approach, so they know where the emissions are and they know what the needed interventions are. And they’ve got the industry behind them in doing that.
The global air cargo market’s hot summer of double-digit demand growth continued in August with average spot rates showing their largest year-on-year jump with a 24% increase, according to the latest weekly analysis by Xeneta.
Xeneta cited two reasons to explain the increase. First, Global average air cargo spot rates reached $2.68 per kg in August due to continuing supply and demand imbalance. That came as August's global cargo supply grew at its slowest ratio in 2024 to-date at 2% year-on-year, while global cargo demand continued its double-digit growth, rising +11%.
The second reason for higher rates was an ocean-to-air shift in freight volumes due to Red Sea disruptions and e-commerce demand.
Those factors could soon be amplified as e-commerce shows continued strong growth approaching the hotly anticipated winter peak season. E-commerce and low-value goods exports from China in the first seven months of 2024 increased 30% year-on-year, including shipments to Europe and the US rising 38% and 30% growth respectively, Xeneta said.
“Typically, air cargo market performance in August tends to follow the July trend. But another month of double-digit demand growth and the strongest rate growths of the year means there was definitely no summer slack season in 2024,” Niall van de Wouw, Xeneta’s chief airfreight officer, said in a release.
“Rates we saw bottoming out in late July started picking up again in mid-August. This is too short a period to call a season. This has been a busy summer, and now we’re at the threshold of Q4, it will be interesting to see what will happen and if all the anticipation of a red-hot peak season materializes,” van de Wouw said.
The report cites data showing that there are approximately 1.7 million workers missing from the post-pandemic workforce and that 38% of small firms are unable to fill open positions. At the same time, the “skills gap” in the workforce is accelerating as automation and AI create significant shifts in how work is performed.
That information comes from the “2024 Labor Day Report” released by Littler’s Workplace Policy Institute (WPI), the firm’s government relations and public policy arm.
“We continue to see a labor shortage and an urgent need to upskill the current workforce to adapt to the new world of work,” said Michael Lotito, Littler shareholder and co-chair of WPI. “As corporate executives and business leaders look to the future, they are focused on realizing the many benefits of AI to streamline operations and guide strategic decision-making, while cultivating a talent pipeline that can support this growth.”
But while the need is clear, solutions may be complicated by public policy changes such as the upcoming U.S. general election and the proliferation of employment-related legislation at the state and local levels amid Congressional gridlock.
“We are heading into a contentious election that has already proven to be unpredictable and is poised to create even more uncertainty for employers, no matter the outcome,” Shannon Meade, WPI’s executive director, said in a release. “At the same time, the growing patchwork of state and local requirements across the U.S. is exacerbating compliance challenges for companies. That, coupled with looming changes following several Supreme Court decisions that have the potential to upend rulemaking, gives C-suite executives much to contend with in planning their workforce-related strategies.”
Stax Engineering, the venture-backed startup that provides smokestack emissions reduction services for maritime ships, will service all vessels from Toyota Motor North America Inc. visiting the Toyota Berth at the Port of Long Beach, according to a new five-year deal announced today.
Beginning in 2025 to coincide with new California Air Resources Board (CARB) standards, STAX will become the first and only emissions control provider to service roll-on/roll-off (ro-ros) vessels in the state of California, the company said.
Stax has rapidly grown since its launch in the first quarter of this year, supported in part by a $40 million funding round from investors, announced in July. It now holds exclusive service agreements at California ports including Los Angeles, Long Beach, Hueneme, Benicia, Richmond, and Oakland. The firm has also partnered with individual companies like NYK Line, Hyundai GLOVIS, Equilon Enterprises LLC d/b/a Shell Oil Products US (Shell), and now Toyota.
Stax says it offers an alternative to shore power with land- and barge-based, mobile emissions capture and control technology for shipping terminal and fleet operators without the need for retrofits.
In the case of this latest deal, the Toyota Long Beach Vehicle Distribution Center imports about 200,000 vehicles each year on ro-ro vessels. Stax will keep those ships green with its flexible exhaust capture system, which attaches to all vessel classes without modification to remove 99% of emitted particulate matter (PM) and 95% of emitted oxides of nitrogen (NOx). Over the lifetime of this new agreement with Toyota, Stax estimated the service will account for approximately 3,700 hours and more than 47 tons of emissions controlled.
“We set out to provide an emissions capture and control solution that was reliable, easily accessible, and cost-effective. As we begin to service Toyota, we’re confident that we can meet the needs of the full breadth of the maritime industry, furthering our impact on the local air quality, public health, and environment,” Mike Walker, CEO of Stax, said in a release. “Continuing to establish strong partnerships will help build momentum for and trust in our technology as we expand beyond the state of California.”
That result showed that driver wages across the industry continue to increase post-pandemic, despite a challenging freight market for motor carriers. The data comes from ATA’s “Driver Compensation Study,” which asked 120 fleets, more than 150,000 employee drivers, and 14,000 independent contractors about their wage and benefit information.
Drilling into specific categories, linehaul less-than-truckload (LTL) drivers earned a median annual amount of $94,525 in 2023, while local LTL drivers earned a median of $80,680. The median annual compensation for drivers at private carriers has risen 12% since 2021, reaching $95,114 in 2023. And leased-on independent contractors for truckload carriers were paid an annual median amount of $186,016 in 2023.
The results also showed how the demographics of the industry are changing, as carriers offered smaller referral and fewer sign-on bonuses for new drivers in 2023 compared to 2021 but more frequently offered tenure bonuses to their current drivers and with a greater median value.
"While our last study, conducted in 2021, illustrated how drivers benefitted from the strongest freight environment in a generation, this latest report shows professional drivers' earnings are still rising—even in a weaker freight economy," ATA Chief Economist Bob Costello said in a release. "By offering greater tenure bonuses to their current driver force, many fleets appear to be shifting their workforce priorities from recruitment to retention."