Mark Solomon joined DC VELOCITY as senior editor in August 2008, and was promoted to his current position on January 1, 2015. He has spent more than 30 years in the transportation, logistics and supply chain management fields as a journalist and public relations professional. From 1989 to 1994, he worked in Washington as a reporter for the Journal of Commerce, covering the aviation and trucking industries, the Department of Transportation, Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court. Prior to that, he worked for Traffic World for seven years in a similar role. From 1994 to 2008, Mr. Solomon ran Media-Based Solutions, a public relations firm based in Atlanta. He graduated in 1978 with a B.A. in journalism from The American University in Washington, D.C.
For building products manufacturer Owens Corning Corp., whose annual transportation fuel bill hits about
$100 million, $1.1 million in savings over the last year or so may seem like a drop in the bucket. Unless,
that is, the bucket is filled with found money.
Owens Corning gained these savings by doing nothing more than going about its business. One of its truckers,
Chicago-based Dillon Transport Inc., converted from diesel fuel to lower-cost, cleaner-burning liquefied natural
gas (LNG) on two lanes that it operates for the Toledo, Ohio-based company. The routes from Owens Corning's
suppliers to its factories in Texas and Ohio have stayed the same, as have the rates. Owens Corning's savings
come from lower energy surcharges imposed by Dillon.
Phil Crofts, Dillon's marketing director, reckons its natural gas surcharges are, on average, 30 percent below
those on traditional diesel fuel. Unlike with diesel, there is no industrywide template for determining natural
gas surcharges. However, natural gas prices are today about 90 cents to $1 a gallon cheaper than diesel prices.
In addition, natural gas' price fluctuations are less extreme. The combination of low prices and low volatility
has become a boon to truckers, which can pass on some of that bounty to their shippers.
The two companies have benefited from the steady and predictable velocity of goods flow on the two lanes—raw
materials moving from Owens Corning's suppliers to its factories. The transit is so predictable that Dillon buys natural
gas from one of its fueling partners, Seal Beach, Calif.-based Clean Energy Partners, on a guaranteed basis knowing it
has the loads to support the fuel consumption. The only change is that Owens Corning now commits to a three-to-five year
relationship with Dillon rather than a year-to-year agreement.
Dillon Transport and Owens Corning are not the only companies seeing savings from converting to natural gas. In Arizona,
Golden Eagle Distributors Inc., a Tucson-based beverage distributor whose largest customer is the beer titan Anheuser-Busch
InBev, put its first compressed natural gas (CNG) power unit on the road about 20 months ago. Today, Golden Eagle's CNG units,
which are leased from Ryder System Inc., comprise nearly half of its total rig count. Golden Eagle consumes 90,000 "gas gallon
equivalents" (GGE) of CNG a year and saves an estimated $142,020 annually over the cost of diesel. Those savings more than offset
the additional $81,600 annual costs of leasing the more expensive CNG trucks, according to Bill Osteen, senior vice president of
business operations.
Keeping those costs down is crucial because Golden Eagle does not pass on higher fuel charges to its end users—supermarkets,
convenience stores, restaurants, and bars. So it must stay on top of its fuel spending or pay the price. The switch to CNG has
been "vital to us in containing our fuel costs," Osteen said.
Golden Eagle also estimates it saves $12,500 in lower vehicle maintenance on CNG trucks, Osteen said. What's more, Golden
Eagle generates royalties by allowing public fill-ups at its CNG refueling facilities in Tucson and nearby Casa Grande. Under
an arrangement with Chicago-based Trillium CNG, a provider of CNG fueling services, Golden Eagle supplies the raw land to
Trillium, which then designs, builds, operates, and maintains the facilities, according to Osteen.
These stories illustrate the possible monetary benefits of using natural gas, either in compressed or liquefied forms. But
there are still obstacles to overcome before either form enters the mainstream.
CNG VS. LNG
Much of the uptake for CNG so far has come from delivery fleets such as garbage trucks, mass transit, and school buses
whose vehicles travel less than 250 miles per day and return to their bases after their shifts. CNG is a dense, heavy
substance. What's more, the nine-liter engines that are still the standard for natural gas transport lack the horsepower
and torque to haul heavy loads. As a result, it is virtually impossible to use CNG to transport 80,000 pounds of gross
vehicle weight—the maximum tonnage allowed by law—over any appreciable distance.
In addition, there aren't many CNG fueling stations that can accommodate a heavy-duty tractor-trailer; even if a site
could be accessed it would take as long as 30 minutes to top off a rig's tank because most compressor outputs are undersized
for that function, according to Clean Energy.
LNG is dispensed and stored as a "cryogenic" fuel at temperatures of -260 degrees. Unlike CNG engines, which can lose up to
one-fourth of their tank storage capabilities during fill-ups because of heat and temperature gain, LNG engines do not generate
heat, and their design allows all of the fuel to be used. This leads to fueling speeds comparable to that of diesel engines and
no loss of range. An LNG-powered truck can travel up to 750 miles on one tank, making them more suitable for regional or
longer-haul truck runs.
One big advantage of CNG is that it doesn't bear the liquefaction and delivery expenses of LNG, and is thus significantly
less costly to produce. It is also taxed at a lower rate than LNG.
FUTURE ADOPTION LEVELS
Industry experts expect adoption levels to rise significantly over the next several years. Natural gas will power about
17 percent of the nation's heavy-duty truck fleet by 2017, up from 4 percent today, according to estimates from Siemens,
the German industrial giant, which supplies LNG. Annual purchases for LNG-powered trucks, currently at less than 500, will
increase to about 4,000 by 2020, according to Dave Hurst, analyst for Boulder, Colo.-based Navigant Research, a consultancy.
LNG, however, will remain a niche market for heavy-duty trucks through the end of the decade, Hurst says.
The catalyst for increased use of CNG-powered vehicles will be the adoption by fleets of the more powerful 12-liter engines.
Scott Keeley, director of the Compressed Natural Gas Initiative for Siemens Infrastructure and Cities, said the move to the
12-liter engines will enable CNG-powered rigs to haul thousands of pounds of cargo on 300-mile treks, the typical truck
length-of-haul. Given that the interstate highway system stretches about 45,000 miles, Keeley said it would only require
about 165 or so CNG-refueling stations to cover the country's highway backbone.
The move to the 12-liter engine for LNG has already begun. In late April, Pittsburgh-based Modern Transportation became
the first trucker to operate LNG-powered vehicles with a 12-liter engine when it launched service for Owens Corning on a
dedicated route linking Sanford, N.C., and Owens Corning's roofing plant in Savannah, Ga. The engines are built by Cummins
Westport Inc., a joint venture between manufacturer Cummins Inc. and Westport Innovations Inc., which designs technologies
allowing engines to operate on natural gas and other alternate energy solutions.
OBSTACLES AHEAD
Like any major conversion, the jump from diesel to natural gas will not fully take hold until several
obstacles are surmounted. Today, a 9-liter LNG truck costs about $30,000, while a similar CNG-powered truck
costs about $60,000, according to Clean Energy Fuels estimates. What's more, a 12-liter truck would cost between
$55,000 and $80,000 than a comparable diesel truck, according to Siemens. That is currently too cost-prohibitive
for large-scale natural gas fleet utilization. Keeley said technological advancements and process improvements
should drive down the differential to $35,000 in two years.
There is also the cost of building out a refueling infrastructure. The number of CNG and LNG refueling stations will
approximately double by 2020, with the vast majority being for CNG fill-ups, according to Navigant estimates. LNG station growth
will increase from slightly more than 200 this year to 343 by 2015, and then slow after that, according to Navigant.
David Uncapher, transportation sourcing and logistics leader for Owens Corning, said the country's refueling infrastructure is
currently "inadequate everywhere for ease of growth." He added, though, that the two fueling stations used by Dillon to support
Owens Corning's business are fine for its needs.
Uncapher also worries about the availability of replacement vehicles in the event of equipment problems. "What happens if a
truck goes down," he asked. "Can [providers] still get capacity?"
Yet for the growing supporters of natural gas for transportation, these issues amount to little more than growing pains.
Keeley is convinced that the train (or truck) has left the yard, and that the public will catch on natural gas' enormous
potential once refueling stations start to become as visible as gas stations on the nation's roads.
"It's not often you can use this term without it being an overstatement, but this is truly a game changer," he said.
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."