Technology Status Report - Zero Emission Drayage Trucks

FINAL

Prepared forPort of Long BeachPort of Los Angeles

June 2011

Prepared byTIAX LLC1 Park Plaza, Sixth FloorIrvine, California 92614Tel 949.833.7130Fax 949.833.7134

Table of Contents

Table of Contents.............................................................................................................................21 Introduction and Background..................................................................................................1

1.1 Drayage Trucking as a Zero-Emissions Vehicle Application.........................................11.2 Evolving Electric Drive Technology for Zero-Emissions Trucks...................................21.3 Existing Development and Testing Efforts at the Ports...................................................2

1.3.1 Balqon Nautilus E-30 Battery Electric Vehicle.......................................................21.3.2 Vision Industries Tyrano Fuel Cell / Battery Hybrid Electric Vehicle...................4

2 Use Scenario and Evaluation Criteria......................................................................................63 Technical Capabilities.............................................................................................................7

3.1 Balqon E-30 BEV............................................................................................................73.2 Vision Tyrano FCV.........................................................................................................8

4 Reliability................................................................................................................................84.1 Balqon E-30 BEV............................................................................................................84.2 Vision Tyrano FCV.........................................................................................................9

5 Fleet Scenarios and Manufacturing Plans................................................................................95.1 Balqon E-30 BEV............................................................................................................95.2 Vision Tyrano FCV.......................................................................................................10

6 Capital Costs and O&M Costs...............................................................................................106.1 Balqon E-30 BEV..........................................................................................................116.2 Vision Tyrano FCV.......................................................................................................13

7 Refueling Infrastructure Availability and Costs....................................................................147.1 Balqon E-30 BEV..........................................................................................................14

7.1.1 Recharging Strategy...............................................................................................147.1.2 Total Charging Demand........................................................................................14

7.2 Vision Tyrano FCV.......................................................................................................168 Operational Logistics.............................................................................................................17

8.1 Balqon E-30 BEV..........................................................................................................188.2 Vision Tyrano FCV.......................................................................................................18

9 Net Revenue Impacts.............................................................................................................199.1 Balqon E-30 BEV..........................................................................................................199.2 Vision Tyrano FCV.......................................................................................................20

10 Regulatory Certification....................................................................................................2011 Summary and Recommendations......................................................................................20

11.1 Balqon E-30 BEV..........................................................................................................2111.2 Vision Tyrano FCV.......................................................................................................22

1 Introduction and Background

1.1 Drayage Trucking as a Zero-Emissions Vehicle ApplicationIn their 2010 Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP) Update, the Port of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach reiterated the primary goal of the CAAP; “…to develop and implement strategies and programs necessary to reduce air emissions and health risks while allowing port development to continue.” 1 In support of this goal, both ports are working with vehicle and engine manufacturers to evaluate the potential of “zero-emissions” Class 8 heavy-duty drayage trucks. Zero-emissions vehicles have been defined by the California Air Resources Board as those that do not directly emit any “criteria” pollutants (e.g., hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter). Currently, this definition cannot be met by vehicles powered by internal combustion engines, even when ultra clean, non-carbon fuels like hydrogen are utilized.

As further described in this paper, both opportunities and challenges exist for drayage service to become a viable short-haul trucking application of zero-emissions vehicle technologies. An essential next step is to conduct real-world testing on these technologies in drayage service. Consequently, the ports have initiated demonstration and field testing programs on two types of emerging zero-emissions drayage truck technologies with available proof-of-concept vehicles. Both technologies eliminate fuel combustion and utilize electric drive as the key means to achieve zero emissions and higher system efficiency compared to conventional drayage truck propulsion technology. These two vehicle technologies are:

o Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) – These vehicles operate continually in zero-emissions mode by utilizing electricity from the grid stored on the vehicle in battery packs. BEV technology has been tested, and even commercially deployed, for many years in other types of heavy-duty vehicles (e.g., shuttle buses). However, only recently have technologically mature prototypes become available to demonstrate in drayage truck applications.

o Fuel Cell Vehicles (FCVs) – These vehicles utilize the electrochemical reaction of hydrogen and oxygen in fuel cell “stacks” to generate electricity onboard the vehicle. FCVs are less commercially mature zero-emissions vehicles than BEVs; they have been deployed almost exclusively as pre-production prototypes in niche-application demonstration programs. To date, FCVs have not yet been demonstrated in drayage trucking applications.

The ports are now evaluating the potential to phase in a drayage truck system powered by zero-emissions vehicle technologies. Electric-drive BEV and FCV technologies comprise the vast majority of publically documented experience with zero-emissions heavy-duty vehicles, including drayage trucks. The purpose of this white paper is to review the current state of technology for zero-emissions heavy-duty BEVs and FCVs that are being specifically developed for demonstration and potential commercialization in drayage trucking applications.

1 San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan Technical Report, Draft 2010 Update, accessed on June 11th, 2010 at http://www.cleanairactionplan.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=2425

- 1 -

1.2 Evolving Electric Drive Technology for Zero-Emissions TrucksVehicles employing partially electrified drive trains have seen dramatic growth in the light-duty market over the last ten years with the commercialization of various hybrid-electric passenger cars. The medium- and heavy-duty markets have also shown recent trends toward electrification of drive trains in both on-road and off-road applications. Indeed, the California-funded Hybrid Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project (HVIP) website2 currently lists more than 75 hybrid-electric on-road trucks and buses available for order from eight manufacturers. These vehicles include Class 4 to Class 8 trucks, albeit at weight ratings significantly below the ratings required for most drayage service. Further, several manufacturers are pursuing commercialization of trucks that have the potential to meet the basic operational requirements for short haul drayage trucks. Three manufacturers that have specifically expressed interest in the drayage market are listed in Table 1. Of these, Balqon and Vision Industries are currently working with the ports to test prototype on-road electric trucks that meet the CARB definition for zero emissions. Therefore, the Balqon and Vision Industries prototype technologies serve as the basis to characterize the current state of development for zero-emissions trucks that are potentially suitable for drayage service at port terminals.

Table 1. Zero-Emissions-Capable Electric-Drive Class 8 TrucksManufacturer Product Drive TypeBalqon XE30 Battery Electric (100% electric mode)ArvinMeritor Dual Mode Hybrid Diesel/Battery Electric with all-electric mode3

Vision Industries Tyrano Hydrogen Fuel Cell/Battery Electric

Note: This paper characterizes the status of on-road zero-emissions vehicle technologies that could augment or directly replace portions of the existing drayage truck fleet. This paper does not consider container movement technologies that cannot utilize the existing public road infrastructure in and around the ports.

1.3 Existing Development and Testing Efforts at the Ports

1.3.1 Balqon Nautilus E-30 Battery Electric VehicleIn 2007, the Port of Los Angeles and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) entered into a contract with Balqon to develop and demonstrate a battery-electric truck that could operate within and outside terminal facilities in both on-road and off-road applications. The initial prototype truck tested, the Nautilus E-30, was completed and tested in early 2008, primarily as an off-road terminal tractor. Based on an assessment of the prototype truck’s performance by port and SCAQMD staff, it was determined that an upgraded version of the E-30 had the potential to meet the performance requirements for an on-road short haul drayage truck. In June of 2008, the Port of Los Angeles approved Resolution Number 08-65714, thereby entering into a multi-phased test program with Balqon that ultimately includes the purchase and

2 http://www.californiahvip.org/eligibleveh.asp3 The ArvinMeritor Dual-Mode Hybrid does not meet CARB’s definition of a zero-emissions vehicle because it includes an engine that combusts diesel fuel. It is capable of all-electric, zero-emissions operation for short driving range.4 http://www.portoflosangeles.org/Board/2008/June/061908_Special_Meeting_Item1_trans.pdf

- 2 -

delivery of five E-30 battery electric on-road drayage trucks that could be used for short haul operations.

As part of Phase 1 of the test project, Balqon performed a series of manufacturer tests designed to estimate the technical range, performance, and capability of their prototype electric drayage truck. Early tests of the Balqon E-30 in 2008 were conducted with a lead-acid battery pack. In subsequent manufacturer tests, the truck was equipped with a larger and more advanced lithium-ion battery pack. These tests included the following parameters and results5:

1. Early Prototype Vehicle (2008) – Based on the Nautilus E-30 terminal tractor. 68,000 lb load operating continuously for 2-3 hours. Maximum speed recorded was 45 MPH with speeds below 20 MPH on grades. System used lead acid battery packs and 160 kilowatt (kW) motor controller.

2. XE 30 Prototype (2009) – test designed to estimate range. The prototype truck was driving continuously on a level, closed course with no load until the battery was depleted. Maximum range was estimated by the manufacturer to be 182 miles unloaded and 125-150 miles loaded. System used larger lithium ion battery pack and an upgraded, 240 kW motor controller.

3. Dynamometer Testing (2010) – conducted to secure approval for transmission warranties. Demonstrated a simulated sustained motor load on a dynamometer equivalent to the truck climbing a 15% grade while fully loaded for two hours.

The following provides an overview of the basic configuration for Balqon’s prototype XE-30 all electric on-road tractor that has been demonstrated to date in local drayage service:

Electric Drive System: Battery Electric with AC All-Electric DriveRegenerative Braking: YesBattery Pack Type: Lithium Ion (see footnote below)Battery Manufacturer: TBDBattery Pack Usable Energy Storage Capacity: 280 kW-hrMotor Type and Power / Torque: AC Induction 200 HP @1800-2400 RPM / 600 lb-ft @ 0-1800 RPM Motor Controller Output Power: 240 kWTransmission Type: 4-speed fully automatic Allison 3000 RDS

Balqon has reported an estimated battery life of 2,200 charging cycles for its lithium-ion battery pack.6 While this claim has yet to be verified, Balqon’s original contract with the port identifies a five-year prorated battery warranty. It is highly likely that a battery electric drayage truck would experience at least 2,200 charging cycles over five years, meaning that Balqon could be exposed to warranty claims if the battery pack cannot achieve the estimated 2,200 charging cycles.

5 Based on email communications with Balqon Corporation in mid 2010. 6 As of early 2011, Balqon’s website indicates that an “extended life” Lithium Iron Phosphate battery pack is now being used for the XE-20, achieving 3,000 cycles at 80% depth of discharge (source: http://www.balqon.com/product_details.php?pid=1).

- 3 -

With the majority of work identified under Phase 1 having been completed, Phase 2 and Phase 3 are being pursued in parallel. Phase 2 focuses on the demonstration of zero emissions terminal operations, the deployment of off-road electric trucks in particular, and is outside the scope of this paper. Phase 3 is intended to demonstrate zero emissions on-road drayage trucks in short haul operations and is therefore of within the scope of this paper.

Phase 3 of the agreement between Balqon and the Port of Los Angeles calls for the testing and delivery of up to “five (5) production units [Nautilus E-30] with individual chargers and replacement battery boxes” 7 with the goal of demonstrating no impact on short-haul operations with use of zero emission technologies. The testing in Phase 1 was conducted by the Manufacturer using a prototype unit in limited, controlled test conditions. The testing to be performed under Phase 3 is intended to test the cost effectiveness and reliability of Balqon’s battery electric truck in drayage operations at actual terminal(s) or warehouse(s) in the field and will further both ports’ understanding of the feasibility of this technology for zero emissions drayage service on a broader scale over a longer time period. Note that Phase 3 testing has not yet started. Specific objectives identified for Phase 3 include:

Documented proof of the ability to transport 60,000 lbs load in short-haul applications on road grades of up to 10% with minimal or no impact on current road infrastructure

Zero or positive impact on operational efficiency when compared to existing diesel trucks (operational efficiency is the actual throughput of cargo compared to the maximum theoretical throughput of cargo and is reduced by mechanical failures, increased refueling times, etc)

Net gain in asset value due to longer product life and generation of emissions offsets/credits (must consider total cost of ownership over several years including operating and maintenance costs)

1.3.2 Vision Industries Tyrano Fuel Cell / Battery Hybrid Electric Vehicle Vision Motor Corp (Vision) of El Segundo, California is a developer and manufacturer of heavy-duty vehicles powered by hydrogen fuel cells. Since early 2009, Vision has been demonstrating prototype fuel cell tractor technology that can be used in drayage service.8 Fuel cells generate electricity onboard vehicles from the reaction of hydrogen and oxygen; because the process is combustion free, there are no emissions of criteria pollutants or CO2 (a greenhouse gas). Fuel cells by themselves are capable of powering heavy-duty vehicles, but they are typically combined with battery packs to form special hybrid-electric vehicle propulsion systems.

The Vision Tyrano uses a “series” type of hybrid. The fuel cell provides the system energy, but it does not directly drive the vehicle. Instead, the electricity generated by the fuel cell through reaction of hydrogen and oxygen is fed into the battery system, which powers the vehicle through two electric motors. In essence, the fuel cell in this hybrid-electric system serves as an electrochemical “generator set” that recharges the battery pack whenever it is depleted below a set percentage. This obviates the need to plug the vehicle into the electricity grid9, and with

7 “Responsible environmental growth automotive initiative (regain) – Leadership”, Exhibit B of Agreement Between the City of Los Angeles and Balqon Corporation. April 20088 Vision has a working “mule” prototype with its “2nd-generation electric drive system” that includes a hydrogen fuel cell to recharge a lithium-ion battery pack, which provides motive power through dual electric motors.9 As further described in this paper, as an option Vision Industries will build a plug-in version of the Tyrano FCV.

- 4 -

enough onboard hydrogen the fuel cell can provide an extended driving range compared to current technology BEVs. Like the Balqon BEV, the Tyrano FCV is able to utilize regenerative braking because the battery pack stores electricity generated by the electric motors during vehicle deceleration.

In late 2010 in response to a request for proposals, the ports jointly announced agreements with Vision to build and demonstrate one prototype Class 8 truck tractor10 powered by a fuel cell / battery hybrid electric drive system. This program is being conducted under the auspices of the ports’ Technology Advancement Program (TAP). The schedule calls for Vision to build and deliver one Tyrano to the TAP program for testing by June 2011. Under the project’s current schedule, one Tyrano FCV will be delivered to the ports at the end of June, 2011.

The following provides an overview of the basic configuration for the Vision Tyrano pre-production prototype Class 8 truck that is being built for the ports for demonstration in local drayage service11:

Electric Drive System: Charge Sustaining Hydrogen Fuel Cell / Battery Series HybridRegenerative Braking: YesFuel Cell Type: Direct Hydrogen Proton Exchange MembraneFuel Cell Manufacturer: Hydrogenics Corporation (expected)12

Fuel Cell Rated Power Output: 33 kW Hydrogen Source: Air Products (expected) Onboard Hydrogen Storage Type: Compressed to ~6,250 psi (~425 bar)Onboard Hydrogen Storage Amount / Quality: 20 kg / high-purity Battery Pack Type: Lithium IonBattery Manufacturer: TBDBattery Pack Usable Energy Storage Capacity: 105 kW-hr (80% of 130 kW-hr)

As currently planned, the Tyrano pre-production prototype drayage truck will be tested for approximately 18 months by Total Transportation Services Inc. High-purity hydrogen is required for the fuel cell; Vision indicates that it will be compressed to about 6,250 psi and stored onboard the truck in pressure vessels similar to those used for compressed natural gas storage on natural gas vehicles. Air Products is expected to provide hydrogen delivered to the refueling site in tube trailers. Currently, no details are available about how the hydrogen will be compressed and cleaned up into its final high-purity form at 6,250 psi. (NOTE: this method of delivering and preparing hydrogen for the FCV is suitable for a small-scale demonstration, but it unlikely to represent the fueling logistics for a large drayage fleet of FCVs. Hydrogen costs under various scenarios are further discussed in a subsequent section of this paper.)

According to Vision, the fuel cell system will operate at an efficiency of approximately 55% as it sustains charge for the Tyrano’s lithium-ion battery pack, by converting hydrogen and oxygen to

10 One prototype Vision Tyrano has been ordered jointly by the Ports under the TAP. A second Tyrano has been purchased by the Port of Los Angeles for its own exclusive testing and use.11 Information provided in this section about the Tyrano pre-production prototype FCV was provided by Vision’s management to TIAX during personal communications in May 2011.12 In September 2009, Hydrogenics Corporation announced a contract to supply Vision Industries with its HyPM 16 fuel cell system for incorporation into an unspecified number of Vision Tyrano trucks for testing at the ports.

- 5 -

electricity and water. The fuel cell system will “kick in” to recharge the battery pack whenever the battery falls below 60% state of charge. In this system, the fuel cell will generate the primary source of energy for the Tyrano, but battery power will provide the actual motive force through two electric motors. In addition, electrical energy will be generated by the electric motor during regenerative braking and fed back into the battery pack. Twenty kilograms of onboard compressed hydrogen, combined with the regenerative braking system, will provide the Tyrano with enough energy to drive approximately 200 miles in drayage service, according to Vision’s preliminary estimates.

Vision’s engineers anticipate that the proton exchange membrane fuel cell “stack” can potentially have a useful life of 10,000 hours before needing to be replaced. However, Vision currently estimates that the fuel cell warranty will be limited to 2,000 hours. Real-world maintenance costs of the Tyrano FCV are not yet known in drayage service. A key maintenance item for the Tyrano will be replacing a special air filter designed to keep impurities from entering the fuel cell system’s air inlet. Further discussion is provided in Section 6.2.

2 Use Scenario and Evaluation CriteriaIt’s envisioned that a zero-emissions drayage fleet serving the two ports would initially be sized to meet the cargo volume requirements of near-dock intermodal rail yards, and able to perform other short-haul work as necessary to keep the trucks fully utilized. Whether they are BEVs or FCVs, electric-drive drayage trucks are expected to be used initially for one-way trip lengths less than ten miles. Although longer trips are expected to be achievable, the benefits and current limitations of currently available prototype drayage trucks are most conducive to short-haul usage. Specifically, short hauls:

o help concentrate the air quality benefits of zero-emissions operation (especially elimination of diesel particulate matter) near the ports

o minimize operation at highway speeds, which can rapidly deplete the limited onboard energy storage capacities of today’s BEVs and FCVs

o help maximize exposure of the technologies to trucking companies and cargo facilities closest to the ports, which will likely be the first to commercially deploy the cleanest available technologies

Assuming the short-haul scenario described above, the following criteria must be evaluated to assess the current status of zero-emission drayage truck technology:

1. Technical Capability2. Reliability3. Manufacturer Availability4. Capital/Operating and Maintenance (O&M) costs5. Charging Infrastructure Availability and Costs6. Operational Logistics7. Net Revenue Impacts8. Regulatory Certification

The following sections consider each of the above evaluation criteria with regard to their impact on the status of the technology.

- 6 -

3 Technical CapabilitiesPrior to the Clean Trucks Program, drayage trucks were typically obtained by purchasing used Class 8 heavy-duty trucks with 12 to 15 liter, 400+ horsepower engines that were beyond their useful lives for over-the-road (long-haul) trucking. Since the implementation of the Clean Trucks Program, several motor carriers have successfully deployed various brands of “purpose-built” Class 8 trucks into short-haul drayage service, with engines as small as nine liters and delivering 320 horsepower13. This “downsizing trend” demonstrates that new drayage truck specifications can deviate significantly from the past average fleet and still adequately perform short-haul drayage service. Thus, it is important to assess the technical requirements and capabilities of zero-emissions drayage trucks within the context of this emerging short-haul service, rather than the drayage fleet that has historically served the ports. Key technical capability requirements and characteristics for short-haul trucking service are highlighted in the Table 2 below:Table 2. Key Technical Capability Requirements and Characteristics for Trucks in Short-Haul ServiceGross Combined Weight Rating (GCWR) 80,000 lbsGross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) 32,000 lbs + Vehicle WeightTop Speed with Full Load 50+ MPHGradeability14 at Vehicle Launch 20% or greaterGradeability15 at 40+ MPH and 80,000 lbs GCWR 6%Operating Time Between Fuelings Must allow for one complete shift (approx 8 hrs)

Note that the gradeability at 40 MPH is based on the characteristics of the three major bridges in the port area (Gerald Desmond Bridge, Vincent Thomas Bridge, and Commodore Schuyler F. Heim Bridge).

3.1 Balqon E-30 BEVManufacturer tests of the prototype Balqon truck, as discussed in Section 1.2, indicate that it is technically capable of operating on flat roadways at or above 80,000 lbs GCWR. This weight rating is sufficient for most drayage service as federal bridge weight limits restrict travel on most truck routes to 80,000 lbs. In addition, the prototype truck has demonstrated some capacity at over 100,000 lbs similar to trucks operating in the “over weight” corridors. It remains to be shown that the prototype truck is capable of achieving the combination of payload and grade capacity necessary for operation on roads within the ten mile region surrounding the ports, including the three major bridges in the port area.

Given the short duration of the Phase 1 Balqon prototype tests and the limited test route under controlled conditions, it is not clear whether or not the truck can meet the above mentioned gradeability and top speed requirements while under full load. Range in real world conditions is also currently unknown. A significantly more robust Phase 3 test program that employs the truck over an extended period of time in actual, fully loaded container drayage service on typical drayage routes is necessary before the technical capability of the truck can be assessed.

13 Cummins ISL-G 320 HP engine14 Gradeability is the maximum grade a loaded vehicle can climb at a specified speed. Requirement based on comparable performance of existing Cummins ISL-G equipped short haul drayage trucks.15 Based on Gerald Desmond Bridge approach grade, Gerald Desmond Bridge Replacement Project Traffic Impact Study, October 2009

- 7 -

3.2 Vision Tyrano FCVEssentially, the Tyrano is a special type of BEV that receives its energy primarily from a fuel cell system, instead of the electrical grid. As such, its performance characteristics (horsepower, torque, gradability, etc.) are substantially similar to a comparably sized BEV such as the Balqon XE 30. According to Vision’s literature, the Tyrano series hybrid drive easily provides enough horsepower and torque to meet the needs of drayage trucking. Vision engineers report that the Tyrano has a rated gradability of 13% when fully loaded at 80,000 GVWR; this should enable it to meet all grades that will be encountered in short-haul drayage trucking. One potential performance-related issue is that the Tyrano day cab tractor weighs about 17,500 pounds; this is about 2000 pounds (11.4%) more than a comparable diesel tractor weighs. However, Vision engineers point out that the Tyrano tractor’s weight distribution has been optimized to help prevent overloading of the front axle when heavy loads are moved.

Like the Balqon battery-electric drayage truck, it remains to be shown in real-world use that the prototype Vision truck is capable of achieving the combination of payload and grade capacity necessary for local drayage operation. This includes meeting the challenge of crossing the three major bridges under full load in the flow of normal traffic. In addition, the Tyrano’s driving range on a full tank of hydrogen in real-world conditions is currently unknown. To assess the technical capability of the Tyrano, a test program is needed that employs the truck over an extended period of time in actual, fully loaded container drayage service on typical drayage routes.

4 ReliabilityCurrent near-dock intermodal facilities operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week; this is a very demanding operational schedule, even for existing diesel trucks. This continuous operation produces a relatively even flow of container traffic on a weekly basis. However, this also requires that drayage trucks service the facilities continuously. To minimize the required size of an electric drayage truck fleet serving near-dock intermodal rail yards, the trucks must be operated 24 hours per day with very little downtime. To the extent that these electric drayage trucks cannot operate continuously, additional trucks will need to be added to the fleet to maintain cargo volumes. Therefore, prior to large deployments it will be critical to characterize and understand the reliability of zero-emission BEVs and FCVs in short-haul drayage.

4.1 Balqon E-30 BEVDuring Phase 1 tests conducted in early 2008 by Balqon (as described in 1.3), a prototype electric yard tractor was operated for six weeks without a mechanical failure. While these yard tractor tests provide some experience with similar drive train and power electronics components in other types of service, on-road drayage truck service involves higher combined vehicle weight, speed, road grade, and range than encountered in yard tractor service. In addition, there are no reliability data yet available for 24 hours/7 days a week operation of the Balqon electric drayage truck or electric yard tractor. This prevents any extrapolation of the reliability of the on-road truck based on the yard tractor tests.

Currently, no documented reliability data are known to exist for the on-road Balqon battery-electric truck (or any other zero-emissions truck) in real-world drayage operation. Demonstration of the reliability of the Balqon on-road electric drayage truck is a key objective of

- 8 -

the planned Phase 3 testing and will be an important resource to assess reliability of the truck in the future.

4.2 Vision Tyrano FCV As with the Balqon BEV, no documented reliability data are known to exist for the Vision FCV in real-world drayage truck service. Obtaining such data will be a key objective of the planned demonstration that is expected to commence in mid 2011 within the fleet of Cal Cartage.

5 Fleet Scenarios and Manufacturing Plans As previously mentioned in Section 2, it is expected that a zero-emissions drayage truck fleet for the two ports would initially be sized to meet the cargo volume requirements of near-dock intermodal rail yards, performing other short haul work as necessary to keep the trucks fully utilized. Based on the cargo handled by existing and planned local16 intermodal rail facilities, assumed to be 2.1 million containers in 2016 and 2.9 million containers in 2023, a fleet of several hundred drayage trucks will be required to support cargo volumes. Fleet size requirements will depend on the number of daily trips each truck can complete. Based on an analysis of PortCheck data, less than 1% of trucks complete more than five round trips per shift. Assuming three shifts per day, each truck could complete up to 12 trips per day, allowing for necessary vehicle refueling / recharging time (see discussion in Section 7). This suggests that, at a minimum, a fleet of approximately 480 trucks will be required to support the average container volumes at intermodal facilities in 2016. Additionally, the ports experience seasonal variations in cargo volumes. Averaged over the last 15 years, peak monthly loaded container volumes have exceeded the annual average rates by 8%. Assuming near-dock intermodal rail yards experience the same seasonal increases in container volumes, the drayage fleet serving these facilities must be about 8% larger than estimated by the average container volumes. This implies that a fleet of approximately 520 trucks will be needed to support intermodal facilities operations in 2016 and 720 trucks by 2023. This fleet size may be reduced if strategies or technologies are employed that can increase vehicle time available for moving containers (e.g., faster battery charging or extending driving ranges).

5.1 Balqon E-30 BEVBalqon has estimated that it can produce as many as three trucks per day due to modular truck design. However, it is not known whether this production rate can actually be achieved, since Balqon does not yet have a history of filling large orders for these types of vehicles. In addition, Balqon is dependent on the delivery of parts and subsystems from several vendors; supply chain delays could negatively impact vehicle production rates. A production rate of three trucks per day would allow Balqon to deliver more than 750 trucks per year. Assuming all would be deployed in Southern California, this would be well in excess of the estimated required fleet size. This production rate is not uncommon in the traditional Class 8 diesel truck market given firm orders and a 90-day lead time. However, it is not clear when commercial production of trucks could begin and what lead time would be necessary to reach the three trucks per day production rates indicated by Balqon.

16 “Local” refers to facilities within five miles of the ports.

- 9 -

It is important to note that certain issues, including Department of Transportation (DOT) certifications for safety and roadworthiness of the electric truck, are still pending and must be resolved before commercial manufacturing for the Balqon E-30 could begin. Completing the DOT certification process is necessary before the truck can be operated on-road as a commercial vehicle.

5.2 Vision Tyrano FCVVision currently plans to build the first 100 “pre-production” vehicles at its research and production facilities. These facilities have limited production capacity (approximately 20 trucks per month), necessitating Vision to adopt a different strategy for large-scale production. In the 2016 time frame, Vision plans to provide the fuel cell system components to major truck manufacturers as a Tier 1 supplier. Under this model, customers would purchase an FCV truck directly from the truck manufacturer rather than Vision. Such an approach has the advantage of leveraging the truck manufacturer’s production capacity, distribution, and service resources. If FCVs are available directly from one or more truck manufacturers in the 2016 time frame, it is reasonable to assume that production capacity will not be a major barrier to the deployment of 520+ FCVs. In the short term, Vision is using gliders (a truck chassis with wheels, suspension, and cab but without an engine) as the basis of their Tyrano FCV. This allows Vision to use the existing DOT certification of the glider, eliminating the need to seek additional DOT certifications.

6 Capital Costs and O&M CostsAs with most new technologies, capital costs are significantly higher for electric-drive trucks (BEVs and FCVs) compared to conventional diesel trucks. However, operating and maintenance (O&M) costs of electric-drive trucks can be significantly lower, due to higher vehicle fuel economy (reduced fuel costs per energy used) and lower maintenance costs. Table 3 summarizes five-, seven-, and ten-year estimated cost comparisons for a typical short-haul diesel drayage truck to the Balqon E-30 BEV and Vision Tyrano FCV drayage trucks. These estimates are based on capital cost and vehicle efficiency information provided by Balqon and Vision; average off-peak electricity rates in Los Angeles and Long Beach; estimates of hydrogen fuel prices, and previous experience with diesel truck operating and maintenance costs.

- 10 -

Table 3. Estimated Capital and O&M Costs for Comparable Diesel and Electric Drayage Trucks

Cost Item DieselBalqon E-30

BEVVision

Tyrano FCV NotesCapital Cost

Purchase Price $115,000 $265,000 $231,000

Estimated based on single truck orders. MSRP (Manufacturer Suggested Retail Price) may be significantly higher. Vision estimate based on an average cost of the first 1,000 trucks due to pricing changes as production volumes increase.

Fuel Cost        

Fuel Cost per Mile $0.80 $0.18 - $0.31 $0.77 - $1.03

At $4.00/gallon diesel, 8-14 cents/kW-hr grid electricity, $7.70-$10.30 kg Hydrogen. 0.2 gal/mile (Diesel) 2.2 kW-hr/mile (Balqon), 0.1 kg H2/mile (Vision)

Annual Fuel Cost $24,000 $5,400 - $9,300

$23,100 - $30,900 Based on 30,000 annual miles

Maintenance Costs        

Cost of Maintenance per Mile $0.28 $0.15 $0.16

Electric and FCHV vehicles assumes 50% reduction in break wear and oil/lube costs, no aftertreatment maintenance.

Annual Maintenance Cost $8,400 $4,500 $4,800 Based on 30,000 annual miles

Replacement Battery at Year 6 N/A $70,000 N/A

Assumes replacement of the Balqon battery after end of 5 year warranty. Vision’s battery has a projected life of greater than 10 years.

Overhaul Fuel Cell Stack(every 10,000 hours) $0 N/A $20,000 Estimated 5,000 hours per year

of fuel cell operationTotal Costs(Net Present Value)        

Five Year Cost $240,323 $288,256 - $304,246

$363,010 - $394,992 Assumes 7% discount rate17

Seven Year Cost $282,090 $347,661 - $368,680

$412,303 - $454,339 Assumes 7% discount rate

Ten Year Cost $335,041 $363,841 - $391,233

$479,706 - $534,490 Assumes 7% discount rate

6.1 Balqon E-30 BEV

Unfortunately, very few of the costs for the electric truck technology presented above have been verified by demonstrations or other real-world tests. Balqon is in the best position to estimate the purchase price of its electric truck, so the above estimate may be a reasonable approximation for the electric truck’s ultimate retail price. The purchase price, annual mileage, and annual fuel costs for the diesel truck are based on previous experience with truck costs in the Clean Trucks

17 The discount rate is an estimate of the greater value of money today compared to some time in the future (one year in this case). This rate attempts to account for various economic factors including inflation and rate of return on investments.

- 11 -

Program and the Gateway Cities Fleet Modernization Program. Assuming the purchase price estimates are accurate, the capital costs associated with a fleet of 720 electric drayage trucks would be approximately $191 million, compared to a diesel fleet cost of approximately $83 million.

Note from Table 3 that the Balqon BEV’s lifetime costs compared to diesel can vary significantly depending on the time period considered, especially if the anticipated economies of scale to reduce the purchase price are not realized immediately. In particular, the costs associated with the traction battery pack replacement significantly increases the seven-year costs of the electric truck compared to the diesel truck. However, on a five-year and ten-year basis, the electric truck costs average about $42,000 to $56,000 more than a comparable diesel truck. Historically in California, government funding has been available to help offset the incremental costs of certain state-certified low- and zero-emissions heavy-duty vehicles. Thus, it is possible that tax incentives, grants, and other sources of financial assistance may alter this cost comparison; this in discussed further in Section 9 within the broader context of net revenue impacts.

O&M costs for the electric truck have not been measured in real-world drayage service, making it difficult to estimate actual maintenance costs or fuel economy as compared to a diesel drayage truck. In particular, typical drayage operations include significant amounts of creep, idle, and transients in vehicle speed, at low average vehicle speeds18. This type of operation contrasts sharply with the predominantly steady-state operation of the Balqon truck during the tests conducted in late 2009. Ideally, real-world fuel economy and maintenance costs would be determined by an independent entity during a long-term demonstration of both electric and diesel trucks running in comparable service. Until such tests are conducted and the resulting data made available, it is not possible to make an accurate comparison of O&M costs between the Balqon electric truck and a typical diesel truck in drayage service.

Electricity costs are estimated by Balqon to be $0.08/kW-hr. Based on a review of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) and Southern California Edison (SCE) rate schedules19, the $0.08/kW-hr20 rate is applicable to LADWP customers during off-peak hours. SCE rates are higher, averaging $0.14/kW-hr14 during off-peak hours. On-peak rates for both LADWP and SCE customers can be significantly higher. Therefore, the lower bound on the fuel cost comparison given in Table 3 is only applicable to a certain subset of drayage truck owners; namely those that are LADWP customers and can recharge the entire fleet between 8:00 pm and 10:00 am. It is possible that no fuel savings would be realized for companies if they were compelled to recharge outside of off-peak hours and/or established their recharging facilities outside of LADWP territory. It should also be noted that these electric rates are subject to fluctuations as is the price of diesel fuel. No forecasting of diesel or electricity prices are made in the cost estimates given in Table 3. Electricity costs will ultimately need to be assessed for specific candidate sites in cooperation with the fleet operators.

18 Based on GPS data of trucks awarded through the Clean Trucks Program operating in and near the ports.19 SCE Rate Schedule TOU-8, accessed on June 15, 2010 at http://www.sce.com/NR/sc3/tm2/pdf/ce54-12.pdf; LADWP Rate Schedule A-3, accessed on June 15, 2010 at http://www.ladwp.com/ladwp/cms/ladwp001753.jsp 20 Includes estimated demand charges based on 18,000 kW peak demand.

- 12 -

6.2 Vision Tyrano FCVThe charge-sustaining hybrid configuration of the Tyrano provides opportunities for O&M cost reductions (relative to conventional diesel) that are similar to the Balqon E-30. In particular, both truck technologies lessen or eliminate much of the drive train maintenance and repairs present in a diesel truck. Additionally, brake wear on electric-drive trucks can be significantly reduced through the use of regenerative braking, because the drive motor helps to slow the vehicle during deceleration, thereby requiring less stopping force to be supplied by the brake system. Table 3 estimates slightly greater O&M costs per mile for the Tyrano over the E-30 due to presence of an air filter needed to provide the fuel cell with clean air. This filter is estimated by Vision to need replacement every one to two months at a cost of $50. As with the Balqon truck, Vision’s estimate of the ultimate retail price is used, recognizing that current demonstration units are being built at very low volume and entail significantly higher costs. Assuming the ultimate purchase price estimates provided by Vision are accurate, the capital costs associated with a fleet of 720 FCV drayage trucks would be approximately $166 million, compared to a diesel fleet cost of approximately $83 million. Reductions in O&M costs garnered through the use of an electric drive train are offset by higher costs of hydrogen compared to diesel, and frequent replacement of the fuel cell stack. Incremental increases in total costs compared to a diesel drayage truck range from $139,000 to $172,000 over five and ten years, respectively.

Vision estimates that the fuel cell stack will provide a useful life of approximately 10,000 hours before requiring replacement. Given the usage scenarios considered in this report and the associated high annual operating hours, it is assumed that the fuel cell stack will require overhaul or replacement approximately every two years. Vision estimates that the current cost to replace the stack is $20,000 but anticipated to decline to $3,000 by 2015. While the cost of fuel cell technologies is anticipated to decline in the future, actual cost reductions over time are difficult to predict and have historically been overestimated. Therefore, no reductions in stack replacement costs are projected in Table 3. Note that the values for Total Costs are highly sensitive to the stack replacement cost. If manufacturer predictions of reduced stack costs are realized, the ten-year Total Costs for the Vision truck could decrease by as much as $50,000 on a net present value basis.

To date, no real-world demonstrations of the Tyrano in drayage service have been conducted. Such a demonstration is needed to accurately assess the fuel economy of the Tyrano in short-haul drayage. Vision currently estimates a fuel economy of ten miles per kilogram of hydrogen, similar to the energy per mile estimates for the Balqon truck. Assuming the Vision estimates of fuel economy are accurate, and using current hydrogen production costs reported21 by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) of $7.70 to $10.30 per kilogram, the estimated fuel cost per mile is similar or greater than a traditional diesel truck at current diesel fuel prices. Note that Vision plans to develop a hydrogen fueling station that leverages existing hydrogen pipelines near the ports and has a target retail price of $5.50 per kilogram. If realized, this could reduce fuel costs significantly when compared to a diesel truck.

21 National Renewable Energy Laboratory, National FCEV Learning Demonstration Report, Spring 2011.

- 13 -

7 Refueling Infrastructure Availability and CostsOne of the greatest challenges associated with commercializing alternative fuel and electric transportation technologies is how to provide convenient and affordable access to the fuel of choice. Diesel fuel is widely available for drayage trucks, and it remains relatively inexpensive even though prices have been on the rise. This section describes some of the issues and challenges associated with building out the necessary recharging and refueling infrastructures for the two zero-emissions drayage truck technologies.

7.1 Balqon E-30 BEVAny battery-electric drayage truck will depend on a readily available battery charging infrastructure to keep the truck fueled and operational. The scope and cost of the charging infrastructure will largely depend on 1) the specific strategy for recharging and 2) how many trucks are in service and competing for the same infrastructure.

7.1.1 Recharging Strategy In general, there are three strategies available for recharging of battery-electric trucks.

1. Dedicated charging locations – use fixed battery charging equipment that requires the truck to be parked and taken out of service during the charging event.

2. Battery swapping – physically removing a depleted battery pack and replacing it with a charged battery back. Depleted battery pack recharged while truck is in service.

3. Opportunity charging – truck periodically connects to the charging infrastructure while in service. For example, recharging while waiting in queues at terminal facilities.

Each of the above charging strategies has advantages and disadvantages in drayage operations. For example, while battery swapping could minimize the downtime of a battery-electric drayage truck, it would also require specialized equipment, trained operators, and additional battery packs. Opportunity charging could potentially provide extended operating time, possibly eliminating downtime for recharging, but it would require specialized charging equipment to be integrated into operational areas such as queuing lanes. Dedicated charging locations are the most common type of recharging strategy but may require more space at terminals or truck yards and increase truck downtime compared to other recharging strategies. Ultimately, if electric trucks are deployed into drayage service in large numbers, a combination of these strategies may be used.

7.1.2 Total Charging DemandEach recharging location designed to charge Balqon BEVs will need sufficient installed electrical capacity. While the electrical capacity required will depend on the particular recharging strategy employed, some estimates can be made based on the battery capacity of each truck. For example, the Balqon truck employs a 280 kW-hr lithium-ion battery pack and reportedly provides a 125-mile driving range for a loaded truck. Given the estimated round trip length of 10 miles, it is anticipated that the truck would be able to complete 12 round trips between recharging events. Based on PortCheck data, 12 round trips are anticipated to take 19 hours. Currently, Balqon offers a charger with a maximum capacity of 60 kW per charging port.

- 14 -

To fully recharge the battery at 60 kW, it would require approximately 4.5 hours. Therefore, 12 round trips followed by a 4.5 hour recharging cycle would account for a single 24 hour period. To fully recharge the battery in 4.5 hours, the charging location must have installed electrical capacity to support a 60 kW load per truck being recharged. While an industrial location may have this level of electrical capacity installed, the required capacity increases linearly with each additional truck that is simultaneously recharged.

Assuming that the number of trucks to be recharged could be spread out evenly over an off-peak electric rate window of 14 hours, 100 trucks served by the charging location will create a peak load of 300 thousand volt-amperes (kVA). Based on a fleet size of 720 trucks in 2023, the fleet peak electrical demand would be approximately 21,600 kVA. Significant additional electrical infrastructure will be required to support this additional power demand, likely including the construction of one or more electrical substations in the port area. These costs are estimated in Table 4. Additionally, because of the overlap in 4.5 hour charging periods, a minimum of 300 charging stations would be required. Balqon is currently working toward providing a 100 kW charger that would reduce the charging time, number of required chargers, and the peak electrical demand. The number of required charging stations and peak electrical demand could be reduced further by allowing recharging over a full 24-hour window, but would also result in significantly higher electricity costs creating a tradeoff in initial charging infrastructure capital costs and the O&M costs of the trucks.

To date, the only recharging strategy that has been demonstrated on the Balqon electric truck is the use of dedicated charging locations. Balqon estimates the cost of each charging station at $40,000 for the charging equipment. This does not include the cost of electrical infrastructure upgrades to provide the necessary 480V to each charger, or to meet the incremental and significant power demands of multiple chargers. Table 4 provides an estimate of the infrastructure costs associated with a dedicated charging location approach. The table estimates total infrastructure costs for two scenarios; 1) a single, public charging facility capable of supporting the entire electric drayage fleet and 2) four smaller sites that would likely be located at individual motor carrier yards.

Table 4. Estimated charging infrastructure costsCharging Facilities

Chargers(per site)

Charger Costs(per site)

Utility Upgrade Costs (per site)

Construction Costs (per site)

Total(all sites)

1 360 $14,400,000 $7,200,000 $4,800,000 $26,400,0004 90 $3,600,000 $2,400,000 $1,600,000 $30,400,000

It is estimated that a minimum of 300 charging stations would be required given a uniform distribution over time of trucks being recharged. This is a lower bound estimate as it is reasonable to assume that some level of non-uniformity in demand will result from uncontrollable factors like peaks in cargo volumes and delays at terminals. It is not yet known to what extent actual demand may deviate from the idealized uniform demand profile, thereby requiring increased infrastructure.

The use of battery swapping strategies may provide additional flexibility in charging times and allow for a somewhat lower peak electrical demand. Costs associated with battery swapping in this application are unknown, as the process has not been demonstrated on heavy-duty vehicles in real-world commercial use. Capital costs of early light-duty battery swap stations deployed by BetterPlace are approximately $500,000. Given the additional weight and size of heavy-duty

- 15 -

vehicle batteries, it is reasonable to use the light-duty station cost as a lower bound cost estimate for a heavy-duty station. The estimated cost for each additional battery pack is $70,000. Because each charger is assumed to be fully utilized, the charger must always have a battery available for charging. This requires that the minimum number of additional batteries required to support a battery swap strategy is equal to the number of chargers identified in Table 4. It should be noted that if the capacity of the battery chargers can be increased above 60 kW, allowing a single charger to support more trucks within the 14 hour charging window, the number of additional batteries and chargers required to support the fleet can be reduced. This would reduce the additional capital costs associated with the additional batteries (currently estimated at $25M every five to seven years) and potentially reduce the total capital costs of the chargers. If battery swapping is used as a recharging strategy for electric drayage trucks, then these additional costs will need to be added to the site specific capital costs for recharging infrastructure.

7.2 Vision Tyrano FCVFuel cell vehicles in current demonstrations are nearly always refueled from high pressure hydrogen fuel dispensers operating between 5,000 and 10,000 psi. Fill rates at these pressures are typically in the range of one to two kilograms per minute22, although most heavy duty hydrogen vehicle experience has been with transit buses with more hydrogen storage capacity than the Tyrano. Fill rates tend to decrease as the fuel tank size decreases as fill rates are often limited by several factors including fuel and tank temperature. Based on the Tyrano fuel capacity of 20 kilograms, a complete refill of the Tyrano is estimated to take approximately 10 to 20 minutes, although manufacture estimates are significantly shorter at five to ten minutes per fill. Using the same assumptions of round trip length (10 miles) and trip duration (1.6 hours per trip) as described above, the 200 mile range of the Tyrano would require refueling of 20 kilograms of hydrogen approximately every 32 to 34 hours. Across an assumed fleet of 720 FCV trucks in 2023, fuel use is estimated to reach 10,500 kilograms of hydrogen per day. Currently, no motor vehicle hydrogen fueling station produces or dispenses such large quantities of hydrogen on a daily basis. However, the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory has conducted cost assessments of the infrastructure to produce 1,500 kilograms of hydrogen per day from steam-methane reformation or electrolysis. Estimates of total capital costs range from $10M to $25M per site, or “forecourt’. Using an average value of $17.5M per forecourt capable of 1,500 kg/day, Table 5 summarizes the estimated costs per refueling facility required to serve 720 FCV drayage trucks. Note that each facility requires at least two forecourts and that there may be additional cost savings possible when constructing two forecourts within the same refueling facility. Additionally, the cost of the fueling infrastructure may be recovered through revenue from fuel sales. The minimum number of dispensers is calculated based on a dispensing rate of one kilogram per minute and assumes a uniform distribution of fueling demand over the day. It is unlikely that this idealized distribution of demand will be realized in practice, therefore, significantly more dispensers will likely be required than indicated in the table.

22 National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority and San Mateo County Transit District – Fuel Cell Transit Buses Evaluation Results, 2006

- 16 -

Table 5. Estimated hydrogen refueling infrastructure costsNumber of Refueling Facilities

Minimum Dispensers

(per site)

Combined Construction and Equipment Costs

(per site)

Total(all sites)

1 8 $122,500,000 $122,500,0004 2 $35,000,000 $140,000,000

8 Operational LogisticsIf zero-emissions drayage trucks are to match or exceed the cargo-movement performance provided by existing short-haul drayage trucks, it will be imperative that they meet essential operational needs of the fleets they serve. One of the most significant operational differences for zero-emissions drayage trucks compared to conventional diesel drayage trucks involves refueling logistics. Examples of fueling logistics that can directly impact operational success and efficiency of drayage truck service include:

o Where will the vehicle(s) be refueled? o Are there multiple refueling locations, or a single location?o Are there time restrictions regarding when the vehicle(s) can be fueled?o How long will each refueling event take?o What is the usable driving range between refueling events (i.e., no fear of running out)?

Conventional drayage trucks have set very high standards for fuel-related operational logistics. Diesel drayage trucks are typically refueled offsite at widely available public fueling stations. This can be done at the convenience of the operator along the normal delivery route, taking approximately fifteen minutes to fill a fuel tank providing 400+ miles of driving range. By contrast, all types of current-technology near-zero or zero-emissions trucks – including BEVs and FCVs – take significantly longer to refuel (or recharge) because of lower energy densities; they are not yet supported by mature, well-dispersed station networks; and they provide significantly reduced driving ranges between refueling events. This is not unique to the drayage application; similar challenges exist for expanded use of alternative fuels and electric vehicles across all motor vehicle applications.

Fortunately, the successful deployment of nearly 900 natural gas drayage trucks since 2008 indicates that the drayage industry can adapt to operational changes and overcome such limitations. Most of these natural gas drayage trucks are routinely being refueled at a small number of public stations located near the ports, although some motor carriers are installing onsite natural gas refueling stations. Refueling can take longer than diesel, and during peak times, the waiting time at the limited number of natural gas fueling stations can exceed one hour. Motor carriers have been able to make adjustments to this process. Weight and payload considerations significantly restrict the amount of onboard energy that LNG drayage trucks can carry compared to diesel trucks. However, in a local delivery application such as drayage, LNG trucks can provide plenty of driving range to meet daily operational requirements. In these ways and others, drayage truckers using natural gas rigs have been able to accommodate fuel-related changes in operational requirements.

- 17 -

Similar barriers and solutions are likely to be experienced in deployment of battery-electric or hydrogen fuel cell drayage trucks. Real-world experience in drayage service will be essential to fully assess and manage the technology- and fuel-specific operational impacts of these prototype vehicles. Further discussion is provided below.

8.1 Balqon E-30 BEVRecharging the battery pack of the Balqon E-30 BEV requires special equipment, and it can take four to five hours to fully charge. Currently, no public charging stations exist to accommodate practicable charging of heavy-duty BEVs. At least in the early stages of heavy-duty BEV commercialization – barring major logistical or technology breakthroughs such as public-access “fast charging” stations – battery-electric drayage trucks are likely to be recharged overnight at the location where they are domiciled. A further incentive to charge overnight is the fact that the lowest electrical rates are available from approximately 8 p.m. to 10 a.m. (“off-peak” charging). Fleets deploying plug-in drayage trucks will achieve the best economics if they recharge their trucks within a 14 hour time window each day.

The nature of recharging a large fleet of battery-electric drayage trucks may present new challenges for the fleets that deploy them. For example, this assessment generally assumes that the charging demand would need to be consistently and evenly distributed over a 14 hour off-peak period. To find the right balance between the lowest-cost fleet charging and ensuring that operational needs are being met, this may require careful scheduling of specific recharging time periods. If the fleet owners are not able to adhere to a particular charging schedule, then infrastructure requirements and/or truck down time may increase. This problem is likely to be particularly acute if a single public charging facility is used, as scheduling would involve trucks under the control of multiple fleet owners. A future demonstration of plug-in drayage trucks should include an assessment of the ability of the fleet owner to establish and adhere to a charging schedule, as this information could be used to estimate needed infrastructure requirements.

Notably, the logistics and challenges of charging large fleets of BEVs have been successfully managed by owners of electric golf carts and fork lifts. Again, real-world experience will be essential for achieving success with electric drayage trucks, which present additional challenges associated with operating on-road vehicles.

8.2 Vision Tyrano FCVRefueling of the hydrogen tanks of the Vision Tyrano is expected to be similar to the refueling of LNG drayage trucks in several respects. First, both the Tyrano and current LNG trucks provide shorter range per tank of fuel than diesel trucks, necessitating more frequent refueling (up to once per day). Second, refueling can only be performed at a few locations, potentially creating increased wait times at fueling facilities and denying the use of a geographically well-dispersed network of fueling facilities. In contrast to LNG trucks currently used in drayage, the Tyrano is expected to require approximately twice the time to completely refill (20 minutes vs. 8-10 minutes for LNG). However, based on the demonstrated ability of drayage fleets to adapt to LNG refueling requirements and the similarities between hydrogen and LNG refueling, it is unlikely that refueling logistics would be a significant barrier to the use of an FCV.

- 18 -

9 Net Revenue ImpactsA key consideration when evaluating the state of zero emission drayage trucks is the effects they will have on net revenue compared to the existing fleet. Ultimately, the motor carrier must realize similar or greater net revenue from the operation of a zero-emissions drayage truck compared to the existing fleet of diesel and natural gas trucks. If the motor carrier cannot maintain or improve net revenue by the use of a zero-emissions drayage truck, then the motor carrier will not deploy a significant number of these trucks. Table 6 identifies several possible impacts of deploying zero emission drayage trucks and their potential impact on net revenue.

Table 6. Possible impacts of battery electric drayage trucks on net revenueChange from Existing

FleetLikely Impact on

Net Revenue Comment

Extended recharge/refuel time Decrease If truck is operated in multiple shifts

with no overnight charging opportunityHigher capital costs and

battery/fuel cell stack replacement costs

Decrease Grants and tax incentives may reduce capital costs

Specialized training required for affected

employeesDecrease

Captured fleets likely to be owned by well capitalized motor carriers using employee drivers and support personnel to operate/charge/maintain trucks

Reduced traditional O&M costs Increase

Fuel costs will vary based on electrical rates available to the recharging equipment operator

Change in utilization Unknown

Speculative, utilization may increase if demand for zero emission trucks increases due to additional regulations or environmental fees. However, increased O&M costs may reduce demand for zero emission trucks and result in lower utilization.

ZEV surcharge UnknownSpeculative, fleet owners may be able to implement a surcharge if demand for zero emissions trucks increases

9.1 Balqon E-30 BEVThe recent deployment of several hundred natural gas trucks into primarily short-haul operations provides a relevant parallel to the deployment of battery-electric trucks. The deployment of natural gas trucks was heavily incentivized by the availability of large grants, fuel prices below the cost of diesel, publically subsidized fueling infrastructure, and the Clean Trucks Fee. Given these financial incentives, motor carriers were able to accommodate changes in their operations to support natural gas trucks. While there was no physical barrier or technical barrier to accommodating these changes, there were significant financial barriers. In cases where the aforementioned financial incentives were not available, motor carriers almost invariably elected to purchase and deploy diesel drayage trucks. It is reasonable to assume that similar incentives

- 19 -

would be needed to make the use of battery electric drayage trucks competitive on a net revenue basis with the existing short haul drayage fleet.

The relative magnitudes of the impacts on net revenue identified in Table 6 have not yet been assessed, in particular, in the context of large motor carriers that could reasonably provide the capital needed to deploy several hundred battery electric drayage trucks. Ideally, motor carriers interested in potentially operating a large, zero emissions truck fleet would cooperate in a study to assess what incentives would be needed to make zero-emission trucks competitive.

9.2 Vision Tyrano FCVThe potential impacts of the Tyrano on net revenue are similar to those of the Balqon E-30. Higher capital costs and component replacement costs (in this case, a fuel cell stack rather than a large battery pack) significantly increase the net operating costs of the vehicle and reduce net revenue. The speculative benefits of increased utilization and possible ZEV surcharges do not differ between various zero-emissions technologies. However, the Tyrano requires only marginally increased refueling times over the current diesel fleet and may not have significant impacts on net revenue. Fuel costs, based on current estimated prices for hydrogen, will be higher than the diesel fleet and reduce net revenue. While hydrogen fuel costs and fuel cell stack costs may decline significantly over the next five to ten years, these reductions are difficult to estimate and would likely not be relied upon by motor carriers when assessing the financial viability of FCVs.

10 Regulatory CertificationAs mentioned above, Balqon has not yet obtained Federal Department of Transportation (DOT) certifications for safety and roadworthiness of their zero-emissions drayage truck prototype. DOT certification is necessary before commercial manufacturing can begin or units with loaded cargo can be further demonstrated in real-world drayage trucking conditions. Vision has avoided this challenge by utilizing a Freightliner glider that carries an existing DOT certification.

11 Summary and RecommendationsOf the three manufacturers currently developing Class 8 on-road trucks capable of zero-emission operation, two manufacturers are currently working with the ports to demonstrate prototype drayage trucks. Balqon is working with the ports to test its prototype XE 30 on-road battery-electric drayage truck. Vision Industries is working with the ports to test its prototype Tyrano hydrogen fuel cell drayage truck. This paper uses the ports’ experience to date with these two prototype electric-drive truck technologies as the basis to evaluate the state of zero-emission drayage trucks. In making this evaluation, the following criteria were considered:

Technical Capability Reliability Manufacturer Availability Capital/Operating and Maintenance (O&M) costs Charging Infrastructure Availability and Costs Operational Logistics Net Revenue Impacts Regulatory Certification

- 20 -

The following summarizes progress to date for both drayage truck technologies in meeting these evaluation criteria.

11.1 Balqon E-30 BEVWhile progress has been made in each category, several key unknowns lead to the conclusion that further testing and demonstration of Balqon’s prototype battery electric truck is necessary. In particular, the lack of a real-world demonstration over an extended period of time makes it impossible to assess the viability of the on-road battery electric truck in drayage operation. For these reasons, it is not possible in this report to estimate the timing of large-scale commercial viability for this vehicle without further information and testing. To produce the information needed to determine the viability of the Balqon battery electric truck in large-scale drayage operations, TIAX recommends that the ports continue with the Phase 3 testing identified in Balqon’s contract with the Port of Los Angeles and SCAQMD. To the extent that other manufacturers such as ArvinMeritor and Vision Industries pursue testing of on-road, zero- emissions drayage, these trucks should be evaluated using the same testing parameters as employed in the Balqon tests to produce a comparable data set for these types of vehicles. In addition to the tasks identified in the Phase 3 contract, testing should be expanded as necessary to include a six to twelve month test of these trucks in real world drayage operations. These tests should include the following:

1. Secure necessary Department of Transportation certifications to allow on-road operation with cargo.

2. Deploy the truck into a participating motor carrier fleet that has significant short haul operations to the near-dock intermodal rail yards.

3. Monitor performance of one or more diesel trucks, deployed into short haul service similar to the electric truck, in the same manner as the electric truck so as to establish a comparable baseline.

4. Record actual range, fuel economy, turn times, charging times, maintenance costs, and charging costs associated with operation of the truck in short haul operation.

5. Include short haul operations to non-intermodal facilities up to ten miles from the ports.

6. Monitor component degradation of the battery, brakes, power electronics, stationary charger, and drive train components (U-joints, differential, etc).

7. Identify any deficiencies or proficiencies in operation of the electric truck in drayage service as relates road grades, container weights, top speed, acceleration, steering, visibility, and braking.

8. Assess the ability of the fleet owner to establish and adhere to a charging schedule.

9. Study net revenue impacts of the truck in cooperation with the motor carrier to establish the business case for a battery electric drayage truck and any needed incentives to make deployment of the truck financial viable.

10. Codify the environmental benefits of a battery electric drayage truck, both for localized emissions and on a full fuel cycle basis.

- 21 -

After the testing described above is complete, the documented results should be analyzed to make a reasonable assessment of the commercial viability of the Balqon electric drayage truck. If the assessment is positive, a further large scale demonstration program involving numerous trucks concentrated with a single motor carrier should be conducted with the intent of observing impacts on operational logistics. In particular, this demonstration would be better able to study the following:

1. Ability of motor carrier to coordinate the charging of several trucks on a daily basis in a situation where the fleet is constrained by available chargers and the charging window associated with the lowest electrical rates.

2. Impacts on operations where a significant percentage of the fleet is charging at any one time and not available to move cargo.

3. Issues associated with upgrading the electrical infrastructure at a motor carrier site to accommodate the charging of a significant number of trucks.

In addition, the testing will provide a significant knowledge base from which to assess other zero-emission drayage truck technologies that may be of interest to the ports in the future. This demonstration may last anywhere from 12 to 18 months, depending on the assessment of commercial viability and the nature of any hurdles discovered in the demonstration.

11.2Vision Tyrano FCVAs noted in this paper, Vision expects to launch a demonstration of the Tyrano FCV in drayage service in the latter half of 2011. As is the case with the Balqon BEV drayage technology, the current lack of any real-world demonstration experience makes it impossible to assess the viability of the Tyrano fuel cell truck in drayage operation. It is anticipated that the under development demonstration of the Vision Tyrano cosponsored by the ports will include initial acceptance testing, followed by a multiple-month demonstration period in real-world drayage operations. It is recommended that such testing include the following steps:

1. Deploy the truck into a participating motor carrier fleet that has significant short haul operations to the near-dock intermodal rail yards.

2. Monitor performance of one or more diesel trucks, deployed into short haul service similar to the electric truck, in the same manner as the fuel cell electric truck, to establish a comparable baseline.

3. Record actual range, fuel economy, turn times, charging times, maintenance costs, and charging costs associated with operation of the truck in short haul operation.

4. Include short haul operations to non-intermodal facilities up to ten miles from the ports.

5. Monitor component degradation of the fuel cell, battery, brakes, power electronics, stationary charger, and drive train components (U-joints, differential, etc).

6. Identify any deficiencies or proficiencies in operation of the electric truck in drayage service as relates road grades, container weights, top speed, acceleration, steering, visibility, and braking.

- 22 -

7. Assess the refueling time and any special training requirements related to hydrogen fuel usage.

8. Study net revenue impacts of the truck in cooperation with the motor carrier to establish the business case for a fuel cell electric drayage truck and any needed incentives to make deployment of the truck financial viable.

9. Codify the environmental benefits of a fuel cell electric drayage truck, both for localized emissions and on a full fuel cycle basis.

After the testing described above is complete, the documented results should be analyzed to make a reasonable assessment of the commercial viability of the Vision Tyrano fuel cell electric drayage truck. If the assessment is positive, a further large-scale demonstration program involving numerous trucks concentrated with a single motor carrier should be conducted with the intent of observing impacts on operational logistics. This demonstration may last anywhere from 12 to 18 months depending on the assessment of commercial viability and the nature of any hurdles discovered in the demonstration. This demonstration would be better able to study the hydrogen infrastructure-related specifics of rolling out a large fleet of fuel cell drayage trucks.

- 23 -