Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	1

Barriers	to	the	Increased	Adoption	of	

Fuel	Efficiency	Technologies	in	the	

North	American	On-Road	Freight	Sector

Report	for the	International	Council	for	Clean	Transportation

Mike	Roeth,	North	American	Council	for	Freight	Efficiency

Dave	Kircher,	Cascade	Sierra	Solutions

Joel	Smith,	Cascade	Sierra	Solutions

Rob	Swim,	North	American	Council	for	Freight	Efficiency

July 2013
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	2

Acknowledgements:

This	project	was	done	with	support	and	funding	from	the	ICCT. The	authors	are	also	grateful	for	the	

research	contributions	and	reviews	of	Tessa	Lee	and	David	Schwartz	of	the	Carbon	War	Room, the	

assistance	 of	 Kevin	 Rutherford	 of	 Let’s	 Truck and	 all	 of	 the	 participating	 owner-operators and	

individuals	from	the	fleets,	supply	chain	companies	and	dealers for	their	time	and	candidness.		The	

expert	advisory	committee	of	Nigel	Clark,	Bruce	Stockton,	and	Susan	Mazur-Stommen	also	provided	

valuable	insights	at	 the	various	stages	of	 the	project,	as	did	Ben	Sharpe,	Rachel	Muncrief,	and	Nic	

Lutsey	of	the	ICCT.
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	3

Table	of	Contents

Acknowledgements................................................................................................................................ 2

Table	of	Contents ................................................................................................................................... 3

Executive	Summary ................................................................................................................................ 4

I. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 8

II. Study	Design	and	Methodology...................................................................................................... 13

Survey	design .................................................................................................................................... 13

Stakeholder	descriptions................................................................................................................... 14

Data	collection .................................................................................................................................. 17

Post-survey	analysis .......................................................................................................................... 19

III. Findings.......................................................................................................................................... 23

Uncertain	Payback Time.................................................................................................................... 23

Capital	Cost ....................................................................................................................................... 29

Credible	Information ......................................................................................................................... 32

Credible	Information	Verifying	(Early).................................................................................... 33

Credible	Information	Sharing	(Later)...................................................................................... 38

Inconsistent Reliability ...................................................................................................................... 43

Lack	of	Technology	Availability. ........................................................................................................ 45

Additional Findings............................................................................................................................ 48

Specific	Technologies............................................................................................................................. 48

Driver	Retention..................................................................................................................................... 49

Split	incentive ......................................................................................................................... 51

Perspectives	on	Regulations................................................................................................... 52

Rebound	effect....................................................................................................................... 53

Owner-operatorsdata............................................................................................................. 54

IV. Conclusions	and	Recommendations ............................................................................................... 55

References............................................................................................................................................ 58

Appendix .............................................................................................................................................. 60

Appendix	A:		List	of	Exhibits .............................................................................................................. 60

Appendix	B:		Example	of	an	interview	template ............................................................................... 61

Appendix	C:		Common	questions	template....................................................................................... 64

Appendix	D:		Questions	in	the	owner-operator survey................................................................66
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	4

Executive	Summary

Worldwide,	light-duty	passenger	vehicles	and	heavy-duty	vehicles	such	as	tractor-trailers,	which	are	primarily	

for	 freight	transport, account for	about	three-quarters	of	all	transportation	energy	use	and	climate	impacts

(IEA	2009).	Reducing	fuel	consumption	and	emissions	of	CO2 and	other	greenhouse	gases	(GHGs)	from	road	

transport	lessens the	negative	climate	and	energy	security	impacts of	the	transportation	sector.		In	 the	US,	

heavy-duty vehicles	 account	 for	 4%	 of	 the	 vehicles, but	 are responsible	 for	 over	 20% of	 the	 total	

transportation	 petroleum	 use,	 with	 the	 long-haul trucking sector	 responsible	 for 70%	 of	 that total	 (DOE	

2009). Until	 recently,	worldwide	efforts	 to	 reduce	energy	consumption	 through	improved	vehicle	efficiency	

have	 been	 focused	 primarily	 on	 light-duty	 vehicles.	 As	 passenger	 vehicles	 become	 significantly	 more	 fuel	

efficient	in the	 coming	years,	 the	 relative	importance	 of	 the	heavy-duty sector	will	 continue	 to	grow.	 The	

potential	impact	of widespread	adoption	of	efficiency	technologies	in	the	freight	sector	is	significant.		Many	

efficiency	technologies	are	commercially	available	to	improve	the	fuel	efficiency	of	tractor-trailers,	yet	many	

of	the	technologies	are	slow to	be adopted.	

From	 November	 2012	 through	 May 2013,	 the	 North	 American	 Council	 for	 Freight	 Efficiency	 (NACFE)	 and	

Cascade	Sierra	Solutions	(CSS)	conducted	a	study	for	the	International	Council	for	Clean	Transportation	(ICCT)	

to	better	understand	the	existing	barriers	that	are	impeding	the	adoption	of	fuel-saving	technologies	for	the	

on-road	freight	sector.	The	project’s	objective	is to	seek	a	deeper	and	broader	understanding	of	the	critical	

questions	in	the	decision-making	process	related	to	the	adoption of	these	technologies.	

Data	for	this	project was	collected	using in-person	interviews,	focus	groups,	and	online surveys	of	a	number	

of	stakeholders	throughout	the	on-road	freight	industry.		The	stakeholders	that	were	chosen play	important	

roles	in	their respective	companies in	the	decision-making	process about technologies	for	tractor	trucks	and	

trailers.	 	 The	 team	 engaged	 not	 only	 end	 users (i.e.	 trucking	 fleets	 and	 owner-operators),	 but	 also	

stakeholders	 throughout	 the	 trucking	 value	 chain.	 The	 end	 users	 included	 large	 (i.e.	 companies	 that	 own	

more	 than	 1,000	 trucks)	 and	 medium	 (100-1,000	 trucks)	 for-hire	 fleets,	 private	 fleets,	 lease/rental	 fleets,	

fleets	 that	 exclusively	 purchase	 used	 trucks,	 and	 owner-operators.	 	 The	 other	 stakeholders	 included	

companies	within	the	truck	and	trailer	supply	chains	that	manufacture, sell, integrate, and	service	fuel-saving	

technologies.	 	 Altogether,	 the	 companies	 included leading	 engine	 and	 transmission	 manufacturers,	

aerodynamic	 device	 developers,	 tractor	 and	 trailer	 builders,	 truck	 dealers,	 fleet	 operators,	 shipping	

companies,	 and	 owner-operators.	 In	 all,	 in-person	 or	 telephone	 interviews	 were	 conducted	 with 40

representatives	within	29 companies,	and,	in	addition,	responses	from nearly	1,900 owner-operators around	

the	country	were	received	via	an	online	survey.

Upon	evaluation	of	 the	survey	and	interview	 responses,	several	barriers	were	consistently	identified across	

all	of	the	stakeholder	groups.	The	five	predominant	barriers are:

• Lack	of	credible	information
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	5

• Uncertainty around	the	amount of	 time	needed	 for	 technologies to	pay	 for	themselves in	 terms	of	

fuel	savings	(i.e.	payback time)

• Lack	of	access	to	capital	cost	to	invest	in	new	technologies

• Questions	as	to	the	reliability	of	new	technologies

• Lack	of	availability	of	fuel-saving	technologies from	preferred	OEMs	or	component	suppliers

These	 five	barriers	do	not	exist	in	a	vacuum	and	are	inherently	linked in	many	ways,	which	is	illustrated	in	

Figure	 1.	 It	 was	 found	 that	 lack	 of	 credible	 information	 was	the overarching	 barrier,	 which	 has	 bearing	 to	

some	extent	on	all	the	other	barriers.	For	example,	if	there	is	a	lack	of	credible	information	with	respect	to	

verifying	 the	 real-world	 fuel-saving	 potential and/or	 reliability	 of	 a	 technology, this	 makes	 accurate	

calculations	of	payback	time	a	challenging	task.		Furthermore,	this	lack	of	information	can	also	influence	the	

ability	to	obtain	capital	to invest	in	new	technologies.	Taken	together,	uncertain	fuel	savings	and	reliability	as	

well	as	lack	of	access	to	capital	contribute	to	slow technology	adoption.	This	depressed	demand	can	result in	

diminished	manufacturer	investment	in	new	technology	development,	which	can	lead	to	a	reduced	number	

of	product	offerings.	Finally,	this	lack	of	technology	availability	has a	feedback	effect by	reducing	technology	

uptake,	which	in	turn	limits	the	ability	for	technology	performance	data	to	be	generated.	

Figure	1:	Overview	of	Barriers
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	6

While	 these	five	barriers	were	identified	as	 somewhat	universal	 for	 the	entire	pool	of	 stakeholders,	not	all	

stakeholders	are	impacted	 to	 the	same	extent	by	each	barrier.		Based	on	 the	diverse	input	 from	 the	study,	

there	were	a	number	of	general	differences	in	perspectives among	 the	stakeholders	about	 the	adoption	of	

efficiency	technology.	All	stakeholder	groups	had	a	high	level	of	consensus	with	one	another	on	the	barriers	

of	lack	of	credible	information	and	uncertainty	around	payback.		Insufficient	capital	was	a	much	bigger	issue	

for	 the	 small	end	users	 (medium	fleets,	used	 truck	 fleets, and	owner-operators)	 than	 their	larger	company	

counterparts,	 who	 stated	 that	 their	 organizations	 would	 commit	 the	 capital	 if	 there	 is a	 high	 degree	 of	

confidence	 that	 the	 technology	 will	 pay back.	 	 End	 users	 were	 generally	 more	 critical	 of	 new	 product	

reliability	 than	 the	 component	 manufacturers or	 tractor	 and	 trailer	 original	 equipment	 manufacturers	

(OEMs).		Concerning	the	lack	of	product	availability	as	an important	barrier,	all	of	the	end	users	as	well	as	the	

manufacturers	 of	 individual	 technologies	 were	 very	 outspoken	 about	 this	 issue.	 	 The	 truck	 and	 trailer	

integrators,	on	the	other	hand, did	not	see	this	as	a	significant issue.

Key	findings

Payback	 time.	 This	 study	 suggests	 that	 all fleets	make	 decisions	 to	 buy	 new	 technologies	 using	 a	 payback	

calculation,	 and	 the	 manufacturing	 industry	 also	 uses	 payback	 time	 as	 a	 key	 metric	 in	 determining	 what	

products	to	develop	and	bring	to	market.		Though	the	responses	varied,	the	stated	expectation	for	payback	

time	 was	 typically	 half	 of	 the	 truck	 ownership	 cycle.	Interview	 responses	 showed	 that	 large	 for-hire	 fleets	

generally	 purchase	 new	 trucks	 and	 operate	 them	 four	 to	 six	 years,	 which	 translates	 to	 a	 payback	 time	

expectation	of	two	years	so	that	in	the	final	two	or	more	years	of	truck	ownership,	the	fleet	can	see	a	return	

on	 investment.	 Truck	 and	 trailer	OEMs	 and	 component	 suppliers	 customarily	 use	 two	 years	 or	 less	 as	 the	

benchmark	for	payback	time,	which	signals	that	the	requirements	of	the	fleets	with	the	shortest	ownership	

cycles	are	driving	the	product	development	process	for	the	entire	industry.	Payback	calculations	seem	to	vary	

in	terms	of	the	parameters	that	are	included	in	the	calculation	and	tend	to	be	rather	conservative	to	reflect	

the uncertainty	surrounding	the	fuel	savings,	reliability,	durability,	and	additional	maintenance	or	operations	

impacts	that	are	associated	with	a	technology.

Capital	costs. Some	fleets	shared	that	access	to	capital	is	an	issue,	even	if	the	fleet	has	confidence	that	a	fuelsaving	technology	delivers	a	payback	for	their	operations.		New	equipment	costs	(adjusted	for	inflation)	have	

increased	significantly	over	 the	past	10	years,	and	 the	money	a	 fleet	can	spend	on	 fuel-saving technologies

compete	against	driver	amenities	to	better	attract	and	retain	drivers	and	other	new	technologies	to	improve	

safety,	communications	and	routing.

Credible	information.	Verifying	performance	in	the	early	stages	of	technology	deployment	is	challenging,	and	

a multitude	of	independent	testing	efforts	by	multiple	fleets	and	manufacturers	is	commonplace.		Conflicting	

word-of-mouth	 experiences	 about	 technology	 performance often	 causes	 confusion	 with	 fleets	 that	 are	

interested	 in	 adopting	 a	 technology	 and	 presents	 challenges	 to	 manufacturers	 and	 suppliers	 that	 are	

attempting	overcome	the	mistrust	and	high	degree	of	risk	aversion	that	is	pervasive	in	the	trucking	industry.		

Fleets	 seem	 to	 understand	 that	 it	 is	 difficult	 to	 stay	 abreast	 of	 all	 the	 technologies	 being	 developed	 by	

performing	all	of	the	testing	themselves,	but	they	rarely	have	full	confidence	in	external	results.
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	7

Reliability.	High	reliability	is	a	crucial	 factor	 for	an	end	user	to	purchase	a	technology.		Early	adopter	 fleets	

understand	 that	 new	 products	 often	 require	 improvements	 in	 later	 generations.	 However, based	 on	

interview	 responses,	insufficient	reliability	with	some	recent	new	product	launches	has	introduced	concern	

and	skepticism,	likely	delaying	or	eliminating	demonstration	projects	and	adoption decisions.

This	study	was	solely	focused	on	characterizing	the	adoption	barriers	for	fuel-saving	technologies	for	tractortrailers,	not	exploring strategies	for	addressing	or	overcoming	them.	However, the	findings	of	this	project	can	

lead	to	more	in-depth	analysis	of	the	policy	measures	and	other	ways	to	encourage	increased	development	

and	deployment	of	fuel-saving	technologies	and	practices	in	the	trucking	sector.
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	8

I. Introduction

The	trucking	sector	has	proved	successful	in	improving	efficiency	over	the	decades.	The	total	cost	of	moving	

goods	in	the	U.S.	as	a	percentage	of	Gross	Domestic	Product	(GDP)	has	been	cut	in	half	since	the	early	1980s,	

from	18%	 to	around	9%,	according	 to	ACT	Research.		While,	 there	are	likely	a	number	of	 factors	 that	have	

contributed	to	this	decline	in	costs,	including	advances	in	logistics	efficiency	(i.e.	routing,	load	management,	

packaging,	etc.)	and	infrastructure	improvements,	increases	in	tractor-trailer	fuel	efficiency	have	likely	been	

an	 important	 contributor	 in	 decreasing	 the	 overall	 costs	 of	 on-road	 goods	 movement.	 However,	 many	

challenges	continue	 to	exist	 for	 trucking	 fleets,	owner-operators,	and	 the	companies	 that	manufacture and	

sell	tractor	trucks,	trailers,	and	equipment	used	by	these	heavy-duty	vehicles.		Some	of	the	challenges	for	the

industry	include	driver	shortages, high	rates	of	driver	turnover,	rising	costs	of	 fuel	and	new	equipment	and	

increasingly	 stringent	 regulations	 targeting	 criteria	 pollutant	 emissions	 as	 well	 as	 fuel	 efficiency	 and	

greenhouse	gases (GHGs).

The	 barriers	 to	 developing	 and	 deploying	 fuel-saving	 technologies	 are	 the	 subject	 of	 this	 study.	 	 Figure	 2	

below shows	 a	 2012	 estimate	 of	 the	 cost	 breakdown	 for	 long-haul	 trucking	 operations	 in	 dollars	 per	mile

according	to	the	American	Trucking	Research	Institute (ATRI	2012).	Fuel	costs,	driver	salaries,	and	the	costs	of	

the	 trucking	 equipment	 dominate	 the	 overall	 costs	 of	 Class	 8	 tractor-trailer	 use.	 	 Capital	 equipment	 costs

have	been	rising	sharply	driven	by	a	number	of	factors,	including	the	introduction	of	federal	criteria	pollutant	

emissions	 regulations	 that	 have	 required	 reductions	 in	 particulate	matter	 and	 nitrogen	 oxide	 emissions	 of	

roughly	90%	over	the	past	10	years.		According	to	Manufacturer	Suggested Retail	Price	(MSRP)	data	collected	

for	 four	 representative	 vehicles,	 the	 price	 of	 tractor	 trucks	 increased	 by	 roughly	 14%	 (in	 2012	 dollars)	

between	model	years	2003	and	2012 (Price	Digest	2013).		However,	over	this	same	time	period,	diesel	 fuel	

has	had	a	much	larger	percent increase,	rising	from	an	average	of	$1.88 per	gallon	in	2003	to	$3.97	in	2012	

(both	values	given	in	2012	dollars),	which	is	an	increase	of	111% (EIA	2013,	BLS	2013).		For	context,	a	new	

sleeper	 tractor	 purchased	 in	 2013	 for	 $125,000	 consumes	 roughly	 $125,000	 in	 fuel	 in	 about	 18	 months,	

assuming	the	tractor	drives	120,000	miles	per	year	at $4	per	gallon	diesel	and	6 miles	per	gallon.
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	9

Figure	2.	Cost	of	Trucking- Dollars	per	Mile 

Source:	American	Trucking	Research	Institute,	2012

With	 fuel	 representing	 such	 a	 large	 part	 of	 the	 operating	 costs	 for	 fleets	 and	 owner-operators,	 much	

attention	is	now	 focused	on	improving	 the	 fuel	efficiency	of	 these	Class	 7	and	 8	 tractor-trailer	 units.		New	

technologies	 are	 emerging	 from	 established and	 new	 equipment	 manufacturers; and	 some	 fleets	 are	

aggressively	 investigating,	 testing,	 and	 in	some	 cases	 adopting	 these	 new	 efficiency	 technologies	 for	 their	

tractors	 and	 trailers.	 In	 addition,	 new	 fuel	 efficiency	 and	 greenhouse	 gas	 emission	 regulations	 have	 been	

adopted	in	the	U.S.	and	Canada	for	model	year	2014	and	beyond.

Two	U.S.-centric	studies	were	recently	completed	that	investigate	the	extent	to	which	there	are	cost	effective	

efficiency	 technologies	 for	 over	 the	 road	 trucks	 that	 may not	 being	 adopted	 today.	 	 They	 include	 work	

completed	by	TIAX	(TIAX	2009)	and	the	National	Academy	of	Sciences (NAS	2010).		The	TIAX	work	formed	the	

technical	basis	for	much	of	the	NAS	study,	and	this	research	was a	comprehensive	assessment	of	technology	

potential	and	costs	for	both	long-haul	trucks	as	well	as	a	number	of	different	heavy-duty	Vehicle categories.

These	studies	reported	that	there	were	technologies	available	for	long-haul tractor-trailers	to	improve	their	

fuel	 consumption	 by	 over	 50%.	 	 Figure	 3	 below	 shows	 the	fuel-saving potential	for	tractor-trailers	 broken	

down	 by	 technology	 area: engines,	 aerodynamics,	 tires	 and	 wheels,	 weight	 reduction,	 hybridization,	

transmissions	and	driver	coaching.		

	$0.59		

	$0.46		 	$0.19		

	$0.15		

	$0.15		

	$0.07		

	$0.06		 	$0.04		 Fuel	

Truck	&	Trailer	

Driver	Salary	

Driver	Benefits	

Repairs	&	Maintenance	

Insurance	

Permits,	Licenses	&	Tolls	

Tires	
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	10

Figure	3.	2015	– 2020	New	Vehicle	Potential	Fuel	Savings	Technologies 

Source:		NAS	2010

In	 August	 2011,	 the	 U.S.	 Environmental	 Protection	 Agency	 (EPA)	 and	 the	 Department	 of	 Transportation’s	

National	Highway	Traffic	Safety	Administration	 (NHTSA)	 finalized	a	national	program	 to	 reduce	greenhouse	

gases	 (GHGs)	and	improve	 fuel	efficiency	 of	medium- and	 heavy-duty	vehicles.	The	 program affects	model	

year	(MY)	2014	to	2018	vehicles,	and	tractors	are	a	key	component	of	the	rule.		Trailers	were	not	addressed	

in	 this	 Phase	 1	 rulemaking.	 The	 stringency	 for	 tractors	 ranges	 between	 10% and	 23%,	 depending	 on	 the	

vehicle	 configuration	 and	 gross	 vehicle	 weight	 rating	 (i.e.	 Class	 7	 or	 8).	 The	 standards	 are	 designed	 to	

encourage	deployment	of	commercially	available	 technologies,	and	 for	 tractors,	 the	agencies	estimate	 that	

the	 technologies	 that	will	be	deployed	as	a	result	of	 the	rule	have	a	payback time	of	2	years	or	less,	which	

reflects	the	agencies’ cost-effectiveness	targets	for	the	Phase	1	regulation.

Literature	review

Much	attention	in	 the	 social	 sciences	 has	 been	 paid	 to	 the	 “energy	 paradox,”	 the	 phenomenon	 that	 some	

energy	efficiency	measures	are	not	being	implemented	in	places	where	it	is	cost-effective	 to	do	so	 (Shama	

1983).	However,	most	of	 this	work	has	been	focused	on goods	used	by	consumers	 (for	example,	efficiency	

improvements	 in	 household	 appliances and	 passenger	 vehicles)	 rather	 than goods	 used	 by	 businesses.	
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	11

Nonetheless,	the	idea	of	the	energy	paradox	offers	an	important	foundation	for	studying	market	barriers	in	

the	on-road	freight	sector.	

In	 trying	 to	 understand	 what	 drives	 and	 inhibits	 the	 diffusion	 of	 new	 technologies,	 economists	 have	

considered	how	adoption	is	shaped	by	both	awareness	of	new	technologies	and	changing	costs	and	benefits	

for	 individual	 purchasers	 (Jaffe	 and	 Stavins	 1994).	 While	 these	 processes	 may	 be	 different	 for	 each	

technology	 and	 sector,	 economists	 have	 identified	 a	 number	 of	 market	 barriers	 that	 inhibit	 diffusion.	 For	

energy	efficiency	 technologies	in	particular,	 these	include	several market	 failures	and	other	difficulties	 that	

drive	the	energy	paradox.		

Firstly,	a	common	barrier	to	increased	energy	efficiency	is	a	lack	of	credible	information	about	technologies.	

If	 information	 on	 energy	 efficiency	 is	 underprovided,	 this	 constitutes	 a	 market	 failure	 (Jaffe	 and	 Stavins	

1994).	 However,	 this	 barrier	 could also	 simply	 be	 due	 to	 the	 high	 costs	 faced	 by	 each	 actor	 of	 obtaining	

information	and	performing	cost-benefit	calculations.	Another	major	market	failure	is	the	principal-agent,	or	

split-incentive	 problem,	 which	 exists	 if	 the	 actor	 that	 uses	 energy	 does	 not	 also	 pay	 for	 energy	 or	 energy	

efficiency	investments,	leading	to	an	overuse	of	energy	or	an	underinvestment	in	energy	efficiency (Jaffe	and	

Stavins	1994).

Several	barriers	also	relate to	the	uncertainty	inherent	in	making	energy	efficiency	investments.	For	example,	

technology	will	be	underused	if	firms	are	unable	to	access	credit	due	to	lack	of	money	available	to	invest,	or	if	

firms	are	 unable	 to	communicate	 the	 benefits	of	 their	investment	 to	a	 creditor	 or	when	 reselling	 the	 unit.	

Due	 to	uncertainty	about	a	 technology’s	effectiveness	and	 the	prices	of	a	 technology	and	energy,	a	 firm	or	

consumer	could	rationally	decide	that	the	benefits	are	too	uncertain,	or	that	it	makes	sense	to	preserve	its	

“option	value,”	the	ability	to	wait	to	see	if	a	better	investment	would	be	available	in	the	near	future	(Ansar	

and	Sparks	2009).	Other	studies	have	focused	on	behavioral	drivers	of	the	energy	paradox	(Ansar	and	Sparks	

2009),	although	these	have	been	focused	on	consumer	goods.		

In	 researching	 available	 technologies	 for	 heavy-duty	 vehicle	 efficiency,	 the	 project	 team	 reviewed	 other	

studies	related	to	the	barriers	to	technology	adoption	in	commercial	vehicles	used	in	regional	and	long-haul	

goods	movement.	Several	studies	have	looked	at	market	barriers	particularly	for	energy	efficiency	in	the	onroad	freight	sector,	although	it	has	historically	received	less	attention	than other	sectors.	Most	studies	have	

used	 surveys	 and	 interviews	 to	 assess	 market	 barriers.	With	 the	 exception	 of	 the	 split-incentive	 problem,	

studies	 found	market	barriers	to	be	more	significant	 for	smaller	companies	and	technologies	that	require	a	

significant	capital	investment.

A	study	of	the	European	freight	sector	commissioned	by	ICCT	found	evidence	that	there	are	typically	greater	

barriers	 to	 technology	 improvements,	 with	 many	 trucking	 companies	 opting	 to	 investment	 in	 operational	

improvements	 instead.	 Another	 finding	 was	 that	 smaller	 firms	 had	 less	 ability	 to	 research	 technological	

improvements	 and	 to	 protect	 against	 growing	 fuel	 prices	 (CE	 Delft	 2012).	 Similarly,	 an	 online	 survey	 of	

trucking	companies	in	Finland	found	that	effective	but	simple	actions	(i.e.	idling	reduction,	speed	limitation,	

checking	tire	pressure)	were	implemented	more	often	than	those	requiring	larger	investment	or	knowledge	
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	12

(especially	if	there	are	a	lot	of	options	available,	as	is	the	case	with	motor	oils	and	tires)	 (Liimatainen	et	al.	

2012).		NACFE	(2011)	studied	adoption	rates	in	the	United	States	fleet	of	a	range	of	technologies,	identifying	

high	costs	of	information,	difficulty	with	monitoring	costs,	and	lack	of	increased	resale	value	due	 to	energy	

efficiency	as	inhibiting	the	adoption	of	certain	technologies.

Goodyear	 Dunlop	 (2012)	 interviewed	 fleet	managers	 in	 the	 European	 Union	 and	 found	 that	 nearly	 half	 of	

respondents,	 especially	 smaller	 companies,	 said	 they	 lacked	 the	 sufficient	 knowledge	 of	 the	 technology	

available	to	increase	fuel	efficiency.	Real-world	evaluation	was	often	cited	as	the	only	reliable	way	to	test	for	

fuel	efficiency,	as	companies	reported	lack	of	trust	in	fuel	savings	claims	made	by	OEM’s.	These	risks	caused	

firms,	especially	smaller	ones,	to	focus	on	smaller	investments	involving	maintenance	and	retrofitting	rather	

than	 purchasing	 new	 trucks.	 The	 Carbon	 War	 Room	 (2012)	 identified	 large	 upfront	 costs	 and	 small	 profit	

margins	 in	 the	 trucking	 sector,	 truck	 leasing	 practices,	 and	 a	 lack	 of	 awareness	 and	 trust	 in	 fuel	 efficiency	

upgrades	as	barriers	in the	United	Sates.		Similarly,	Ellram	and	Golicic (2011)	found	that	lack	of	information	

and	difficulty	financing	upgrades	were	major	barriers,	especially	for	smaller	firms.	

Several	 studies	 also	 found	 evidence	 of	 contract	 structures	 that	 created	 split	 incentive	 problems.	 Of	 the	

respondents	for	the	CE	Delft	study	(2012),	a	roughly	50%	of	trucking	companies	used	fuel	surcharges	and/or	

open	book	contracts,	which	allow	firms	to	directly	pass	on	fuel	costs	(or	additional	fuel	costs	after	surpassing	

a	 defined	 threshold)	 to	 the	 shipping	 (or	 client) entity.	 In	 another	 example	 of	 how	 contract	 structures	 can	

create	 split	 incentives,	 the	 Carbon	 War	 Room	 (2012)	 found	 that	 leased	 trucks	 tended	 to	 be	 less	 energy	

efficient.	

The	 findings	 from	 these	 previous	 studies	 provided	 the	 team	 insights	 for	 designing	the	 data	 collection	 and	

analytic	framework	for	this	project.	From	the	various	studies,	a	number	of	findings	became	clear.	Foremost,	it	

was	 clear	 that	 there	 are	 many	 technologies	 for	 the	 tractor-trailer	 that,	 when	 combined,	 can	 dramatically	

increase	fuel	efficiency.	Efficiency	technologies	are	available	for	the	powertrain	(e.g.,	engine,	accessories,	and	

transmission)	 as	 well	 as	 tractor	 and	 trailer	 load	 reduction	 (e.g.,	 lightweighting,	 aerodynamics,	 tires)	 (NAS,	

2009;	US	NREL,	2013).		Many	of	 these	 technologies	are	available	not	only	 for	new	heavy-duty	vehicles,	but	

also	for	existing	in-use	fleet	(Transplace,	2012;	NACFE,	2013;	CWR,	2012;	Ellram	and	Golicic,	2011).		Several	

researchers have	 begun to	 better	 understand	 why	 the	 efficiency	 technologies	 are	 not	 being	 more	 widely	

adopted	in	the	market	place	(e.g.,	CE-Delft,	2012).

There	are,	however,	significant	barriers	to	adopting	these	technologies.	This	study’s	intent	is	to	work	with	the	

industry	 to	 identify	and	 better	 understand	 the	 barriers	 that	exist	 to	adopting	 these	 technologies	 on	North	

American	tractors	and	trailers.	The	objective	of	the	project	is	to	use	interviews	and	surveys	of	various	entities	

within	the	trucking	sector	to	better	understand	the	specific	barriers	that	exist	in	deploying	technologies	that	

improve	fuel	efficiency	in	Class	7	and	8	tractor-trailers
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	13

II. Study	Design	and	Methodology

This	 section	 outlines	 the	 major	 elements	 and	 rationale	 for	 the	 study	 design	 and	 methodology.	 	 The	

methodology	 for	 the	 study	 was	 developed,	 in	 collaboration	 with	 ICCT	 and	 involved	 surveying	 eleven	

stakeholder	 groups	 (e.g.,	 large	 fleets,	 owner-operators,	 shippers,	 manufacturers).	 	 Overall,	 the	 surveys	

included	in-person	interviews	and	focus	groups,	conference	calls,	and	online input	from	various	stakeholders	

within	the	long-haul	trucking	industry.		As	part	of	the	processing	of	the	high	volume	of	input,	the	study	team	

processed	 the	interview	and	 survey	 results	 from	 dozens	 of	 questions	into	 overall	 themes	during a	 findings	

workshop conducted	in	February	2013.

Survey	design

The	 focus	of	 the	person-to-person	interviews	and	online	 survey	was	 to	engage	individuals	 from	companies	

that	 are	 involved	 in	 the	 use,	 development,	 manufacturing,	 sales,	 and	 aftermarket	 support	 for	 tractor	 and	

trailer	 technologies.	 To	 better	 reach	 companies	 that	 are	 actively	 making	 decisions	 regarding	 fuel-saving	

technologies,	 the	project	 team	 targeted	“lead	users”	 for	 the	in-person	and	 teleconference	interviews.	Lead	

users is	a	 term	developed	by	Professor Eric	von	Hippel (Von	Hippel	2005)	of	 the	Massachusetts	Institute	of	

Technology	and	refers	to	companies	that	are	“ahead	of	the	majority	of	users	in	their	populations	with	respect	

to	an	important	market	 trend and	expect	 to	gain	 relatively	high	benefits	 from a	solution	 to	 the	needs	 they	

have	encountered	there.”	

During	and	after	the	interviews,	the study team	worked with	lead	users to	ensure	the	data	collected	during	

interviews	 clearly	 reflects	 their	 perspectives	 on	 the	 barriers	 to	 technology	 adoption,	 their own	 decisionmaking	process	with	regard	to	truck	and	trailer	technology,	and	the	other	companies that	are	connected	to	

all	aspects	of	 their	industry.				As	aforementioned,	lead	users were	targeted from	 two	general	areas	– end	

users	and	industry	supply	chain	– and	several	stakeholder	subgroups	were	identified	within	these	areas.	End	

users,	as	defined	in	this	study,	are	those	companies	or	individuals	who	buy	and	operate	commercial	tractor	

trucks.	Many of	 the	 fleets	interviewed	 for	 this	project	have	been	early	adopters	of	a	number	of	 fuel-saving	

technologies	 for	 both	 tractors	 and	 trailers. Individuals	 within	 companies	 who	 make	 the	 actual	 purchase	

decisions	whether	or	not	to	invest	in	technologies	for	improved	fuel	efficiency	were	targeted	for	interviews.		

This	 end	 user	 group	 includes	 fleets	 (large,	 medium,	 private/retail,	 lease/rental,	 used	 truck)	 and	 owneroperators (i.e.,	 as	 defined	 in	 this	 study,	 those	 individuals	 or	 companies	 who	 own	 and	 operate	 less than	 5	

trucks).		The	second	area,	the	industry	supply	chain,	includes	companies	that	support	the	development,	sale	

and	 delivery	 of	 the	 technologies	 into	 the	marketplace.	 	Within	 this	 area,	the	 project	 team	 targeted	major	

truck	 original	 equipment	 manufacturers	 (OEMs)	 as	 well	 as	 key	 component	 suppliers	 (e.g.	 engines,	

transmissions,	tires,	aerodynamic	devices)	that	are	responsible	 for	bringing	various	 fuel-saving	technologies	

to	market. In	addition,	truck	dealers	were	also	included	in	the	project.		

Data	was received	and	analyzed	from	the	groups	shown	in	
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	14

Table	1.		Companies	participating	in	 this	 study	included:		A&M	Transport Inc., ATDynamics Inc., Bettendorf	

Trucking Enterprises,	 C.H. Robinson Worldwide	 Inc.,	 C.R. England,	 Cummins Inc.,	 Daimler Trucks	 North	

America	 LLC,	 Decker Truck	 Line	 Inc.,	 Eaton Co.,	 Freight Wing Inc.,	 Frito-Lay North	 America	 Inc.,	 Gordon	

Trucking Inc.,	Great	Dane,	Hyundai Translead,	Michelin North	America	Inc., Navistar Inc.,	Peloton Technology	

Inc.,	Peterbilt,	Ryder,	Safeway	Foods,	Schneider,	Smart Truck,	Sturman	Industries,	Transfreight, United	Parcel	

Service	of	America	Inc.,	Volvo	Trucks, Werner	Enterprises,	Witte	Brothers Exchange	Inc.,	and	YRC	Worldwide	

Inc. Owner-operators from	 two	 distinct	 solicitation	 groups	 participated	 in	 online surveys:	 customers	 of	

Cascade	Sierra	Solutions	financing	tools	and	Kevin	Rutherford’s	Let’s	Truck	Sirius	XM	radio	membership.

Table	1.		Industry	Stakeholder	Groups	Surveyed

Area Stakeholder	Group Comments

End	users Large	fleets	 For	–hire	trucking	companies	with	1,000+	trucks

Medium	fleets	 For	–hire	trucking	companies	with 100-1,000

trucks

Used	fleets Purchase	only	used	trucks	for	their	operations

Retail-Private	fleets Operate	trucks	to	haul	goods	they	manufacture	

and/or	distribute	and	sell

Lease	and	Rental	fleets Lease	and	rent	trucks	to	other	end	users

Owner-operators		(<5	trucks) Independent,	small	businesses

Supply	

chain

Tractor	OEMs Builders	of	tractors	who	integrate	technologies

Trailer	OEMs Builders	of	trailers	who	integrate	technologies

Established	component	

manufacturers

Established,	mature	suppliers	to	the	trucking	

industry

New	technology	suppliers Emerging	manufacturers	with	new	technologies,	

often startup	firms

Shippers and Logistics Freight	brokers	linking	shippers	and	carriers

Truck	Dealers Sales,	aftermarket,	repair	and	customer	support

Stakeholder	descriptions

Large	Fleets – These	customers	generally	own	in	excess	of	1,000	class	8	tractors	and	operate	for-hire	as	TL	(truck	

load)	or	LTL	(less	than	truck	load)	carriers.	For	these	fleets, dry	vans are the	predominate	trailer	type, followed	by	

refrigerated	 trailers and	 intermodal	 chassis.	 They	 operate	 sophisticated	 routing	 and	 logistics	 operations	 and	

maintain	their	equipment	at	their	own	service	facilities,	but	use	other	service	locations	frequently	as	the	trucks	

are	randomly	dispersed	around	the	geography	serviced	by	the	fleet.	 It	is	common	for	drivers	to	be	on	the	road	

for	up	to	three	weeks,	returning	home	for	a	few	days	before	leaving	again.		A	vast	majority	of	the	tractors	have	
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	15

sleepers	with	sophisticated	communications,	entertainment	and	other	amenities	for	the	drivers	who	essentially	

“live”	 in	 their	 trucks.	 	As	 described	 in	 more	 detail	 in	 the	 findings	 section	 below,	 tractors	 are	 generally	traded	

every	4-6	years to	ensure	maximum	uptime	and	fuel	efficiency.	Therefore, high	residual	values	are	important	to	

their	business	model.	Most	of	 these	companies operate	in	all	lower	48	states	 (or	all	provinces	of	Canada),	and

some	 do business	 in	 Mexico.	 They	 primarily	 use	 company	 drivers	 but	 many	 contract owner-operators for	

specialized	freight	or	to	handle	seasonal	or	peak	load	periods.	Company	driver	turnover	is	an	issue and	averages	

around	 100%	 per	 year	 over	 the	 economic	 cycle.	 Some	 of	 these	 fleets	 utilize	 significant	 numbers	 of	 owneroperators as	independent,	dedicated	contractors	to	manage	variability	in	their	business.

Retail/Private	Fleets – These	companies	are	either	in the	business	of	hauling	 their	own	products	between	 their	

plants	and	distribution	centers	and	to	the	retail	market	or	in	the	retail	package	delivery	business.	Private	 fleets	

can	 be	in	 the	manufacturing,	wholesale,	 retail,	 food	 or	 beverage	 business.	In	addition	 to	class	 8	 tractors	many	

operate	 class	 5-7	 delivery	 units	 on	 a	 local	 basis.	 Typically	 the	 retail/private	 fleet	 who	 owns	 their	 trucks	 keeps

them	7-10	years or	even	longer.	Nearly	half	of	all	Private	 fleets	utilize	 full	service	maintenance	leasing	as	 their	

primary	business	in	not	trucking	and	they	do	not	want	to	invest	in	their	own	service	facilities.		Driver	turnover	is	

quite	 small,	 around	 22%	 versus	 about	 100%	 for	 for-hire	 fleets,	 as	 the	 drivers	 are	 company	 employees	 with	

benefits,	including	retirement and	401k	plans.		About	90%	of	the	tractors	are	daycabs	as	the	routes	are	designed	

for	the	drivers	to	return	to	a	company	facility	each	night.		Private	fleets	will	tend	to	consider	retrofitting	devices	

on	their	 fleet	as	they	keep	their	vehicles	 for	most	if	not	all	of	their	useable	life,	giving	more	time	to	realize	the	

benefits	of	the	devices.

Medium	Fleets – They	operate	over	100	but	less	than	1,000	tractors	primarily	in	the	Truck	Load	for-hire	segment	

of	 the	 business.	 Many	 operate	 on	 a	 regional	 basis	 or	 haul	 specialized	 freight	 nationwide.	 Trailers	 include	 dry	

freight	 &	 refrigeration	 vans	 and	 platform	 (flatbed)	trailers	 for	 hauling	 equipment	 or manufacturing	 materials.	

They	 have	 many	 of	 the	 same	 challenges	 as	 their	 larger	 for-hire	 counterparts,	 but	 driver	 turnover	 tends	 to	 be	

lower	as	the	smaller	companies	can	better	interact	with	the	operators.		

Lease/Rental – This	vocation	includes	two very large	NAFTA	 firms, Ryder	and	Penske,	some	regional	companies	

and	truck	OEM	associated groups	of	independent	truck	dealers.	They	purchase	class	3-8	trucks	to	rent	or	lease	to	

others	 (primarily	 to	private	 fleets).	Rental	 trucks	are	 for	shorter	 terms	and	leased	 trucks	 (charged	at	a	monthly	

and	per	mile	basis)	for	longer	terms.	Lease	companies	handle	the	specifying,	purchasing,	financing,	licensing	and	

maintenance	 for	 their	own	 trucks.		Their	service	 facilities	also	provide	washing	and	 fueling	 for	 their	customers.	

Many	leasing	companies	operate	their	own	resale	lots	due	to	the	short	trade	cycle	and	high	volume	of	trucks	in	

this	vocation,	and	may	function	as	a	fleet	utilizing	equipment	that	they	choose	not	to	sell.		Leasing	companies	are	

known	 for	 their	 high	 level	 of	 understanding	 of	 how	 the	 equipment	 performs, particularly	 in	 its	 reliability	 and	

durability.		Due	to	the	fact	that	they	have	the	exposure	in	the	lease	contract	for	poor	reliability but	not	for	fuel	

efficiency,	 these	companies	monitor,	 track	and	make	purchase	decisions	with	sophisticated	 tools	 to	 thoroughly	

understand	every	component’s	reliability.

Used	Fleets – Fleets who	primarily	purchase	used	 trucks	in	 the	 for-hire	business	are	considered	used	 fleets	 for	

this	study.	They	typically	operate	under	200	units,	primarily	class	8	tractors,	and	have	shorter	hauls	than	the	large	
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	16

fleets	as	many	operate	on	a	regional	basis.		Their	business	model	is	focused	more	on	lower	cost	freight	thus	the	

dependence	on	lower	priced	used	trucks.	 They	depend	on	the	first	truck	purchaser’s specification	expertise	and	

their	 own	 understanding	 of	 the	 duty	 cycles	 they	 operate	 in	 when	 they	 select	 these	 used	 trucks.	 	 These	 fleets	

might	consider	retrofits	and	tend	to	perform	much	of	their	own	maintenance,	as	they	are	attempting	to	extend	

the	equipment’s	usable	life.

Shippers	and	Logistics – Shippers	are	characterized	as	firms	who	need	to	move	freight.		They	are	the	customers	of	

the	 fleets/carriers.Over	 the	 past	 few	 decades	 a	 new	 brokering	 enterprise	 has	 emerged	 known	 as	 Third-party

Logistics	 providers.	 	 These firms	 work	 between	 Shippers	 and	 Carriers	 to	 make	 efficient	 decisions	 for	 using	

equipment	 to	 ship	 freight.	 	 These	 companies	 help	 make	 choices	 concerning	 various	 intermodal	 methods	 (rail,	

long-haul truck,	 regional	 trucks,	 ships,	 etc.),	 routing	 and	 load	 sharing,	 to	 name	 a	 few	 strategies.	 	 Some	 also	

operate	a	fleet	on	a	for-hire	basis, and	some	do	not.

Owner-operators – These	are	small	business	people	who	own,	maintain	and	drive	their	own	trucks.	They	can	own	

between	 1-5 units,	 mostly	 class	 8	 tractors	 used	 for	 long-haul for-hire	 trucking.	 From	 the	 survey	 results,	 they	

primarily	 purchase	 used	 tractors	 (average	 age	 7	 years)	 and	 drive	 them	 an	 average	 of	 105,000 miles	 annually.		

About	70%	of	owner-operators are	leased	by	the	mile	or	percent	of	the	load	to	larger	carriers,	mostly	truckload

firms.	 Leased	 owner-operators tend	 to	 have	 more	 security	 and	 get	 more	 benefits,	 such	 as	 truck	

leasing/purchasing	 options,	 using	 the	 company’s	 fuel	 cards,	 training	and	 load	procurement.	 	The	rest	are truly	

independent	contractors	often	obtaining	their	 freight	via	an	association	with	large	logistical	 firms	like	Land Star	

and	 Dart,	 or	 occasionally	 on	 their	 own	 via	 emerging	 internet	 based	 tools.	 As	 discussed	 in	 more	 detail	 in	 the	

findings	 section,	 they	 often	 own	 their	 own	 trailers	 and	 operate	 on	 a	 1:1	 trailer	 to	 tractor	 ratio,	making	 trailer	

technologies	more	attractive	for	them	as	their	trailers	are	constantly	accumulating	the	miles	and	benefits.		

Tractor OEMs – Truck	Original Equipment	Manufacturers	are	worldwide	designers	and	builders	of	class	5-8	trucks	

and	 tractors.	 For	 North	 America	 they	 build	 units	 in	 NAFTA	 and	 retail	 and	 support	 their	 products	 through	 a	

channel	 of	 independent truck	 dealers.	 All	 truck	 OEMs	 also	 offer	 both commercially	 available	 and	 proprietary	

powertrains	including	engines,	transmissions	and	axles.	They	also	provide	customer	financing	and	a	full	menu	of	

after	the	sale	support.		These	 firms	engineer	and	integrate	 features	onto	the	equipment	they	manufacture and	

must	make	tradeoff	decisions	to	include	items	that	help	deliver	efficiency	and	operations	improvements	for	their	

end	user,	fleet	customers.		For	some	product	features,	OEMs	control	the	design	very	tightly,	including	intellectual	

property	rights	and	for	others; they rely	on	suppliers	for	the	technologies.		Oftentimes,	the	OEMs	are	those	who	

manage	 regulation compliance surrounding	 emissions	 and	 other	 requirements	 such	 as	 safety,	 etc.	 	 These	

companies	have	extensive	engineering	and	product	validation	requirements	and	capabilities	to	ensure	their	and	

their	suppliers’	products	meet	the	regulatory	and	customer	expectations.		They	develop	extensive	understanding	

of	 how	 their	 customers	 use	 their	 products,	 have	 “voice” of	 the	 customer	 processes	 to	 define	 design	

requirements,	design,	prototype	and	test,	demonstrate,	manufacture	and	support	the	products.

Trailer	OEMs – Trailer	Original	Equipment	Manufacturers	are	primarily	US-based	builders	of	highway	trailers	used	

in	 commercial	 transportation.	 Products	 include	 dry	 freight	 vans,	 refrigerated	 vans,	 platform	 (flatbed)	 trailers,	

tanks, and	 intermodal	 container	 chassis.	 Like	 tractor OEMs	 they	 sell	 and	 support	 their	 products	 through	 an
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	17

independent	 channel	 of	 OEM	 contracted	 trailer	 dealers.	 Compared	 to	 tractors	 OEMs,	 trailer OEMs	 have	 less	

employees, and	their	product	development	cycle	times	are	much	shorter.		

Established Component	 Suppliers – These	 companies	 provide	 engines,	 transmissions,	 clutches,	 front	 and	 rear	

axles,	suspensions,	brakes	systems,	electrical	components, tires,	etc. to	the	truck	and	trailer	OEMs.	They	promote	

components	branded as	their	own	but	will	also	provide	private	label	components	for	OEMs	if	desired.	 Most	have	

been	in	the	industry	for	most	of	the	100+	years	it	has	existed	and	continually	develop,	build	and	sell	products	that	

meet	customer	expectations.		They	understand	the	intricacies	of	the	business	very	well	and	have	significant	and	

deep	relationships	with	the	end	user	fleets	and	owner-operators.		These	relationships	are	useful	as	they	promote	

efficient	 development	 of	 capable	 and	 robust	 products	 for	 their	 customers’	 customers.	 	 At	 times,	 this	 creates	

some	 tension	 with	 the	 tractor	 and	 trailer	 OEMs,	 but	 ultimately	 collaboration	 is	 strong	 as	 tractor	 and	 trailer	

builders	work	closely	together	to	deliver	the	features	integrated	on	the	equipment	for	production.		

New	 Technology	 Suppliers – As	 emissions	requirements	 have	 expanded	 and	 fuel	 prices	 doubled	 in	 the	 last	 6	

years,	new	technologies	have	emerged	from	suppliers who	are	either	startups	or	have	not	supplied	the	trucking	

industry	 in	 the	 past.	 	 These firms	 have	 emerged	 out	 of	 research	 institutions or	 vehicle	 markets	 such	 as	 the	

passenger	car	industry.	Sometimes,	companies	in	this	group	of	suppliers	are	less	knowledgeable	of	the	trucking		

industry	and	oftentimes	offer insights	that	diverge	from	views	of	the	established	manufacturers.		For	this	study,	a	

diverse	 group	 was	 selected,	 which	 included	 companies	 that	 specialize trailer	 aerodynamics,	 advanced	 engine	

controls, and	operational	telematics	respectively.

These	 12	 groups,	 including	 the	 truck	 dealers,	 offer	 a	 comprehensive set	 of	 perspectives	 on the	 barriers	 to	

technology	 adoption.	 	 Each	 stakeholder	 group	 was	 asked	 common	 questions	 to	 more	 deeply	 understand	 all	

perspectives on	a	topic.		In	some	cases,	the	supply	chain	interviewees	were	asked	to	provide	answers	from	the	

end	users perspective.		That	is,	answer	this	question	as	you	think	your	customer fleets	would.		For	example,	all	

were	asked	the	required	payback	period	in	months	that	is	acceptable	 for	a	 fleet	to	move	 forward	a	purchase	a	

technology.		As	mentioned	earlier,	 companies	and	individuals	selected	 for	interviews	and	 the	owner-operators

included	in	the	survey,	are	often	lead	users.		They	typically	understand	and	recognize	the	opportunities	that	fuel	

efficiency technologies	 can	 offer	 their	 businesses	 and	 have	 a	 perspective	 of	 those	 companies	 who	 are later

adopters	or	non-adopters.

Data	collection

The	study	ultimately	included	four	different	data	collection	tools.	Table	2	summarizes	the	four	main	methods	of	

in-person	interviews,	conference	calls,	focus	groups,	and	online surveys.		The	methods	were	chosen	to	maximize	

the	amount	of	information	that	could	be	gleaned	from	various	industry	stakeholders	in	an	efficient	manner.		The	

project	team	interacted	with	individuals	within	larger	firms	via	both	face-to-face	meetings	and	conference	phone	

calls	using	interview	templates.		An	online	survey	was	developed	to	solicit	responses	from	owner-operators.		

Example	survey	templates	and	interview	questions	can	be	found	in	Appendix	B,	C	and	D.
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	18

Table2.		Summary	of	Data	Methods

Data	collection	method Targeted	lead	users Details

In-person	interview • Large	fleets

• Established	component	

suppliers

• Typically	1 -2	hours

• 1-4 individuals	from	the

companies

• Many	times	conducted	at	

Truck	Shows/Events

• Examples	companies:	

Werner,	Great	Dane,	

Daimler,	Volvo	&	Navistar

Conference	call • All	other	companies	

where	it	was	impractical	

to	meet	in-person

• Typically	1	hour

• Excellent	attendance	–

none	needed	to	be	

rescheduled.

• 1-4	individuals

• Examples	companies:	

Cummins,	Eaton,	Frito	Lay,	

Peterbilt,	etc.

Focus	group • Truck	Dealers with	

representatives	from	the	

American	Truck	Dealers	

Association.

• Lasted	1	hour

• 6	Dealer	Principles	

representing	5	of	the	6	

major	NA	truck	brands

• Large,	competent	dealers	

from	all	US	regions

On-line	survey • Owner-operators and	

small	companies	(<10	

trucks)

• Designed	to	take	30

minutes	to	complete

• Let’s	Truck:	1,796	

respondents

• CSS:	96	respondents

• In	total,	respondents	own	

or	operate 4,000 trucks	

Truck	show	walk-arounds • All	stakeholders

• Discussed	preliminary	

findings	with	dozens	of	

company	representatives	

and	owner-operators

• Conducted at	the	

Technology	and	

Maintenance	Council	

Meeting	in	Nashville	and	

the	Mid	American	Truck	

Show	in	Louisville,	March.
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	19

In-person	interviews	were	 desired	 for	all	 companies	 other	 than	 the	owner-operators as	 the	 team	 believed	

that	this	offered	the	most	robust	form	of	interviews	and	data	collection.		The	project	budget	only	allowed	for	

in-person	 interviews	 at	 truck	 shows/events	 or	 while	 the	 interview	 team	 was	 visiting	 a	 particular	 company	

location	 for	 another	 purpose.	 Typically	 one	 member	 of	 the	 study	 team	 participated	 in	 these	 in-person	

sessions.	 	 This	 worked	 well	 as	 42%	 of	 the	 company	 interviews	 were	 completed	 in-person.	 	 80% of	 the	

targeted	firms	identified	by	the	study	team,	agreed	to	participate	in	the	interviews	and	all	29	interviews	were	

conducted	when	scheduled.		Interviewees	titles	included;	Director	of	Operations	and	Maintenance,	Director	

Vehicle	 Technologies,	 Fleet	 Engineer,	 Fleet	 Fuel	 Director,	 Founder	 and	 CEO,	 General	 Manager	 – Logistics	

Engineering	 and	 Development,	 Manager	 Advanced	 Engineering,	 President,	 Vice	 President	 Engineering,	

Product	Manager,	 VP	 of	 Engineering	 and	 VP	 Sales.	 	 This	 approach	 generated	 input	 from individuals at	 the	

level	 of	 the	 company	 that	 has	 authority	 to	 make	 decisions	 in	 the	 areas	 of	 purchasing, development and	

integration	of	fuel	efficiency	technologies.		Ultimately,	the	in-person	interviews	resulted	in	the	most	detailed	

and	rich	data.		The	same	data	collection	templates	were	used	for	in-person	and	conference	call	interviews.

The	conference	calls	were	utilized	for	companies	where	the	team	believed	input	was	essential and	where	an	

in-person	 interview	 was	 not	 practical.	 	 These	 calls	 were	 very	 efficient	 and	 attended	 by	 the	 key	 decision	

makers	 at	 the	 companies.	 	It	 was	 clear	 that	 the	 participating	 companies	 were	 committed	 to	 providing	 the	

insights	the	team	was	interested	in	receiving.		For	these	calls,	one	study	team	member	was	the	interviewer	

and	a	second	took	detailed	notes.

A	focus	group was only	utilized	for	the	truck	dealers.		The	American	Truck	Dealers,	a	division	ofthe	National	

Automotive	Dealers	Association (NADA),	was	very	helpful	in	organizing	a	 focus	group	event at	 their	annual	

meeting in	February	2013	in	Orlando, Florida.		The	dealers	were	very	vocal	and	 their	insights	important	 to	

adding an	additional	stakeholder	perspective	on the	barriers	to	technology	deployment.	

The	 online survey	 approach was	 used	 to	 gain	 a better understanding	 of	 the	 owner-operators that	 haul	

freight.		The	team	identified	two	groups	that	are	knowledgeable	on	the	technologies,	their	opportunities	and	

barriers	 to	 adoption.	 	 Cascade	 Sierra	 Solutions	 finances	 retrofits	 for	 these	 small	 businesses,	 and	 Kevin	

Rutherford	 of	 Let’s	 Truck has	 a membership	 via	 a	 satellite	 radio	 show	 and	 a	 business	that	 offers	tools	 for	

small	business management.		The	high	level	of	participation	of	these	groups	evidences	a	large	interest in	fuel	

efficiency	 and	 technology	 opportunities.	 	 Presumably,	 a	 large	 percentage of	 the	 surveys	 were	 completed	

from	the	cab	of	their	trucks.

Post-survey	analysis

After	completing	 the	in-person	and	 teleconference	interviews,	 the	 first	 step	in	 the	analysis	was	 to	compile	

notes	from	the	sessions	and	transpose	the	responses	onto	the	template	survey	forms,	which	were	developed	

for	each	of	the	industry	groups.	In	addition, direct	quotes	were	recorded	by	the	interviewees.
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	20

The	online	survey	included	29	questions	and	was	conducted	between	December	13,	2012 and	February	11,	

2013.	In	the	 first	phase	of	online	effort	surveys	were	sent	out	a	group	of	companies	and	individuals	 from	a	

Cascade	Sierra	Solutions	database,	and	96 responses were	received,	of	which	74% completed	every	question.	

The	second	phase	of	online	surveys	reached	a	much	larger	group	of	people	due	 to	a	collaboration	of	Kevin	

Rutherford,	who	has	a	nationwide	trucking	focused	radio	program and	consulting	business,	Let’s	Truck.	From	

this	group	of	Let’s	Truck listeners,	1,796 online	surveys	were	returned,	and	82%	responded to	every	question.		

Responses	were	 received	 from	all	over	 the	country in	both	sets	of	 respondents.		The	CSS	survey	 responses	

are	mapped	in	Figure	3.

Figure	4.	CSS	Survey	Respondents’	Location

The	next	step	in	the	analysis	was	to	distill	the	substantial	data	set into	useable	forms	for	further	analysis.		This	

was	 completed	 through	 completing	 various	 analysis	 documents	 such	 as	 key	 insights	 for	 each	 stakeholder	

group,	 a	 summary	 spreadsheet	 of	 all	 the	 answers	 to	 the	 common	 questions	 and	 common	 and disparate	

conclusions	 from	 stakeholder	 groups.	 	 This	 data	 was	 prepared	 for	 the	 team’s	 subsequent	 step,	 which	

included	 identifying	 key	 themes	 that	 were	 evident	 across	 all	 of	 the	 industry	 groups.	 This	 exercise	 was	

primarily	 carried	 out	 during	 a	 late	 February	 2013,	 two-day	 workshop	 for	 the	 entire	 project	 team,	 ICCT	

representatives,	one	of	the	expert	panel	and	support	from	the	Carbon	War	Room.		The	workshop	began	by	

reviewing	all	the	available	data	collected	and	initial	analysis	performed,	which	led	to	the	identification	of	an	
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	21

initial	set	of	barriers.		The	 team	challenged	 these	preliminary	 findings	using	various	 tools	and	made	certain	

that	they	were	truly	what	the	interviewees	and	survey	respondents	shared.		The	team	coalesced	around	the	

eventual	 key	 findings	 and	 documented	 the	 work	 in	 a	 “Preliminary	 Project	 Findings”	 document.	 	 The	 final	

deliverable	of	the	workshop	was	to	test	these	findings	with	four	distinct	groups,	shown	in	Table	3	below.

Table	3.	Preliminary	Findings	Reviews 

Group Attendees Details

Expert	Review	Panel • Nigel	Clark,	West	Virginia

University

• Susan	Mazur-Stommen,	

American	Council	for	an	

Energy	Efficient	Economy

• Bruce	Stockton,	Fleet	

Consultant

• 1	hour	conference	call	with	

Susan	on	site

• Group	previously	reviewed

the	survey design

• Received significant	

questions	and	feedback

Industry	 • Bill	Kozek,	General	

Manager,	Peterbilt

• Jim	Williams,	retired	

Executive,	Navistar	

• In	person	review	with	the	

team	at	the	workshop

• Industry	provided	

perspective	on	the	study	

findings

EPA • Various	Environmental	

Protection	Agency	

personnel

• 1	hour	conference	call	at	

the	end	of	the	workshop

• Participants	from	

Washington,	DC	and	Ann	

Arbor	

• Robust	Q&A

NHTSA • Various	National	Highway	

Traffic	Safety	

Administration		personnel

• 1	hour	conference	call	

within	one	week	of	the	

workshop	

• Robust	Q&A

As	 is	 described	 in	 detail	 in	 the	 following	 section,	 five	 primary	 barriers	 to	 the	 adoption	 of	 fuel-saving	

technologies	emerged	in	the	analysis:	lack	of	credible	information,	uncertainty	with	respect	to	payback	time,	

insufficient	capital,	unacceptable	reliability, and	lack	of	commercial	availability.		

After	identifying	the	five	primary	barriers,	the	next	step	in	the	process	involved	analyzing	how	the	responses	

varied	within	each	of	the	industry	groups.	Table	4 provides	a	high-level	qualitative	summary	of	the	degree	of	

consensus	 for	each	of	 the	interview	groups	across	 the	 five	barrier	categories.	 In	general,	 there	was	a	high	

level	of	consensus	with	respect	to	the	lack	of	credible	information	and	uncertain	payback	as	critical	barriers.		

The	significance	of	 the	access	 to	capital	was	a	larger	issue	with	 the smaller	end	users,	while	 the	larger	size	
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	22

fleets	including	 the	private	and	lease	 fleets	said	 they	could	get	 the	capital	with	sufficient	confidence	in	 the	

payback	analysis.		End	users	were	more	critical	of	the	reliability	of	new	features,	while the	supply	chain	had	a	

moderate	 agreement.	 	 The	 fleets	 and	 suppliers	 had	 a	 high	 degree	 of	 consensus concerning	 the	 lack	 of	

availability	barrier,	while the	integrators	 (tractor	and	trailer	OEMs)	somewhat	concurred.	Each	of	these	 five	

barriers	is	discussed	in	the	detail	in	the	following	section.			

Table 4.	Qualitative	Summary	of	Interview	and	Survey	Responses

Survey	Group Number	of	

interviews	

or	surveys

Degree	of	consensus	across	primary	barrier	areas

Credible	

information

Uncertain	

payback

Insufficient	

capital

Unacceptable	

reliability

Lack	of	

availability

Large	fleets	 5 G G R G G

Medium	fleets	 1 G G G G G

Used	fleets 2 G G G G G

Retail-Private	fleets 4 G G R G G

Lease	and	Rental	

fleets

1 G G R G G

Owner-operators 1,892 G G G G Y

Tractor	OEMs 4 G G Y Y Y

Trailer	OEMs 2 G G Y Y Y

Established	

manufacturers

3 G G Y Y G

New	technology	

suppliers

5 G G G Y G

Shippers	&	Logistics 2 G G N/A Y N/A

Green:	high	degree	of	consensus;	yellow:	moderate	consensus;	red:	low	degree	of	consensus
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	23

III. Findings

This	section	reports	on	findings	of	the	analysis	of	the	input	gathered	from	the	15 one-hour	end	user	company	

interviews, 6 large	 truck	and	 trailer	manufacturers, 14	 supply	 chain	 companies	and	 1,892	owner-operators

via	 internet	 surveys.	 	 Based	 on	 the	 process	 identified	 in	 the	 previous	section for	 filtering	 results	 from	 the	

various	 survey	 methods, the	 team	 then	 mapped	 key	 answer	 analytics	 and	 interviewee	 quotes	 to	 better	

explain	each	of	the	barriers.	

Lack	of	credible	information	about	the	total	cost	of	ownership	and	reliability	of	technologies in	early	stages of	

deployment as	well	as	a	deficiency in	information	sharing across	 the	industry	as	 technologies	mature were	

identified	 as	 overriding	 barriers to	 greater	 rates	 of	 adoption.	 Uncertainty	 around	 the	 payback	 for	 an	

investment	in	a technology	and	the	lack	of	access	to	capital	to	actually	make	the	purchase were	identified	as	

barriers that	are	highly	interrelated.		Insufficient	 reliability	of	 the	product	in	real-world	operations and	 the

lack	of availability	of	the	features	from	a	majority	of	the	tractor/trailer	OEMs	were	also	barriers	identified	by	

the	 team	based	on	 responses provided	by	various	end	user	 stakeholders.		Each	barrier	is addressed	in	 this

section	of	the	report	by	describing	the	barrier, providing	representative stakeholder	quotes that	capture	the	

essence	of	the	issue,	and	analyzing	the	extent	or	agreement	or	disagreement	both	within	each	industry group	

and	across	all	of	the	stakeholder	categories.	

Uncertain	Payback Time

Based	on	responses	from	end	user	fleets,	many	technologies	do	not	seem	to	have	acceptably	short	payback	

for	adoption.

“It’s	all	about	our	payback	calculation!”	– multiple	end	users	and	supply	chain	companies.

Payback	time,	as	defined	in	this	study,	is	the	time	it	takes	for	the	cumulative	fuel	savings	of	a	technology	to	

offset	the	additional	capital	and	operating	expenses	presented	by	that	technology.	Across	all of	the	industry	

groups,	 there	was	 consensus	 that	 payback	 time	 is	 the	most	 important	economic	 calculation	 in	guiding	 the	

decision	making	process	of	whether	or	not	to	investment	in	a	fuel-saving	technology.	

One	 of	 the	 key	 boundary	 conditions	 in	 a	 payback	 analysis	 is	 the	 expected	 time	 that	 a	 fleet	 or	 individual	

intends	 to	 own	a	 truck.	All	 of	 the	interview	 responses	 confirmed	 previous	 research	 findings	and	anecdotal	

evidence	that	trucking	fleets	require	payback	times	that	are	shorter	than	their	ownership	cycles	so	that	the	

technology	can	not	only	offset	the	additional	capital	investment	but	also	provide	a	return	on	investment.	As	

discussed	in	more	detail	in	 the	Capital	Cost	section	below,	 fuel-saving	 technologies	are	often	not	valued	in	

secondary	 markets,	 which	 makes	 it	 that	 much	 more	 important	 that	 technologies	 pay	 for	 themselves	 well	

within	the	time	that	a	fleet	owns	a	tractor	or	trailer.	
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	24

As	 reported	 by	 the	end	 user	 fleets	in	 this	 study,	 truck	 ownership	 cycles	vary	widely,	as	 shown	in	Figure	5.		

Private	fleets	tend	to	keep	their	trucks	longer,	while	large	for-hire	carriers	tend	to	sell	their	trucks	after	four	

to	six	years	to	secondary	users,	which	are	referred	to	“used	truck	fleets”	in	this	study.		The	shortest	reported	

trade	 cycle	 was	 four	 years,	 and	most	 of	 the	 for-hire	 fleets	 stated	 that	 they	 are	 trying	to	 lower	 their	 truck	

ownership	times	back	to	four	years	after	extending	ownership	times	during	the	recession	to	5,	6,	and	7	years.		

ACT	Research	reports	that	the	average	truck	age	increased	from	around	6	to	about	7	years	as	a	result	of	the	

recession (Vieth,	 Kenny,	 personal	 communication, April	 30, 2013).	 	According	 to	 interview	 responses from

for-hire	fleets,	their trucks	average	about	120,000	miles	per	year, and	these	fleets	tend	to	buy	new	and	sell	

trucks	 when	 the	maintenance	 costs	 reach	 an	 unacceptable	 level	 at	 about	 500,000	 to	 700,000	miles.	 	 	 The	

trucks	 then	 typically	 move	 into	 lower	 mileage	 routes	 operated	 by	 smaller	 fleets, owner-operators,	 and	

agricultural	operators for	rest	of	their	life.

Figure	5.		Tractor	Trade	Cycles

In	 all	 of	 the	 interviews,	 the	 team	 received	 responses	 on	 the	 acceptable	 payback	 period,	 and	 for owneroperators,	 this	 data	 was	 collected via online surveys and is	 summarized	 in	 Figure	 6.	 Large,	 medium	 and	

lease/rental	 fleets	 stated	 that	 a	 payback	 time	 between	 12	 and	 24	months	 is	 required,	 while	 private	 fleets	

reported	 that	 a	 longer	 payback	 period	 – 24	 to	 36	months	 or	more	 – is	 acceptable.	 	Of	 all	 of	 the	 industry	

0"

2"

4"

6"

8"

10"

12"

A" B" C" D" E" F" G" H"

Large"For6Hire" Retail"Private"

Trade&Cycle&in&Years&

Avearage"="5.5"

Avearage"="9.0"
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	25

groups,	the	distribution	of	responses	about	required	payback	times	was	most	varied	for	the	owner-operators.	

Though	 over	 80%	 of	 owner-operators reported	 an	 ideal	 payback	 time	 of	 2	 years	 or	 less,	 the	 respondents	

reported	 payback	 time	 preferences	 of	 up	 to	 3	 or	more	years.	For	 retrofit	 technologies,	 payback	 periods	 of	

less	than	24	months	were	deemed	reasonable	by	92%	of	the	owner-operator	respondents.

Figure	6.	Acceptable	Payback	for	Technologies

The	 responses	 from	 end	 user	 fleets	 are	 contrasted	 somewhat	 by	 the	 replies	 from	 the	 new	 technology	

suppliers	 and	 tractor	 and	 trailer	 OEMs.	 The	 technology	 suppliers	 and	 OEMs	 were	 asked	 to	 take the	

perspective	 of	 an	 end	 user	 trucking	 fleet,	 and	 the	 reported	 payback	 time	 requirements	 from these	

manufacturer	groups was,	on	average,	shorter	 than	 those	reported by	 the	 fleets.		This	seems	 to	imply	 that	

manufacturers	are,	in	general,	more	conservative	in	terms	of	their	belief	as	to	what	payback	times	the	fleets	

will	accept.	This	view that	end	users	require	very	short	payback	times	(less	than	a	year	in	roughly	half	of	the	

manufacturer	 responses)	 likely	 has important	 implications	 on	 the	 decision-making	 process	 about	 product	

development	activities by	the	suppliers.

A	truck	OEM	General	Manager	summarized	the	acceptable	payback	period	for	long-haul trucking	as	follows:	

“The	customer	sees	[payback	time]	as	one-half	their	trade	cycle,	which	means	18	to	24	months	on	trucks	kept	

0%	 10%	 20%	 30%	 40%	 50%	 60%	 70%	 80%	 90%	 100%	

Private/Retail	

Large	

Medium	

Lease/Rental	

Truck	OEMs	

Owner	Operators	

Tradiuonal	Suppliers	

Trailer	OEMs	

New	Tech	Suppliers	

<12	mos	

12-24	mos	

24-36	mos	

>36	mos	
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	26

about	 4	 years	 before	 trade	 time.”	 Based	 on	 interviewee	 responses	 about	 their	 own	 business	 models	 and	

attitudes	 about	 the	 trucking	 sector	 as	 a	 whole,	 payback	 times	 of	 roughly	 one-half	 of	 the	 truck	 ownership	

cycle	seem	to	be	the	industry	norm.	Given	this	rule-of-thumb,	it	follows	that	large	for-hire	carriers	require	a	

more	 rapid	 return	 on	 investment	 due	 to	 shorter	 ownership	 cycles,	 while	 private	 fleets	 allow	 for	 longer	

payback	periods,	as	 they	 tend	 to	operate	 the	equipment	 for	more	years.	However,	 the	interviews	 revealed	

that	there	are	sometimes	other	non-monetary	factors	such	as	“green	image”	or	shipper	requirements,	which	

may	cause	a	fleet	to	extend	the	payback	period	to	justify	purchasing	the	technology.	

While	the reported	preference	 for	payback	time	was	generally	in	the	range	of	12-24	months,	the	questions	

about	payback	resulted	in	a	variety	of	responses.		For	example,	some	large	fleets stated:

• “[The	 payback	 requirement	 is]	 36	 months	 or	 less,	 maximum	 payback	 is	 48	 months	 but varies	 by	

equipment	type.	Trailer	trade	cycle	is	about	10	years”		- Vice	President

• “Nothing’s set, but	usually	[the	payback	requirement	is]	24	months,	also	want	15%	return	on	capital.”

– Vice	President, Purchasing

• “[The	payback	requirement	is]	18	months	on	tractors	based	on	3-4	year	trade	cycle	and	36	months	on	

trailers	based	on	our 7	year	trade	cycle.	Local	dealer	gives	good	residuals	so	that	drives	shorter	truck	

trade	cycles	and	trailers	must	meet	new	EPA	and	CARB	requirements.”	 - Vice	President

• “[The	 payback	 requirement	 is]	 24	 months.	 	[We]	 can	 usually	 calculate	 maintenance	 and	 reliability	

gains.”	- Fleet	Fuel	Director

• “We	retrofit	if	we	believe	there	is	enough	life	left	 for	payback.		We	trade	our	trucks	at	4	years	and	

retrofits	are	generally become	challenging.	“		- Vice	President

Medium and	used	Fleets	had	similar	responses,	with	interesting	caveats:

• “[We	 select	 a	 technology]	 if	 the	 return	 on	 investment	 is	 2	 years	 or	 less, and	 the	 product	 has low	

maintenance.”	– Chief	Executive	Officer

• “[We	select	a	technology]	if	return	on	investment	is	2	years	or	less,	we	might add	to	our	application.”	

- Director	of	Operations	and	Maintenance

• “[To	 select	 a	 technology]	 we	 would	 need	 to	 have	 a	 tested	 3-4%	 fuel	 savings	 with	 a	 quick	 ROI	 (12	

months	or	less)	to	spend	resources	on	new	technology.”	– Vice	President	of Operations

As	stated	above,	responses	from	private	fleets	clearly	reflected	their	longer trade	cycles:

• “[The	payback	requirement	is]	25%	ROI	or	three-and-a-half years	if	it’s	with	a	new	truck	purchase.”	-

Fleet	Engineer

• “[We]	keep	tractors	about	12	years	and	trailers	15+.”	- Director,	Engineering

• “As	always, payback	is	 the	big	 thing.	Since	we keep	 trucks	 so	long	we do	more	 retrofits than	most	

carriers	with	shorter	trade	cycles.	“	- Fleet	Engineer
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	27

• “Due	to	a	longer	trade	cycle	(10	years), we	will	consider	doing	more	retrofits	than	a	lot	of	larger	longhaul	carriers.	“	- Fleet	Engineer

Truck	OEMs	tended	to	expect	short	payback	periods:

• “It	is	all about	payback.		Shorter	the	better	no	matter	how	much	it	costs.”	- Product	Manager

• “Internally, [we] use	18	months	to	justify	adding	the	feature	to	our	products.”	 - Product	Manager

• “If	the	fuel	saving	technology	pays	back	for	the	customer	and	for	our	investment.		1-2 years	is	the	most	

common	payback	period.”	- Marketing	Manager

• “[We	aim	to	provide] payback	that	meets	the	1-2 year	customer	criteria.		Many	fuel-saving	technologies	

can	provide	[this]	payback.”	- Marketing	Manager

• “[An	OEM’s decisions to	offer	or	improve	a	fuel-saving	technology	is]	based	on	cost/benefit	(tooling	and	

fixed	costs)	versus ability	to	collect	[a	higher	sale]	price.”	- Director,	On-Highway	Vehicle	Strategy

• “Fuel	savings	[i.e.	fuel-saving	technologies]	are	targeted	for	the	on-highway	long-haul	customers	more	so	

than	 for	 lower	 speed,	 lower	 mileage	 operations.	 	 Criteria	 is	 1-2	 year	 payback	 on	 the	 fuel	 savings.”	 -

Marketing	Manager

Some	major	component	manufacturers	stated:		

• “We	think	fleets	want	12	to	18	months.”		- Strategic	Business	Segment	Manager

• “18	months	[for	the	payback	time	requirement]	is	typical	in	over-the-road	tractor-trailers.”	- Director,	

Vehicle	Technologies	and	Innovation

Finally,	the	General	Sales	Manager	of	a	trailer	OEM asserted:		“Trailer	life	is	now	10	to	12	years, up	from	8	a	

few	years	ago.		This	should	help	adoption	[of	fuel-saving	technologies]	as	the	fleet	has	more	time	to	gain	the	

payback.”

A	number	of	end	users were	asked	how	the	payback	calculations	reflected	their	unique	business	models	and	

duty	cycles.		Technologies	 for	 tractor-trailers	vary	widely	in	 terms	 of	additional	 capital	 costs	and	 operating	

expenses,	 and	 fuel	 savings	 benefits	 are	 often	 intimately	 linked	 to	 operating	 characteristics	 such as vehicle	

speed,	payload,	grade,	and	ambient	conditions,	which	can	be	different	from	fleet-to-fleet	and	vary	based	on	

geographic	location.		All	of	 the	 fleets	were	asked	what	elements	are included	in	 their	payback	calculations.

The	answers	ranged	significantly, showing	that	some	fleets	are	more	detailed	and	thorough	in	their	analyses.		

A	few	fleets	mentioned	categories	of	payback	items	in	terms	of	“hard	costs”,	those	that	are	easily	measured	

and	directly attributable	to	the	technology.		They	include	such	items	as	the	fuel	savings,	upfront	cost	of	the	

device,	maintenance, infrastructure, and	training.		Second are	what	some	called	“soft	costs”,	which	are costs	

that	are	difficult	 to	estimate and	generally	not	included	in	 the payback calculation.		Some	examples	of	soft	

costs	 include	 impacts	 to	resale	 value,	 reliability	 and	 driver	 attraction	 and	 retention.	 	 Finally,	 a	 fleet	 might	

include	directional	“pluses/minuses”	that become	bullet	points	in	the	analysis	where	costs	cannot	be	defined.		

These	 include	 sustainability initiatives,	 green imaging,	 safety	 impacts,	 and	 shipper	 requirements.	 	 As	
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	28

described	by	some	of	the	larger	fleets	in	response	to	the	payback	questions,	when	a	fleet	manager	conducts	

the	payback	analysis	and	provides	the	formal	proposal	to	their	 finance	organization,	many	of	the	soft	costs	

and	plus/minuses	are	removed	from	the	proposal.		

Most	technology	suppliers	develop	payback	calculators,	share	them	with	their	potential	customers, and	put	

them	on	their	websites.		Tractor	and	trailer	OEMs use	these	tools	and	also	develop	their	own	calculators	to	

evaluate	 various	 technology	 solutions	 for	 inclusion	 in	 their	 product	 development	 pipelines.	 	 Those	 more	

promising	 technologies	 get	 a	 higher	 priority	 in	 their	 engineering	 plans.	 	 Finally,	 fleets	 perform payback	

calculations in	order	to	inform	the decision	of	whether	to purchase	the	technology and what supplier	or	OEM	

from	which	to	acquire	the	technology.		In describing the	challenge	of	calculating	payback,	a Vice	President	of	

one	 of	 the large	 fleet	 carriers stated	 that,	 “Suppliers	 do	 not	 provide	 all	 the	 elements	 of	 a	 strong	 payback	

analysis	and	the	fleets	are	maybe	too	conservative	in	the	calculations, due	to	being	burned	in	the	past.”		He

went	on	to	describe	an	actual	situation	where	they	were	studying	a	potential	safety	feature,	an	anti-collision	

product	 that	alerts	 the	driver	via	 radar	of	close	proximity	hazards	near	 the	 truck.		During	a	significant	field	

trial	of	dozens	of	vehicles	with	and	without	 the	device,	where	 the	company	was	using	 telematics	 to	collect	

data,	a field	engineer	noticed	a	sizeable	savings	in	fuel	as	the	result	of	the	operators	driving	the	trucks	more	

cautiously.		This	fleet	decided	not	to	include	these fuel	savings	as	a	benefit	to	the	safety	feature,	as	this	was

not a	fuel	efficiency project,	but	a	safety	one, and	those	fuel	savings	were	not included	in	the	payback.	This	

provides	an	example	of the	conservative	nature	of	these	calculations.

As	a	 result	of	1)	the	difficulty	of	 testing	 the	real-world	performance	of	technologies and 2)	a	 feeling	of	 the	

fleets	that	technology	suppliers	generally	oversell	the benefits	and	minimize the	challenges, it	is	rational	that	

fleets’ payback	analyses	 tend	 to	 be	 conservative	in	 nature.		It	is	 clear	 that	 there	 does	 not	 seem	 to	 be	any	

standardized,	universally	used	methods	in these	calculations	throughout	the	industry,	which	is	likely	due	to	

the	highly	diverse	nature	of	 the	 trucking	industry	and	 the	desire	of	 fleet	managers	and	owner-operators	to	

utilize	payback	calculations	that	best	represent	their	unique	conditions.	

Many	of	these	technologies	can be	retrofitted	onto	trucks	already	in	service.		This	can	be	a	good	strategy	for	

fleets	to	take	advantage	of	the	benefits,	if	there	is	sufficient	time in	the	life	of	their	equipment	ownership for	

the	technology	to	payback.	 As	shown	earlier,	retail	private fleets	shared	a	greater	interest	in	retrofitting	due	

to	 their	longer	ownership	period.		Fleets	 reported	using	 the	same	payback	calculation	and	decision-making	

process	for retrofit	technologies as	technologies	included	on	new	tractors	or	trailers.

In	 summary,	 this	 study	 suggests	 that	 all fleets	 make	 decisions	 to	 buy	 new	 technologies	 using	 a	 payback	

calculation, and	 the	 manufacturing industry	 also	 uses	 payback	 time	 as	 a	 key	 metric	 in	 determining	 what	

products	 to	develop	and	bring	 to	market.		Though	 the	 responses	varied,	 the	stated	expectation	 for	payback	

time	 was	 typically half	 of	 the	truck	 ownership	 cycle.	 Interview	 responses	 showed	 that	 large	 for-hire	 fleets	

generally	 purchase	 new	 trucks	 and	 operate	 them	 four	 to	 six	 years,	 which	 translates	 to	 a	 payback	 time	

expectation	of	two	years	so	that	in	the	final	two	or	more	years	of	truck	ownership,	the	fleet	can	see	a	return	

on	 investment.	 Truck	 and	 trailer	 OEMs	 and	 component	 suppliers customarily	 use	 two	 years	 or	 less	 as	 the	

benchmark	 for	payback	 time,	which	 signals	 that	 the	 requirements	of	 the	 fleets	with	 the	 shortest	ownership	
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	29

cycles	are	driving	the	product	development	process	for	the	entire	industry. Payback	calculations	seem	to	vary	

in	terms	of	the	parameters	that	are	included	in	the	calculation	and	tend	to	be	rather	conservative	to	reflect	

the uncertainty	surrounding	thefuel	savings,	reliability,	durability,	and	additional	maintenance	or	operations	

impacts	that	are	associated	with	a	technology.

Capital Cost

Often,	there	is	a	lack	of	capital	for	purchasing	fuel-saving new	technologies.

“Due	to	the	high	costs	of	the	trucks	now,	I	simply	cannot	get	the	capital	for	these	features.”	

– Vice	President of	Operations,	a	medium-sized	fleet

Many	end	users	expressed	that	the	high	cost	of	new	trucks	is	a	challenge	for	purchasing	many	of	these	new,

additional	features.	 At	times,	there	is	an	acceptable	payback	period on	a	technology,	but	fleets	still	choose	

not	 to	 buy	them due	 to	 their high	 upfront	 cost. Based	 on	 responses	 from	 all	 of	 the	 end	 user	 stakeholder	

groups,	 the	overall	cost	of	 the	 tractor has	increased	dramatically	over	 the	last	six	years.		Many	shared	 that	

the	overall	costs	of	new	trucks	and	the	financial	constraints	since	the	recession	have	limited the	availability	of	

capital	for	many	actions	the	fleets	would	like	to	take.

Fleets	and	tractor	OEMs	confirmed	that	new	tractor	costs	are	up	significantly	in	the	past	years	due	to	some	of	

the	following factors.		The	costs	shown	below	are	an	aggregation	of	comments	made	by	many	interviewees.

• In	 total,	 engine	 modificaitons	 and	 aftertreatment systems	 that	 were	 required	 to	 meet	 crtieria	

pollutant	emissions	regulations	in	2002,	2007,	and 2010	have	increased	the	cost	of	trucks	on	average	

about $15,000	combined	

• Driver	ammenity	features	added	to	trucks	to	attract	and	retain	operators	during	a	signficant	industry	

shortage,	safety	features, and	material	cost	increases	have	added	another	$10,000	on	average.

From	the	interview	responses,	the	$90,000	to	$100,000	price	for	long-haul tractors	with sleeper cabs	in	2006	

now	costs on	average	between	$115,000	and $135,000,	which is	roughly	a	20-30%	increase	in	7	years.	Fuelsaving technologies generally	add	costs	 to	 the	new	 truck	and	increase	 the	amount	of	money	 the	purchaser	

needs	to	justify	and	in	many	cases	finance.

The	Vice	 President of	Operations	 of	 a medium	 fleet shared	 that,	 “Regulations	 have	mandated	 a	 generous	

amount	of	capital	to	be	spent	meeting	regulations,	particularly	in	California.”	An owner-operator specifically	

stated	 that	 “many	 of	 us	 believe	 that	 air	 quality	 regulation	 compliance	 restricted	 our	 investments	 in	 fuelsaving	 technologies.”	 	 They	 continued,	 “We	 would	 be	 more	 apt	 to	 work	 on	 incorporating	 fuel	 saving	

technologies	 if	 the	 capital	 was	 available.”	 	 The	 fleets	 seem	 to	 not	 rely	 on	 or	 even	 expect	federal	 or	state	

incentives	 to	help	pay	 for	 the	devices.	Most	shared	 that	 they	pursue	incentives	if they	exist,	but	 rarely	use	

any	expectation	of	incentives	in	their	payback	calculations.		Therefore,	they	do	not	typically	factor	incentives	
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	30

into	their purchase	decision.		This	study	did	not	specifically	ask	to	what	degree	the	financing	mechanisms	in	

existence	 today	effectively	support	 technology	adoption.		Future	 research	into	 the	areas	of	unique	 funding	

mechanisms	 that	 are	 being	 implemented	 in	 other	 cleantech	 ventures	 such	 as	 solar	 and	 wind can be	

conducted	to	more	fully	understand	the	opportunity	for	them	to	reduce this	barrier	in	the	trucking	industry.

The	President	of	a	new	 technology supplier expressed	a	 somewhat	opposing	view	 stating	 that:		“Access	 to	

capital	does	not	seem	to	be	an	issue,	for	products	with	strong	payback.”		This	vendor	believes that	the	capital	

would	become	available	if	the	cost	of	his	devices	and	their	fuel	savings	benefits were	carefully	considered.

As	 discussed	in	 the	 previous	section	 on	 payback	 time,	a key	factor in the	 financial	 calculation	is	 the	 resale	

value	of	the	tractor.		Oftentimes,	a	new	technology,	even	when	appropriate	for	the	second	owner,	does not	

have much	 (or	 any)	 value	 in	 the	 used	 truck	 market	 until	 there	 is	 more widespread	 adoption	 of	 the	

technology.	 	 The Director	 of	On-Highway	 Vehicle	 Strategyof	a	 truck	OEM	stated	 that	 “The	 increase	 in	EPA	

mandated	costs	makes everything	–cost	of	finance,	maintenance,	purchase	price,	service	and	driver	training –

more	expensive	and	none	of	 this	added	cost	will	increase	 the	 resale	value	of	 the	 truck.	 New	 technologies	

take	 a	 long	 time	 to	 gain	 confidence	 and	 alter	 the resale	 value.”	 	 In	 the	 focus	 group	 of	 truck	 dealers,	 this	

sentiment	 was reiterated:	 “new	 technologies	 take	 a	 long	 time	 to	 gain	 confidence	 and	 impact	 the resale	

value.”	

This	study	asked	all	interviewees	what	factors	most	influence	their	specifications	for	new	equipment.		Figure	

7 shows	 the	 results	 of	 this	 question	 and	 demonstrates	 the	 high	 value	 fuel	 economy	 has	 on	 new truck	

specifications. Along	with	fuel	economy,	reliability,	maintenance	and	durability	have	an	equally	high	influence	

on	purchasing	specifications.		Many	interviewees	stated	 that	 fuel	economy	would	have	been	a	much	lower	

priority	if	surveyed	even	just	five	years	ago.		Resale	value	is	somewhat	important,	likely	again	driven	by	the	

varying	ownership	life.
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	31

Figure	7. Importance	of	Factors	Influencing	Specifications

Specific	to	the	question	of	resale	value,	the	four	private	fleets	rated	the	influence	of	resale	as	not	very	or	not	

important	at	all,	while	tractor	and	trailer	manufacturers	and	suppliers	rated	it	somewhat	important,	probably	

averaging	their	implicit	understanding	of	the	requirements	of	all	the	fleets.		Most	interesting	in	the	analysis	

was	the	greatly	divergent	responses	of	the	five	for-hire	fleets.		Their	responses	varied	from	very	important	to	

not important,	as	shown	in	Figure	8 below.		When	asked	follow-up	questions,	it	appears	that	the	fleets	who

value	 resale	as	not	important	or	not	very	important	see	 fuel	economy	as	such	a	key	new	 requirement	 that	

they	 are	 deciding	 to	 not	 allow	 the	 resale	 situation	 to	 be	 a	 major	 influence against	 adoption	 of	 these	

technologies.		They	stated	that	they will	keep	the	trucks	longer	if	they	are	delivering	the	MPG savings	rather	

than	 sell	 them	 if	 the	 used	 truck	 market	 does	 not	 value	 that	 specification.	 	 A	 fleet Vice	 President	shared,	

“Since	fuel	got	about	$2	per	gallon,	we	track	the	cost per	mile	down	to	1/10	of	an	MPG, and	it’s	more	about	

operating	costs	than	resale.”

0%	 10%	 20%	 30%	 40%	 50%	 60%	 70%	 80%	 90%	 100%	

OEM	Make	

Fleet	Image	

Driver	Recruit/Retenuon	

Resale	Value	

Durability	

Maintenance	

Fuel	Economy	

Reliability	

Very	Important	

Important	

Somewhat		

Not	Very	

Not	Important	
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	32

Figure	8.		Value	of	Resale	to	each	Company

In	summary,	some	fleets	shared	that	access	to	capital	is	an	issue, even	if the	fleet	has	confidence	that	a	fuelsaving	technology delivers a	payback	for	their	operations.		New	equipment	costs	(adjusted	for	inflation)	have	

increased	 significantly over	 the	past	10	years,	and	the	money a	 fleet	can	 spend	on	 fuel-saving technologies

compete	against	driver	amenities	to	better	attract	and	retain	drivers	and	other	new	technologies	to	improve

safety,	communications and routing.

Credible	Information	

It	can	be	very	difficult	to	predict	the	performance	of	technologies	for the trucking	sector.		Many	duty	cycles	

over	vastly	different	geographic	regions	and	environmental	conditions	and	diverse	business	models	of	fleets	

exist	in	 the	North	American	 trucking	industry.		The	Study team	 found	 that	 the	lack	of	credible	information	

occurred	 in	 two	 phases	 over	 a	 technology’s	 development,	 demonstration, and	 adoption.	 First,	 in	 verifying	

that	the	technology	is	valid	in	specific	applications	and	then later, in	sharing	that	information	throughout	the	

industry	in	order	to	maximize	the	benefit	of	the	technology	across	the	vocations	appropriate	for	it.		Figure	9

shows	a	typical	new	product	adoption	curve,	based	on	the	work	of	Everett	Rogers	in	Diffusion	of	Innovations	

(Rogers	 1962,	 150),	 in	which	he	broke	 down	the	 customer	 uptake	 into	 groups: innovators,	early	 adopters,	

early	and	late	majority	and	laggards.		The	study	team	added	the two	phases	of	credible	information	barriers	

to	the	chart.
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	33

Figure	9.		Information	across	Adoption	Cycle

Credible	Information	Verifying	(Early)

In	many	instances,	end	users	have difficulty	obtaining	data	on	new	technologies	in	order	to	make	informed	

purchase decisions.

“We	only	buy	what	we	test	– only	trust	ourselves”	– a	large	fleet Vice	President

Many	 end	 users	 stated that	 the	 inability	 to	 verify	 performance	 claims	 of	 manufacturer’s devices	 was	

preventing	 them	 from	adopting	efficiency	 technologies.		The	vast	diversity of	variables	 such	as	truck	make	

and	 model,	 duty	 cycles,	 business	 models,	 geography,	 and	 weather	 makes	 fleets	 and	 owner-operators

hesitant	 to	 believe	 that	 the performance	 results	 from	 manufacturer’s	 tests	 are applicable	 to	 their	 own	

operations.		Fleets	want confidence	that	the	technology	delivers benefits,	so	they	generally	test technologies	

in	their	own	applications after	reviewing the	public	and	manufacturer-supplied	data	available	to	them.		Table	

5 offers	answer summaries to	some	questions	asked	with	respect	to	how	often	fleets	require	third-party	tests	

from	 manufacturers	 and	 when	 they	 conduct	 their	 own	 testing.	 	 In	 the	 early	 stages	 of	 a	 technology’s	

deployment,	there	is	a	limited	amount	of	information, and	fleets	tend	to	default	to	testing	themselves.		The

Director	 of	 Vehicle	 Technologies	 and	 Innovation for	 a	 well-established	 component	 supplier	 stated	 that,	

“Fleets	have	a	general	mistrust	of	standardized	drive	cycles	and	the	associated	test	results,	as	they	will	not	

reflect	 the	 performance	 of	 the	 technologies	 in	 their	 operations.”	 	 A	 Product	 Manager for	 a	 truck	 OEM,	

somewhat	 frustrated	with	 this sentiment	of	 fleets, stated, “[A	 fleet’s	belief	 that	a	 technology’s	 fuel	savings	
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	34

results	will	be	different	if	applied	in	their	operations]	oftentimes	leads	to	a	distrust	of	the	data	provided by	

suppliers and	OEMs.		Budget	and	time	to	conduct	their	own	testing	is	definitely	a	barrier	to	early	adoption	of	

technologies.		Our	industry	is	a	‘show	me’ one.”		Nevertheless,	manufacturers	continue	to	demonstrate	the	

performance	 of	 their	 products using standardized test	 protocols to	 help	 the	 fleets	 understand	 how	 the	

technologies	 deliver	 benefits in	 the	 real	 world.	 	 As	the	 Vice	 President	 of Engineering	 for	 one	 trailer	 OEM	

stated:		“We	go	from	concept	to	design	to	validation	testing	to	production.	Testing	usually	takes	3-6	months.	

We	use	a	wind	tunnel	to	test	and	measure	effectiveness	of	aerodynamic	products	and	the	Bosch	test	track	to	

internally	test	our	products	for	durability	and	to	also	validate	fuel	savings	data. Many	features	we	offer	are	

customer	requested.”

Table	5.	 Interview	Answers	to	Testing Questions

Do	you	require	testing	by	a	3rd party? Yes No Sometimes

39% 26% 35%

If	yes,	what	%	does	the	supplier	pay? All Half

80% 20%

Do	you	require	a	trial	in	your	fleet? Almost	all	

the	time

Most	of	

the	time

SometimesRarely

26% 52% 5% 0%

The	 team	 asked	 all	 interviewees	 how	 the	end	 users	 valued	 information	 from	 various	 sources,	 as	 shown	 in	

Figure	10 below.		By	a	large	margin,	the	fleets	value	their	own	testing	on	a	technology	and	use	other	sources	

to	help	validate	it.		Other	fleets’	input,	attained	either	directly	or	at	industry	events	such	as	the	Technology	

and	Maintenance	Council’s	 (TMC)	Annual	Meeting	and	Transportation	Technology	Exhibition,	ranked	higher	

than	 information	 from	 manufacturers,	 OEMs	 and	 the	 EPA	 Smart Way	 Program.	 	 As	 a	 medium	 fleet	 CEO	

shared,	“We	are	keeping	abreast	of	what	other	larger	 fleets	are	doing	and	attend	most	TMC	meetings	and	

seminars	on	new	technologies	and	alternative	fuel	advancements.”

One	major	component manufacturer’s	Head	Engineer for	On-Highway	Products	uses	a	collaborative	model	to	

test	its	products:	“Internally	we	develop	and	design	product	features	and	test	them	for	validation.	We	have	

our	 own	 test	 truck	 drivers	 whose ‘truck	 driver’ input	 is	 valuable	 to	 us.	 We	 do	 trial	 runs	 with	 larger fleet	

customers	for	further	validation.	We	then	take	the	product	to	the	truck	OEM	to	get	their	buy-in.	This	process	

can	be	slow,	especially	if	it	involves	hardware	changes	or	chassis	reconfiguration	of	the	truck.		If	we	only	need	

to	make	software	changes	this	process	is	much	easier	as	OEMs	give	us	free	reign	on	the	‘black	box’ in	most	

cases.	 One	 example	 of	 a	 1-1.5%	 fuel	 savings	 change	 we	 learned	 by	 making	 our	 air	 compressor	 naturally	

aspirated	has	not	yet	been	accepted	by	OEMs.”
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	35

Figure	10.		Value	of	Various	Information	Sources

The President	and	CEO	of	a	large	fleet	stated	that,	“Data	is	difficult	to	acquire	and	researching	other	data	is	

too	time	consuming; therefore,	we	only	work	on	big	opportunities.” The Director	of	Engineering	of	a private	

fleet	shared that,	“Occasionally	we	combine	tests,	for	example, mud	flaps	and	wheel	covers	with	a	tire	test,	

but	almost	never	do	 testing	with	other	 fleets.” Early	adopter	 fleets	are	 to	 be	commended	 for	 their	 testing	

efforts, as	they	are	generally	thorough	in	their data	collection.		The Vice	President of	Operations	of	a	medium	

sized fleet shared	 what	 they	 see	 with	 these	 early	 adopter	 fleets: “Some	 fleets	 have	 robust	 testing	

methodologies	 and	 procedures	 in	 place	 with	 strong	 collection	 of	 data.	 	 They	 have	 specific	 fuel	 efficiency	

routes,	dedicated	 trucks	and	 trailers,	 test	drivers,	etc.	and	bring	 this	data	back	 to	investment	 teams	within	

the	 fleet	 for	decision	making.”		But,	 rarely	is	 this	data	shared	in	a	useable	manner	with	other	 fleets	or	 the	

manufacturers.	 	 Another	 important	 factor was	 shared	 with	 the	 team	 by	 a	 component	 supplier’s	 Head	

Engineer	of	Engineering	for	On-Highway	Products: “Fleets	who	gain	fuel	efficiency	at	times	will	keep	the	data	

‘close	to	their	vest’ for	the	first	year	before	sharing.		Then,	they	begin	to	share	in	order	to	help	get	more	scale	

for	the	feature	and	then hopefully,	commensurate	higher	quality	and	lower	cost.”

Other	 large	 fleets	 offered	 their	 perspectives	 on	 the	 need	 to	 collect	 data	 specific	 to	 their	 operations	 for

emerging	technologies:

0%	 20%	 40%	 60%	 80%	 100%	

EPA	SmartWay	

OEMs	

Manufacturer	

External	Test	Reports	

Other	Fleets	

@	Fleet	Event	

Third	Party	Org	

Own	Research	

Very	Important	

Important	

Somewhat	Important	

Not	very	Important	

Not	Important	
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	36

• “Almost	all	the	technologies	adapted	to	the	fleet	have	been	the	result	of	testing	by	the	manufacturer	

on	our	fleet	in	our	different	applications.”	- President	and	CEO

• “First	insure	that	the	component	supplier	or	OEM	has	run	their	own	SAE	type	test	and, if	so, then	ask	

for	 the	 data	 (‘devil	 in	 the	 details’).	 Then,	 if	 it	 looks	 viable, we	 will	 discuss	 how	 it	 impacts	 drivers,	

maintenance,	weight,	and	reliability. Then	if	all	good	then	we’ll	test	them	to	validate,	and	then make	

a	proposal to	our	leaders	to	purchase.	We	use	a	local	40-50	mile	SAE	Type	2	(#1321)	real-world	road	

test	to	validate	results	with	our	own	specs	and	configurations.”	Vice	President of	Purchasing

• “We	study	various	technologies	and	test	and	adopt	those	that	prove	they	will	improve	fuel	efficiency.		

We	 require	 suppliers	 perform	 SAE	 testing	 before	 bringing	any	 technology	 to	 us	 to	evaluate.”	 (Vice	

President

• “Suppliers	are	 proactive	in	 contacting	 us	with	 new	ideas	 due	 to	 our	 size	and	visibility.	We	learn	 of	

new	ideas	at	conferences	and	trade	shows.	We	have	a	person	with	title	of	MPG	Director	and	a	MPG	

committee	who	meet	twice	monthly.	We’ll	look	at	supplier	test	results	but	will	100%	test	ourselves	

any	new	technology	prior	to	implementation.	Our	testing	is	SAE	Type	2	and	SAE Type	4	first, then	if	

results	look	good, we’ll	put	into	our	own	ROI	model	for	analysis	and	then	discuss	with	fuel	committee	

and	others	for	approval	and	funding.”	- Fleet	Fuel	Director

• On	 valuing	 suppliers’ support	 with	 test	 results, a	 President	 and	 CEO,	 stated	 “Almost	 all	 the	

technologies	adapted	to	the	fleet	have	been	the	result	of	testing	by	the	manufacturer	on	our	fleet	in	

our	different	applications.”

Other	stakeholders	commented	as	follows:

• “Not	so	much	that	fleets	think	we are	trying	to	lie	or	over-estimate	the	benefits	of	a	technology,	but	

more	 in	 that	we were	 not	 testing	 it	 in	 the	 same	 usage	 profile	 as	 the	 fleets	 operate	 in.”	- Product	

Manager	at	a	truck	OEM

• “Fleets	that	have	good	relationships	with	OEMs	really	value	OEM	data.	OEMs	would	want	that	[fleet]	

data	too; they	don’t	have	unlimited	resources	to	do	it	all	themselves.”	- Director,	On-Highway	Vehicle	

Strategy,	truck	OEM

• “We	 have	 a	 few	 dedicated	 engineers	 whose	 sole	 job	 is	 to	 evaluate	 and	 work	 with	 these	

manufacturers.”	- Director,	Engineering	at	a	private/retail	fleet

• On	the	suppliers’	need	for	help	from	the	fleets: “We	conduct	our	own	tests	and	depend	on	fleets	to	

assist.”	- Founder	and	CEO of	a	New	Technology supplier

From	Figure	11,	the	research	of	third-party	organizations	was	valued	just	after the	fleets	own	research,	but	

fleets	and	the	supply	chain	stated	that	no	trusted	option currently exists. The	EPA	Smart Way	is	a	voluntary	

testing and	 certification	 program that	 provides	 free	 information	 to	 fleets,	shippers,	 and	 other	 interested	

parties, but its	 value was generally rated quite low.	 However,	 a few	 interviewees	 did	 rate	 it	 as	 very	

important.		Those	 rating	it	somewhat	or	not	important shared	concerns	 that	 the	program	is	managed by	a	

regulatory	 entity	 of	 the	federal	 government with	 a lack	 of	 industry	 input	 into	 its	 strategy and tactics, and	

there	are	limited	resources for	doing	sufficient	analysis	in	order	to	verify	technologies.
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	37

The	vast	number of	test	protocols	that	exist	throughout	the	industry	contributes	to	this	credible	information	

dilemma, as	 it	 is	 often	 challenging	 to	 compare	 the	 results.	 	 The Founder	 and	 CEO of	 a	 new	 technology	

provider	stated,	“Everyone	seems	 to	modify	 the	 test	protocols	as	 they	see	best.		Much	could	be	gained	by	

deciding	 on	 one	 or	 a	 few	 protocols	 and	 using	 it	 across	 the	 industry.	 	 Make	 it	 statistically	 important	 and	

encourage	 or	 demand	 its	 use.”	 	 Another	 important issue is	 that	 sometimes	 technologies	 are	 tested	 and	

implemented	in	packages,	making	it	difficult	to	know	which	one	is	actually	contributing	to	the	results	that	a	

given	fleet	may	be	experiencing.

Other	direct	comments	concerning	independent	experience	and	data	included:

• “We	 value	 SAE	 Type	 2 vehicle,	 ‘real	 world’ testing	 results	[given	 that	 the	 test	 matches this	 fleet’s

application	and	unit	configuration].		We	give	this	type	of	testing	more	validity	than	OEM,	supplier	or	

other	customer	testimonials.	 I	believe	in	Ronald	Reagan’s	‘trust	but	verify’ philosophy.	I	would	value	

a	 true	 unbiased	third-party	 test	 as	 long	 as	 they	 can	 evaluate	 my	 like	 spec	 and	 configuration...and	

there’s	a	limit	to	how	much	one	party	can	do.”	- Vice	President,	Large	Fleet

• A	General	Manager	at	a	truck OEM	shared	the	comprehensive	nature	of	their	validation	efforts: “We

use	internal	and	external	 tests	with	customers	and	 third	parties	as	well	as	test	on	our	own	proving	

grounds.”	

• “We	conduct	a	lot	of	bench	testing	to	have	confidence	in	our	numbers	then	use	tools	to	predict	their	

performance	on	trucks	for	our	customers.		We	conduct	and	support	SAE	tests	by	fleets	and	OEMs.”		-

Strategic	Business	Segment	Manager,	Components	Supplier

• “[We]	need	 real	SAE	 type	 testing	 to	get	[fleets’] attention, but	fleets	 say	 that	 they	 still	need	3	 sets	

tested	over	6	months	to	evaluate. But	if	they	see	a	big	enough	MPG	early, then	they	may	not	need	all	

6	months.”	- Founder	and	CEO,	New	Technology	Supplier

• Another	 new	 technology	 supplier	 commented,	 “We	 tested	 our	 systems	 for	 durability	 and	 used	

extensive	early	fleet	trials	to	fine	tune	mounting,	etc.		One	trailer	OEM	completed	a	6	month	shaker	

test,	which	seemed	very	long,	but	after	it	was	successful,	it	helped	us	convince	 fleets	of	 the	robust	

design.”	- President

• “I	believe	that	industry	is	underutilizing	information	from	owner-operators using	their	own	truck	and	

trailer	to	test	and	report	fuel	savings	technologies.	Unlike	the	major	fleets	that	do	not	use	dedicated	

drivers	 (many	 have	 over	 100%	 turnover	 annually)	 on	 the	 same	 equipment, owner-operators or	

smaller	fleets	use	the	same	driver	on	the	same	truck	pulling	the	same	trailer....so	more	accurate	data	

can	 be	 obtained...plus,	 since	 they’re	 paying	 for	 their	 own	 fuel	 they	embrace	 these	 technologies.”	-

President,	New	Technology	Supplier

• “Testing	– most	fleets	want	to	test	technologies	with	their	own	specs	and	operating	environment	but	

we	are	 concerned	 sometimes they	are	 not	 doing	enough	 units	 for	a	 viable	 sample	 size.”	- General	

Manager	at	a	truck	OEM

• “The	 decision	 to	 implement	 a	 technology	 always	 depends	 on	 your	 starting	 point.	 Examples	 – tire	

inflation	 system	 did	 not	 improve	 MPG	 much	 because	 we	 feel	 we	 already	 have	 a	 good	 tire	
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	38

maintenance	program	and	drivers	are	educated	on	how	 to	check	air	pressure.” – Vice	President	of

Purchasing at	a	large	fleet

• And	 finally,	a	 new	 technology	 supplier’s	founder	and	 CEO	 described	 their	 third-party	 test	 protocol,	

pointing	 out	 the	 value	 of	 involving	 owner-operators,	 “We	 do	 scale	 model	 testing	 in	 wind	 tunnels	

where	 we	 can	 rotate	 the	tractor-trailer to	 simulate	 angle	 of	 wind.	We	 use	third-party	 testing	 (the

Truck	Research	Center	in	Ohio)	 for	SAE	Type	2	test	track	testing	of	prototypes	installed	on	rigs.	We	

use	 owner-operators for	 further	 real	 life	 validation	 because	 they	 drive	 more	 miles,	 have	 a	 1-to-1	

tractor-trailer ratio	and	keep	better	records	than	random	fleet	drivers.”

In	 summary,	 verifying	performance in	 the	 early	 stages	 of	technology	 deployment is	 challenging, duplicated

testing	efforts	by	multiple	fleets	and	manufacturers	is	commonplace, and	data	is	not	often shared or	trusted	

by	outside	parties.		This	often	causes confusion	with	fleets	that	are	interested	in	adopting	a	technology and	

delays	 manufacturers	 as	 they	 verify	 anew	 technology’s	 performance.	 	 Fleets	 seem	 to	 understand	 that	 it	 is

difficult	to	stay	abreast	of all	the	technologies	being	developed	by	testing	themselves,	but	they	rarely have	full	

confidence	in	external	results.		

Credible	Information	Sharing	(Later)

As	early	and	late	majority	users	adopt	a	 technology,	personal	experiences (via	word-of-mouth)	seem	 to	be

the	 primary	method	 for	sharing	 of	 information	 about	 a	 technology’s	 fuel	 savings,	 reliability,	 maintenance	

impacts,	and	overall	impressions.

“If	we	can’t	understand	it,	we	can’t	value	it.”	– an	owner- operator

As	discussed	in	the	previous	section,	from	large	fleets	to	small	owner-operators,	the	industry	overwhelmingly	

reported	that	they	rely	almost	exclusively	on	their	own	experience	and	in	other	end	users’ data when	making	

a	decision to	adopt	new	fuel	efficiency	technologies.

Smaller	 fleets	 generally	 do	 not	 have	 the	 resources	 to	 investigate	 and	 test	 the	 new	 technologies	 in	 their	

operations, and	many fleets of	all	 types have	 decided	 to	 be	 followers	in	implementing	 these	 technologies.		

However,	 this	 does	 not	 at	 all	 imply	 that	 all	 innovators	 and	 early	 adopters are	 large	 fleets.	One	 large	 fleet	

President	and	CEO, likely	a	late	majority	or	laggard	adopter, stated, “We	sometimes	wait	too	long.		We	must	

rely	 on	 other	 fleet’s	 data	 for	 us	 to	 move	 forward,	 but	 we	 are	 skeptical	 of	 their	 understanding	 of	 fuel	

efficiency.		They	may	know	maintenance	and	reliability	costs	well,	but	fuel	efficiency	is	hard	to	measure	and	

that	data	can	be	dubious.		We	do	use	data	from	large,	valid	carriers	that	we	trust.”

End	users	were	asked	to	select the	primary	reason	they	did	not	adopt	available	technologies, and Figure	11

shows	the	top	six	reasons.		The	top	three	reasons	were:	1)	inadequate product	support (i.e. services	such	as	

new	 product	 training	 and	 after-sale	 support); 2)	 manufacturers’ data	 showed	 technology	 was not	

appropriate; and	3)	that	the	technologies	were	not	relevant	to	their	operations. Each	of	these	issues	are valid	

reasons,	assuming	that credible	and	 sufficient	 data	 are	included	 in	 the	 decision	making	 process.	 	 The	 next	
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	39

three reasons were: 1) there	was no	outside	validation; 2)	testing	was	inadequate; and	3)	the	data	was	not	

convincing.	 These	 three	 reasons suggest	 that	 the	 fleet	 believes	 in	 the	 technology	 but	 has	 inadequate	

information	 to	make	a	 decision	 to	 purchase	 or	 retrofit	a	 technology	on	 their	 trucks	and/or	 trailers.		These	

responses	indicate	that	many	fleets	– even	those	who	are	very	interested	in	adopting	new	technologies	– do	

not	have	enough	information	in	their	decision-making processes.			

Figure	11.		Top	Reasons	Not to Purchase

Uncertainty	concerning	the	technology	continues, and	this	may	encourage	lack	of	appropriate	investment	in	

the	 firms	 offering	 the	 technologies,	 which,	 in	 turn,	 results	 in	 delays	 in cost	 reductions due	 to	 increasing	

production	and	economies	of	scale.		Another	large	issue	is	the	maintenance	of	both	sets	of technologies	by	

manufacturers	 and	 truck	 and	 trailer	 builders	 who	 need	 to	 maintain	 both	 in	 their	 product	 portfolio	 and	

engineering	and	manufacturing	plans.			Engineering	changes,	such	as	emissions	regulation	changes	and	new	

cab	 introductions,	 must	 accommodate	 all	 offered	 features	 and	 when	 duplicate	 functionality	 technologies	

exist,	this	causes	additional	costs	in	the	system.

When	products	are	in	later	stages of	development and	deployment,	information	is	typically	shared	through	

some	of	 the	 same	ways as	discussed	in	 the	previous	 section,	but	 the	information	 shared	is	generally more	

rooted	 in	 data	 from	 real-world	 measurements	 of	 fuel	 efficiency	 improvements	 and	 other	 operating	 costs	

such	as	maintenance and infrastructure	expenses, replacement costs,	and	resale	value.		From	the	responses	
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	40

from	various	stakeholders,	it	seems	that	there	is	diversity	of	opinion	for	the	best	ways	to	collect,	share,	and	

learn	about	real-world	data	and	experiences	with	technologies.	A	number	of	interviewees	shared	that	there	

are	no	easy	tools	available	for	sharing or	learning	about	what	is	working	and	what	is	not.		Smaller	fleets	and	

owner-operators provide	insight	into	this	credible	information	issue,	which	is	evident	“later” in	a	technology’s	

adoption	 cycle.	 	According	 to	 the	 survey	 results	 that	are	 summarized	 in	 Figure	 12,	 owner-operators highly	

value	truck	radio,	trucking	magazines,	internet	sites	and	truck	shows	and	other	fleets.		It	is	important	to	note

that the	 owner-operators’	 results are	 somewhat	 biased	 toward	 truck	 radio	 as	 that	 was	 the	 study	 team’s	

method	 for	 contacting	 the	 large	 majority	 of	 this	 stakeholder	 population.	 	 The	 surveys	 also	 showed	 that	

owner-operators do	not	view the	EPA’s SmartWay	Program	or	the	fleets	they	are	contracted	to	haul	freight	

for	as	credible	sources for	information	about	new	technologies	as	shown	in	Figure	12.

Figure 12.		Owner-Operator	Sources of	Information

Figure	 13 shows	 owner-operators’ confidence	 in	 fuel-saving technologies and	 shows that	 65%	 of	

respondents are	 either	 “Highly	 Confident”	 or	 “Confident”	that	 there	 are	 technologies	 not	 currently	 being	

deployed	on	their	tractors	and/or	trailers	that	can	offer fuel	efficiency	improvement.		From	the	online	survey	

data and	interviews	with	owner-operators at	the	Technology	and	Maintenance	Council	and	the	Mid	American	

Truck	Show,	these	results suggest	that	when	they	understand	a	technology,	they	quickly	become	confident	in	

it.	 	 One	 owner-operator	 even	 stated,	 “That’s	 the	 problem;	 there	 are	 no	 credible	 independent	 reviewing	

organizations,	like	a	Consumer	Reports.”

54%	

21%	

20%	

3%	 2%	 1%	

Truck	Radio	

Magazines,	Internet,	Shows	

Other	Truckers/Fleets	

My	Own	Experience	

EPA	SmartWay	

Contracted	Fleets	
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	41

Figure 13.		Owner-Operator	Confidence in	the	Benefits	of	Fuel-Saving	Technologies

Given	 that	 the	targeted	 set	 of	 respondents for	 this	 data	 collection	 was	 “lead	 users”	 in	 both	 the fleet	 and	

supply chain	interviews	and	the	owner-operator	surveys,	this	analysis	is	likely not	fully	representative	of the	

fleets	and	owner-operators	that	own	and	operate	the	approximately 1.8	million	freight trucks in	the	United	

States.		To	more	fully	understand	this	barrier,	the	study	team	reviewed	the	data	and	used	the	Mid	America	

Truck	Show	to	conduct	various	additional	interviews	with	owner-operators,	manufacturers	and	others, such	

as	 associations	 representing	 the	 industry.	 These	 discussions	 were	 valuable	 in	 understanding	 the	 issue	 of	

information	sharing	in	the long-haul trucking sector.

Some quotes about information	sharing	practices	are	included	here:

• “We	 are	 not	 big	 on	 hearsay, third-party	 operator	 experience	 like	 from	 one	 of	 our	 own	 owneroperators, or	 a	 small	 user	 that	 doesn’t	 really	 do	 extended	testing	 or	 data	 analysis.	We’ll	 consider	

testing	[results]	from	a	large	valid	carrier	that	we	know	and	trust.”	- Vice	President,	large	fleet

• “We’ll	seek	information	from	other	large	fleets,	my	peers,	first.	Then	test	with	a	minimum	of	30	units	

in	our	own	fleet.	Items	need	to	be	“driver	proof”	where	it	will	work	almost	always	regardless	of	driver	

engagement	 or	 not.	 Item	 must	 be	 robust	 and	 not	 break	 down,	 especially	 if	 it	 takes	 a	 unit	 out	 of	

service.	- Vice	President,	large	fleet

• “Most	 all	 the	 technology manufactures	 will	 run	 tests	 in	 our	 fleets	 at	 various	 locations,	 usually	 6	

months.	New	tractor,	trailer	dolly,	trailer	OEMs	will	also	pilot	the	equipment	in	our	 fleet.	Our	team	

evaluates	and	recommends	for	capital	purchase.”	- President	and	CEO of	a	large	fleet

31%	

34%	

20%	

4%	 12%	

Highly	Confident	

Confident,	with	quesuons	

Neef	more	Informauon	

Fuel	Surcharge	offset	Costs	

No	Confidence	
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	42

• The Director	 of	 Engineering	 at	 a	 private	 retail	 fleet	 said,	 “We	 gain	 awareness	 from	 other	 fleets,	

conferences,	 suppliers,	 etc., and	 if	 it	 makes	 sense	 then	 we’ll	 put	 it	 into	 our	 ‘engineering	 pipeline’

where	it	will	be	studied,	piloted,	measured,	evaluated, and	then	implemented	if	viable.”

• “We’ll	consider	outside	data, but	it’s	‘buyer	beware’;	source	must	have	the	technical	knowledge	and	

viable	test	data.	Other	fleets	seem	to	have	good	data	on	maintenance	costs	of	technologies, but	the	

fuel	efficiency	data	can	be	dubious...I	do	not	have	high	confidence	in	their	stated	results.		OEM	data	is	

ok	as	long	as	they’re	advertising	it....truth	in	advertising.”	- Fleet	Engineer at a	private	retail	fleet

• “We	 look	 to	 partnerships	 with	 technology	 suppliers	 in	 adopting	 technology	 upgrades	 to	 our	 fleet.	

Testing	 is	 conducted	 and	 monitored	 by	 the	 supplier	 and	 decisions	 are	 made	 for	 utilization	 of	 the	

technology	in	the	entire	fleet.”	- Director	of	Transportation	Operations	and	Logistics at a	private	retail	

fleet

• “A	considerable	amount	of	company	time	is	spent	with	other	fleets	in	the	state	trucking	association	

and	 other	 groups	 where	 technologies	 are	 discussed	 and	 passed	 along.”	 – Vice	 President of	

Operations,	medium	fleet

• The Director of	,On-Highway Vehicle	Strategy	for	a	truck	OEM	reported	that all	the	information	they	

tend	to	create	and	share	on	a	give	technology	includes	data	from the	“Lab,	dyno,	wind	tunnel,	[their]	

own	test	fleet,	and key	customers’	test	results.”	

• “Fleets	often	think	the	percentage	efficiency	improvement	claimed	by	suppliers	via	their	dyno	tests	

and	 drive	 cycles	 are	 not	 realistic,	 and they	 are	 skeptical	 of	 the	 data.	 Worse	 case	 is	 fleet	 gets	 no	

advantage	 when	 implementing	 the	 technology	 but	 usual	 case	 is	 something	 like	 ‘they	 promised	 5%	

and	I	 only	 got	 2%,’ so	most	 fleets	 take	 the	 supplier	 stated	 results	 and	 cut	 them	 in	 half.	 Fleets	 put	

more	 credence	 in	 independent	 third-party	 testing	 (if	 available),	 what	 other	 similar	 fleets	 (like	

Customer	 Councils)	 are	 saying	 and	 best	 of	 all	 their	 own	 internal	 test	 results.	 Fleets	 look	 at	 big	

suppliers	 as	 pretty	 reputable	 and	 good	 ‘advisors’ to	 their	 business.	 	 They	 see	 these	 suppliers	 as	

partners	in	their	drive	for	better	freight	efficiency.... Education	is	the	key	to	running	a	fleet	profitably.	

Some	 fleets	 will	 figure	 fuel	 efficiency	 on	 their	 own,	 the	majority	 will	 use	 information	 and	 supplier	

data	 to	 help	 them, and	 some	 will	 not	 ‘get	 it’	 via	 their	 poor	 fuel	 efficiency	 and	 will	 go	 broke.”	 -

Director,	Vehicle	Technologies	at	an established component	supplier

• A	Head	Engineer	 for	On-Highway Products	at	a	truck	OEM	revealed,	“We	primarily	 focus	on	the	big	

fleets	that	buy	the	most	trucks	but	need	to	do	a	better	job	of	reaching	out	the	owner-operators and	

small	fleets	who	make	up	the	other	20%	of	the	[sales]	market.”

As	previously	discussed,	responses	from	all	of	the	stakeholder	groups	evidence	the strong	desire	of	fleets	to	

generate	 test	 results	 based	 on	 their	 own	 equipment,	 duty	 cycles,	 and	 business	 operations.	 A	 large	 fleet’s	

Fleet	 Fuel	 Director	 stated,	 “We	 look at	 suppliers	 test	 results,	 but	 will	 100%	 test	 ourselves	 on	 any	 new	

technology	 prior	 to	 implementation.”	 	 As	 the	 team	 analyzed	 the	 interview	 data,	 it	 became	 clear that	

technology	 testing	 and	 validation	 is	 performed	 many	 times	 by	 multiple	 entities,	 often	 without	 much	

collaboration,	as	both	suppliers	and	end	users	generally	value	self-generated	data	other	any	other	external	

source.	 The General	 Manager of	 a	 truck	 OEM	 said, “Fleets	 know	 the	 ‘real	 world’ of	 freight	 movement,	

suppliers	 rely	mostly	 on	 in-house	 controlled	 testing, and	 the	OEMs	 are	 in	 the	middle	 trying	 to	make	 it	 all	
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	43

come	 together.	 	There	 has	 to	 be	an	easier	way.”	 	 The	Director	 of	On-Highway	 Vehicle	Strategy	 at	another	

truck	OEM	 commented	 on	their	 responsibility	 to	ensure	appropriate	application	 of	 technologies by	 stating	

that,	 “the	 commercial	 truck	 industry	 needs	 time	 to	evaluate,	 test,	 design,	 produce,	 train	and	 launch	 these	

technologies.”		

In	summary,	data	and	anecdotal	evidence	from	trusted	sources	is	the	primary	way	that the	late majority	and	

laggard fleets	 gain	 confidence	 that fuel-saving technologies	 will	 work	 well	 in	 their	 operations.	 	 By	 their	

conversation	nature,	these	organizations are	avoiding	the	change	to	new	technologies, and	information must	

be	 presented to	 them	 via	 different	 means	than	 innovator	 and	 early	 adopter	 fleets,	 which	 are	 more	 apt	 to	

proactively	 seek	 out	 information	 and	 test	 technologies	 for	 themselves.	 	 As	 technologies	 mature	 and	 reach	

higher	 levels	 of	 penetration,	 information	 from	 component	 manufacturers,	 truck	 and	 trailer	 OEMs,	 industry	

associations,	and	various	media	outlets	(radio,	internet) seem	to	have	a	larger	influence	on	purchase	decisions	

than	when	the	technology	is	at	early	stages	of	development	and	deployment.	

Inconsistent	Reliability	

The	 reliability	 of	 new	 technologies	 is	 often	 inconsistent, and	 that	 inconsistency	 is	 further exacerbated by	

suppliers	and	tractor	and	trailer	OEMs	not	sufficiently	testing	before	launch.

“Will	fuel	economy	features	be	as	unreliable	as	emission	ones	(EGR	components,	

diesel	particulate	filters,	etc.)?” – from	the	focus	group	with	truck	dealers

Reliability	of	new	trucks	and	trailers	is	paramount	to	 fleets.		Consumer	expectations	and	the	overall	 freight	

distribution	system	in	North	America	depend	on	highly reliable equipment.		Equipment must	be	available	to	

perform	every	day and	with	little-to-no	downtime.			Given	the	slim	margins	of	the	trucking	sector,	any	new	

technology	has	little	room	for	error	with	respect	to	uptime	of	the	vehicle.		Multiple	respondents	stated	this	

expectation	that	new	technology	should	not	impact	reliability.	As	shown	in	Figure	7, reliability	is	the	number	

one	 influencer	 for	 new	 truck	 specifications.	 	In	 fact,	as	 the	 trucking	 industry	 has	 been	 improving	 the	 basic	

quality	of	 the	equipment	 for	over	15	years,	 the	 fleets	expect	 that	any	new	 truck	must	perform	better	 than	

the	one	it	is	replacing	in	their	fleet	(NACFE	2013).		

Each	 of	 the	 stakeholder	 groups	 mentioned	 reliability	 as	 a	 significant	 concern	 with	 emerging	 fuel-saving

technologies.		

• A	 Marketing	 Segment	 Manager	 at	 a	 truck	 OEM	shared	 that	 “We	 do	 full	 truck	 durability	 tests,	 full	

truck	shaker	tests,	cab	shaker	tests,	reliability	growth	testing	as	well	as	component	testing.”

• A	Senior	Manager of Supply	Management	at	a	 rental	 fleet	stated	 that	“We have	extensive	analytic	

capabilities	with	respect	 to	 the	reliability	of	components	on	equipment	 from	 the	 tractor	and	 trailer	

builders.	 They	 are	 trying	 to	 improve	 this	 capability	 with	 respect	 to	fuel-efficient components.	 	We

recently	 updated	 the	 engine	 parameter	 configurations	 on	 our base	 spec	 to	 be	more	fuel-efficient.		
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	44

‘Why not?’ These	parameters	do	not	affect	reliability	and	cost	the	same.	We have	also	recently	begun	

offering	a	‘max	 fuel	economy	 package’ for	 customers	asking	 for	a	more	 fuel-efficient	 configuration	

for	their	leased	trucks.”

• A	 Founder	 and	 CEO	 of	 a	 new	 technology	 supplier	 voiced	 their	 commitment	 to	 provide	 reliable	

products: “We	use	fleets	and	third-party	organizations	to do	testing	for	durability	and	performance.”

• Another	 Vice	 President of	 Purchasing	 at	 a	 large	 fleet	 stated,	 “We	 once	 looked	 at	 very	 long	 cab	

extenders	but	before	we	tested	it	was	obvious	the	reliability	would	be	low	and	maintenance	too	high.	

We	also	believe	that	13	liter	engines	won’t	be	as	long	term	durable	as	15	liter	engines, so	we are	not	

interested	in	making	this	switch	to	what	could	be	more	fuel	efficient	engines.”

The	truck	dealers	shared	that	“Quality	and	reliability	issues	with	2002	EGR	and	2007	diesel	particulate	filter	

trucks	 were	 some	 of	 the	 worst	we have	ever	 seen.”	 	 The	 dealers also shared	 that	 “Rapid	 change	 is	 killing	

fleets	and	OEMs.		They	[the	truck	and	trailer	OEMs]	are	having	difficulty	keeping	up.		New	emissions	rules	and	

associated	equipment	every	 three	years	has	been	very	difficult	for	 the	OEMs	 to support.”		A	private	 fleet’s	

Director	 of	 Engineering said,	 “With	 respect	 to	 fuel	 efficiency,	 it	 is	 important,	 but	 basic	 engine	 reliability	 is	

much	more	crucial	to	us	than	improved	fuel	efficiency,	as	we	demand	uptime	and	low	cost	of	operation.”

Interviewees	shared	that	there	seems	to	be	more	issues	with	early	generation	product	problems than	in	past	

years.	 	 The	 dealers	 stated that,	 “Many	 of	 the	 products	 released	 to	 early	 adopter	 fleets	 before	 they	 are	

validated	are creating	poor	performance	and	a	bad	 reputation	for the	new	 technology.		Tractor	and	 trailer	

OEMs	should	 better	 help	weed	 out	 the	 good	 from	 the	 bad	 products	and	 suppliers.”	 	Most	 of	 the industry	

leaders	interviewed	discussed	 this	challenge	with	 the	study	 team.		Field	demonstrations	are	critical	 to	new	

product	development	and	validation,	but	it	seemed	that	over	the	past	decade	too	many	problems	with	first	

generation	products	are	creating	a	significant	lack	of	confidence	in	trucking	innovations.		Finally,	dealers	also	

stated	that,	“As	 there	simply	have	been	 too	many	issues,	dealers	and	 fleets	no	longer	want	 to	be	 field	 test	

partners”,	slowing	the	data	accumulation	that	is	so	important	for	spurring	adoption.

In	 some	 cases,	 a	 large	 number	 of suppliers emerge	to	 try to	 take	 advantage	 of	 the	 opportunity	 that	 the	

innovation	offers.		The	dealers,	a	few	fleets,	an	OEM, and	even	some	suppliers	noted	that	in	these cases	this	

caused	additional	issues	for	adoption.		The President of	a	new	technology	supplier mentioned,	“At	one	point,	

there	were	about	20 manufacturers	of	both	diesel	auxiliary	power	units	(APUs) and	trailer	side	skirts; now	the	

industry	is	coalescing	around	three and	 five.”		A	large	of	amount	of	suppliers that	are all	trying	to	promote	

similar	technologies can	sometimes	cause	confusion with	fleets.		That	same technology	supplier shared	that	

there seems	 to	 be	an	 “industry-wide	 issue	 of	 first-to-market	 technology	 provider’s	 products	 not	 delivering	

results	as	expected, and	problems	like	this	make	users	skeptical	of	that	particular	type	of	features	and	of	new	

products	 in	 general.”	 	 The	 industry	 is	 already	 risk	 averse, and	 prolonged adoption	 cycles	 will	 continue	 if	

purchasers are	given a reason	to	doubt	a	new	technology.

In	 summary,	high	 reliability	is	a	crucial	determining	 factor	 for	an	end	user	 to	purchase	a	 technology.		Early	

adopter	 fleets	 understand	 that	 they	will	 be	 part	 of	 the	 final	validation,	 but	 too	many	 problems	with	 recent	
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	45

new	 product	 launches	 have introduced	 additional	 elements	 of	 concern	 and	 skepticism,	 likely	 delaying	 or	

eliminating	demonstration	projects	and	adoption	decisions.

Lack	of	Technology	Availability	

Responses	from	various	stakeholders	suggest	that	a technology’s	availability	as	an	option	or	standard	feature	

at	multiple	 truck	 or	 trailers OEMs	 generally	takes	 years	 and	 nearly	 a	 decade	 for	 full	 availability	 across	 all	

OEMs.	

“To	get	the	technology	we	had	to	buy	from	a	different	truck	brand,	which	caused	

many	other	problems	and	costs,	until	it	was	available	from	our	preferred	OEM”

– A Senior	Fleet	Manager	at	a	private	retail	fleet

During	the	course	of	this	project,	the	study	team	identified a	barrier	that	has	not	been	discussed	much	in	the	

previous research	 in this	 area.	 	A	truck	OEM’s	 Director	 of	On-Highway Vehicle	 Strategy	said,	 “The	 pace	 of	

technology	 change	 is	much	 faster	 than	 the	 truck	OEM’s	[our]	 ability	 to	 implement.	 	It’s	 still	 a	 low	 volume	

industry	 with	 high	 specialization	 and	 a	 slower	 development	 cycle.”	 	 Also, from a truck OEM’s General	

Manager,	“There	is	an	intense	internal	review	process	including	our	own	return	on	investment	calculations.		

In	order	for	a	technology	to	reach	large-scale	levels	of	adoption,	it	must	become	a	feature that	is	offered	by	

most,	if	not	all of	the	tractor	or	trailer	OEMs.”

A	 trailer	 OEM’s	 Vice	 President	 and	 General	 Sales	 Manager described	 the	 “life”	 of	 an	 emerging	 trailer	

technology	 by	 stating	 that,	 “Technologies are	 adopted	 in	 phases: retrofitted	 at	 the	 fleet,	 assembled	 by	

upfitters	during	pre-delivery	inspection,	added	at	the	trailer	manufacturer,	first	on	a	per	order	basis, and	later	

as	a	regular	production	offering, and	then	ultimately	as	a	standard	feature.”		He	shared	a	real	world	example	

of tire	pressure	inflation	systems	for	trailers.		Currently,	at	this	manufacturer,	the	axles	are	prepped	for	the	

trailer	manufacturers	with	holes	“drilled	and	 tapped”	 for	easier	assembly.		All	axles	meant	 for	refrigerated

trailers	are	“tire	inflation	prepped.”

The	study	team	created	Figure	14 below, derived	from information	provided	by	various	stakeholders	during	

the	interviews.		It	shows	the	various	stages	that	a	typical	technology	may	move through as	it	becomes	more	

widely	used.		Some	 technologies,	such	as	 trailer	aerodynamic	additions	will	begin	life	as	retrofits	at	a	 fleet,

and	if	successful	the	fleet	will	work	with	an	OEM	to	get	the	device	installed	on	their	new	equipment	orders.		

Fleets	stated	that	many	times	they	will	add	the	devices	on	new	equipment	before	they	put	it	into	service	and	

then	OEMs	might	have	their	dealers	or	other	“upfitters”	install	them	after	they	manufacture	the	equipment	

and	before	it	is	delivered	to	the	customer.		Depending	on	the	complexity	of	the	technology,	the	first	step	in	

availability	may	 be	when	 the	 first	OEM	 offers	it	as	a	 customer	 specific	 per-order	item.	There	is	a	 standard	

practice	 within	 the	 tractor	 and	 trailer	 OEMs	 to	 engineer	 a	 particular	 feature	 solely	 for	 one	 customer,	

sometimes	called	order	or	special	engineering.		The	feature	is	designed	and	integrated by	the	company	only	

for	 that	 particular	 customer’s	 needs	and	 not	 for	 their	entire	 product	line	 specifications	 until	 such	 time	 the	
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	46

OEM	 believes	 there	 will	 be	 high	 enough	 demand	 to	 justify	 the	 engineering.	 	 If	 a	 technology	 is	 gaining	

adoption	and	interest,	more	 suppliers	emerge	and	begin	developing	and	 supplying	the	same	or	alternative

products	to	meet	the	functionality	of	the	feature.		As	the	technology	is	offered	by	more	OEMs,	later	adopting	

fleets	of	all	 sizes	and	OEM-allegiances	can	decide	 to purchase	 the	technologies.		With	 the	 release	of	 these	

new	 products	 by	 the	 OEMs,	 their	 dealers	 are	 trained	 and	 begin	 to	 promote	 the	 features	 to	 the	 larger	

industry,	driving	scale	and	lowering	costs.		Eventually,	most	if	not	all	of	the	OEMs	offer	the	device	as	standard

in	 their	 product	 configurations	 and	 the	 laggards	 and	 non-adopters	 become	 users by	 default	 when	 they	

purchase	new	equipment.		

Figure	14.	Example	Life	of	a	Technology	over	an	Adoption	Cycle

As	 the	 private	 fleet	 shared	 above, they	believe	 that	 they	made	 a	mistake	 when	 they	 decided	 to	 purchase	

their	trucks	from	a	different	OEM	to	get	a	particular	new	technology they	highly	valued.		Availability	of	their	

desired	 features	was	not	accessible	 from	 their	preferred	supplier.		Many	fleets	and	OEMs	stated	 that	 their	

strategy	 around	 these	 technologies	 is	 to	 be “fast	 followers”,	 meaning	 that	 as	 others	 take	 the	 lead	 in	

integrating	the	features	into	their	products,	they	will follow	quickly.		
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	47

In	analyzing	the	interview	data	and	survey	responses,	a few	other	issues	emerged regarding	OEM’s	decisionmaking	process	on	product	offerings:

• Improvements	to	second	and	third	generation	products are	not	developed	fast	enough	to	correct	the	

issues	with	the	first	generation.		A	few	suppliers	mentioned	that	the	industry	did	not	seem	to	support	

their	product	improvement	efforts	because	the first	products	did	not	perform	well	enough.

• Some	 interviewees	 mentioned	 a	 “not	 invented	 here”	 issue	 within the	 industry.	 	 New	 technology

companies	or	startups	and	their	products	are	often	not	taken	seriously.

• OEMs	and	manufacturers	want	assurances	of	 future	sales	before	integrating technologies	into	their	

product	plans;	however,	 these	companies recognize that sales	estimates	 for	new	products are	very	

difficult if	not	impossible to	accurately	predict.

The	truck	OEMs	had	some	high	level views	to	share	about	early	adoption	and	maturing	technologies.

• “Early	adopters	expect	issues	with	dealers	as	they	know	that	they	are	ahead	of	the	curve.		But	as	the	

technology	 matures	 and	 scale	 is	 achieved, [a	 dealer’s	 knowledge	 of	 technologies] becomes	 more	

important	and	later	on	with	the	laggards, a	must.”	- General	Manager

• A	Product	Manager	of	a	truck	OEM	shared,	“Most	new	technologies	are	pulled	through	by	innovative	

fleets.	 	 They	 know	 their	 business	 well	 and	 try	 to	 be	 innovative.	 	 That	 is, customers	 ask	 us	 for	 it.		

Occasionally	we	push	new	 technologies	and	groupings.		One	model	[year]	was	a	push	– drive train,

engine	 programming, and	 a	 feature	 grouping	 such	 as	 automated	 manual,	 etc.	 	 But	 generally	

customers	ask	 for	it	in	a	‘Customer	Adaptation’	by	submitting	a	 feature	request.		We	receive	it	and	

approve	 for	 their	 particular	 order.	 	 We	 then	 monitor	 requests	 and	 issue	 a	 ‘Product	 Modification	

Request’	or	include	the	more	popular	features	into	major	programs.”

In	summary,	there	are	multiple	redundancies	in	design,	development,	demonstration,	validation,	field	testing,	

etc.	with	lack	of	good	information	sharing	contributing	to	a	very	long	availability	timetable.

Additional	Findings

In	 addition	 to	 the	five	 barriers	 discussed	 above, the	 study	 team	 derived	 some	 additional	 findings	 that	 are	

addressed	 in	 the	 following	 section.	 	 These	 include	 specific	 technologies,	 driver	 retention,	 perspectives	 on	

regulations,	the	rebound	effect	and	owner-operators’ data.	

Specific	Technologies

As	stated	earlier,	this	study	focused	on	the	barriers	to	technology	adoption	rather	than	any	significant	work	

concerning	the	specific	technologies	themselves.		The	team	did	however	ask	the	stakeholder	groups	and	the	
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	48

owner-operators which	technologies	had	the	most	short	term	potential	for	lowering	the	fleets’	fuel	expense

with Figure 15 showing those	results.	 	The	 interviewers	and	 the	 online	 survey	asked	 the	 question,	 “Which	

technologies	have	the	most	potential	in	the	short	term?”		Tractor	aerodynamics,	such	as	fuel	tank	skirts,	cab	

extenders,	 aerodynamic	 mirrors	 and	 bumpers,	 scored	 the	 highest	 with	 respect	 to	 potential.	 	 Low	 rolling	

resistance	 tires	 and	 tires	 were	 valued	 next.	 	 Idle	 reduction	 is	 a	 broad	 category,	 which	 includes	 such	

technologies	 as	 auxiliary	 power	 units,	 idle	 shut	 down	 engine	 parameters, and	 truck	 stop	 electrification.		

Automated	manual	 transmissions,	6x2	axles, and	direct	drive	 transmissions	all	show	 reasonable	promise	as	

identified	 by	 these	 stakeholders.	 	 The	 technology	 area	 in	 which	 the	 surveyed	 participants	 had	 the	 least	

amount	 of	 confidence	was trailer	aerodynamics,	which	 includes	such	 features	as	 side	 skirts,	 boat	 tails	and	

under	trays.

Figure	15.		Technologies	with	Short	Term	Potential

Driver	Retention

There	 is	much	 discussion	 concerning	 driver	 attraction	 and	 retention	 in	 the	 trucking	 press	 and	 at	 industry	

conferences	with	respect	to	driver	shortages and	the	challenge	of	high	turnover	at fleets.		Figures	16 and	17

show	driver	retention	data	 for	for-hire and	private	trucking	 fleets (ACT	Research 2013).		In	 the	 figures data	

for	2005	to	2012	from	the	American	Trucking	Association	(ATA)	and	the	National	Private	Truck	Council	(NPTC)	

for	the	turnover	of	drivers	in	for-hire and	private	carriers,	respectively,	which	are	plotted	using	an	identical	

scale	for	annual	driver	turnover	on	the	y-axis.		The	stark	contrast	demonstrates	the	vast	differences	between	

0%	 20%	 40%	 60%	 80%	 100%	

Trailer	aero	

Direct	Drive	Trans	

6x2	Axles	

Automated	Manual	Trans	

Idle	reducuon	

Telemaucs	

Low	rolling	resistance	ures	

Tractor	aero	

High	

Medium	

Some	
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	49

driver	 retention	 in	 these	 two	 fleet	 types.	 	 Private	 fleet	 drivers	 are	 company	 employees	 of	 firms	 such	 as	

PepsiCo,	 UPS	 and	 Wal-Mart.	 In	 their	 annual	 fleet	 benchmarking	 work,	 the	 NPTC states	 that	 private	 fleet	

drivers	 are	 paid	 substantially	 better	 and	 receive	 superior	 training	 and	 benefits	 packages	 to	 their	 for-hire

counterparts and	that	private	fleets	tend	to	hire	drivers	after	they	have	been	trained	by	and	driven	 for	the	

for-hire	firms	for	about	five	years (NPTC	2011).

Figure	16. ATA:	For-hire	Truckload	Carrier	Driver	Turnover
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	50

Figure	17. NPTC	Benchmark	Survey:	Private	Fleet	Driver	Turnover

With	respect	to	barriers	to	increased	adoption	of	fuel	efficiency	technologies,	the	interviewees	indicated	that	

driver	retention	impacts	the	choices	fleets	make	concerning	which	features to	pursue.		For-hire fleets	tend	to	

favor	technologies	that	require	little	to	no	driver	intervention,	while	private	fleets	likely	more	often	engage	

the	 driver	in	 the	technology	 choices.		For	example,	a	Vice	 President	 of	one	 large	for-hire	 fleet shared	 that	

they	 are	 retrofitting	 most	 of	 their	 trailers	 with	 automatic	tire	 inflation	systems	 to	 ensure	 the	 proper tire	

pressure	without	relying	on	the	drivers	to	manually	check	them	and	take	action.		For-hire	fleets	generally	do	

not	have	 the	ability	 to	manage	 their	drivers	as	closely	as	private	 fleets.	An	additional major	reason	 for-hire	

fleets	are	 different	 than	 private	 fleets	in	 the	 type	 of	 technologies	 they	adopt	and	why	for-hire	 fleets favor

passive technologies	is	that	they	simply	don’t	see	their	equipment	as	often	for	maintenance	purposes	at	their	

own	facilities as	do	private	fleets. Another	example	was	described	earlier	in	the	section on	lack	of	access	to	

capital as	for-hire fleets	are	specifying	driver	amenities	such	as	electric	HVAC,	larger	sleeper	cabs	and	better	

riding cabs	and seats	in	order	to	reduce	driver	turnover.		The	cost	of	purchasing	of	these	devices	can compete	

with	the	available	capital	for	buying	fuel-saving technology	options.		

According	to	many	of	the	fleet	interviews,	there	is	a	drastic	lifestyle	difference	between	for-hire	and	private	

fleet	drivers.	A	private	 fleet	driver	 typically	has	a	 regular	schedule	and	can	be	home	every	night,	while	 for-
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	51

hire	drivers	often	spend	a	large	majority	of	working	nights	sleeping	in	the	tractor.	This	is	a	significant	factor	in	

why	 driver	 turnover	 is	 so	 much	 lower	 for	 private	 fleets.	 For-hire	 companies	 are	 constantly	 competing	 for	

drivers	and	must	purchase	new	equipment	and	driver	amenity	features	on	a	regular	basis or	risk	losing	good	

drivers	to	other	companies	with	newer	equipment.

Split	Incentive

In	prior	studies,	 the	issue	of	a	split	incentive,	also	called	a	principal-agent problem, for	 fuel	savings	devices	

has	been	proposed.		In	one	manifestation	of	the	principal-agent	problem	in	the	trucking	industry	context,	the	

entity buying	the	technology is not	the	same	entity	that	must	pay for	the	fuel,	and	therefore,	the	former will	

tend	to	avoid	purchasing	the	fuel-saving	technology due	to	the fact	that	they	will	bear the	upfront	cost,	but	

not	experience	the	associated	savings.		Vernon	et	al.	(2012)	studied	this	issue	and	suggested	that	the	market	

structure	of	the	trucking	industry	contributes	to	split	incentives	because	entities	responsible	for	investments	

in	equipment do	not	always	pay	fuel	costs, and	drivers	are	not	always	rewarded	for	fuel-efficient	operation.		

This	study	goes	on	 to	state	 that	approximately	23%	of	 trailers	are	subject	to	an	“efficiency	problem”	when	

owners	of	rented	trailers do	not	pay	fuel	costs.		That	study	suggested	that	principle-agent	problems	have	the	

potential	to	significantly	discourage investments in	fuel-saving	technologies	and	can	also	result	in insufficient	

maintenance	and	inefficient practices.

After	analysis	of	the	input	from	all	end	user	stakeholders,	the	team	found	somewhat	conflicting	perspectives	

with	 regard	 to	split	incentives.		Two	very	similar	large	 fleets	who	 tend	 to	have	high	 trailer-to-tractor	 ratios	

actually	shared	opposing	opinions	on	the	topic	with	respect	to	investments	in	trailer	fuel-saving	technologies.		

A Fleet	Fuel	Director for	one	 fleet shared	specifically	 that,	“We	 found	a	 trailer	aero	device	 to	save	3%,	but	

decided	not	to	pursue	it,	as	we	have	a	high	amount	of	independent	contractors,	who	buy	their	own	fuel,	pull	

our	trailers	and	we	will	not	see	the	savings.”		But	another	fleet executive,	a	Vice	President,	overseeing a	fleet	

with	 basically	 an	 identical	 business	 model	 and	 truck	 duty	 cycle	 shared	that, “we	 no	 longer	 take	 that	 into	

consideration.	 	 Most	 of	 our	 independent	 contractors	 buy	 fuel	 off	 our	 national	 contract	 and	 if	 they	 are	

healthier,	in	terms	of	profitability	in	their	business,	we	will	be	as	well.”		

Another	 split	 incentive	phenomenon is	 that	of	fuel	 surcharges,	 increases	 in	 the	 rates	 shippers	 pay carriers	

when	fuel	costs	are	higher	than	a	set	amount, was	investigated.		Again,	fleets	shared	differing, if	not	opposite	

views.		A	President	and	CEO	of	a	large	fleet	stated	that,	"We	charge	a	fuel	surcharge	of	28.5%	on	almost all	

on-highway	deliveries.	This	is	a	strong	barrier	to	adopting	an	influence	on	corporate	initiatives	towards	fuelsaving	 technologies." However,	 the	 Vice	 President	 of	 Operation	 of	 a	 medium-sized said,	 "We	 pay	 the	

contractors	fuel	use	tax	along	with	our	fleet,	and	it	is	based	on	MPG	usage	of	fuel,	so	it	benefits	us	to	have	

the	owner-operator meet	the	best	fuel	efficiency.”		
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	52

Perspectives	on	Regulations

As	mentioned	earlier,	the	study	was	 focused	on	identifying	the	barriers	to	technology	adoption,	and	during	

the	course	of	 the	interviews with	 stakeholders, the	 topic	of	government	 regulations	of	pollutant	emissions	

and	fuel	efficiency	and	GHGs	emerged.		Many	end	users	and	some	of	the	supply	chain	companies	discussed	

existing regulations	and	regulations	in development	and	how	these	policy	measures	are	affecting	technology	

adoption.		They	referenced	the	EPA’s	engine	emission	standards,	the	California	Air	Resources	Board’s	TractorTrailer	GHG	Rule	and	the	EPA and	NHTSA’s fuel efficiency	and	GHG	regulation.		It	is	difficult	to	summarize	the	

high	diversity	of	comments,	but	the	respondents	shared	that	regulation	can	help	accelerate	the	adoption	of	

technologies,	but	it	is	very	challenging	to	put	in	place	rules	that	truly	deliver	the	reduction	of	emissions	and	

fuel use	 with	 an	 acceptable	 economic	 equation	 and	 to	 avoid	 unintended	 consequences	 in	 particular	

vocations.		Also,	many	of	the	respondents	were	aware	of,	but	not	experts	on	these	regulations.

Specific	comments	shared	with	the	study	team	follow.

• The President	and	CEO	at	a	Large	Fleet	 said	“All	of	our	new	equipment	is	 specified	with	compliant	

technologies	 for	 the	 CARB	 rules	 in	 California.	 	 The	 new	 trucks	 operate	 there	 and	 we	 move	 older	

equipment	to	other	states.”

• “Weight,	particularly	driven	by	the	addition	of	emissions	equipment	coming	with	the	EPA	compliance	

is	becoming	an	issue.		This	can	be	1,200	pounds	and	another	1,000	with	a	diesel	auxiliary	power	unit.		

This	can	mean	less	payload	and	more	trucks.”	– Vice	President	of Purchasing,	a	large	fleet

• The	 President	 and CEO	 of	 a	 Used	 Truck	 Fleet	 stated, “The	 hours	 of	 service	 rules	 and	 emission	

regulations	is	a	stopper	to	adopting	technologies	to	save	fuel.”

• The Director	of	Operations	and	Maintenance	of	a	used	truck	fleet	shared	that	they	may	no	longer	be

able	 to	operate	 their	older	equipment.		“We	like	 to	 run	 these	 trucks	up	 to	 14	years	old,	but	 today	

CARB	compliance	is	a	major	criteria	for	usefulness	of	equipment.”

• “We	had	to	reduce	the	cycle	life	of	the	power	equipment	[i.e.	tractor	trucks]	in	order	to	comply	with	

CARB	on-highway	rules.		The	older	equipment	is	moved	to	other	states.”	- Director	of	Transportation	

Operations	at	a	private	retail	fleet

• The Director of On-Highway Vehicle	 Strategy	 at	 a	truck	OEM	 shared	 a	 conundrum	 with	 respect	 to	

keeping	older trucks	longer: “Longer	trade	cycles	are	now	required	to	amortize	the	more	expensive	

EPA	mandates.”		He	went	on	to	state	that, “There	is	much	focus	on	GHG	requirements	and	fleets	are	

concerned	that	they	will	be	priced	out	of	the	market	and	unable	to	maintain	any	profit	margins.”

• The Manager	of	Advanced	Engineering	at	another	 truck	OEM	echoed	 this	 sentiment:	 “Government	

regulations	are	accelerating	quicker	than	the	industry	[we]	can	absorb.”

• “It	depends...Regulations	could	be	a	threat	or	an	opportunity	depending	on	how	it	is	constructed.”	-

Market	Segment	Manager of	a	truck	OEM

• A	Product	Manager	of	a	truck	OEM	stated, “[GHG regulations]	won’t	change	[the	fact]	that	the	fleet	

needs	 to	 understand	 his	 operation, and	 suppliers	must	 help	 him	 get	 the	 right	 technologies	 for	 his	

specific	needs.”
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	53

• “CARB	 regulations	 have	 driven	 a	 significant	 adoption	 in	 wings	 [aero	 devices]”	 – Vice	 President	 of

Engineering	at	a	trailer	OEM

• The	 President	 of	 a	 new	 technology	 supplier	 stated, “Regulations	 might	 be	 the	 only	 path	 to	 real	

adoption	– a	‘Paradigm	Breaker’.”

• “Many	[end	users	and	OEMs]	are	vested	in	the	old	school	and	if	they	have	to	do	it,	they will		do	the	

least	necessary.”	- Founder	and	CEO	of	a	new	technology	supplier

Rebound	Effect

As	 part	 of	 the interviews,	 the end	 user	 fleets	 and	 the	 supply	 chain	 were	 asked	 about	 the	 phenomenon	

referred	to	as	the	rebound	effect.		In	a	whitepaper	completed	by	the	American	Council	for	an	Energy-Efficient	

Economy in	August	2012, titled	The	Rebound	Effect:	Large	or	Small?	By	Steven	Nadel,	the	rebound	effect	is	

described	as	“a	postulate	that	people	increase	their	use	of	products	and	facilities	as	a	result	of	this	reduction	

in	operating	costs,	thereby	reducing	the	energy	savings	achieved.”		Specific	to	passenger	vehicles,	they	stated	

that, “More	 efficient	 vehicles	 cost	 less	 per	 mile	 for	 fuel,	 which	 can	 spur	 some	 car	 owners	 to	 drive	 longer	

distances	or	buy	a	larger	or	second	car.”

In	 a	 paper	 by	 Winebrake	 et	 al. (2012)	 “Estimating	 the	 direct	 rebound	 effect	 for	 on-road	 freight	

transportation”,	the	authors	reported	a	likely	rebound	effect of 4	– 24%,	which	is	a	large	range	based	on the

analytical	 timeframe and	 economic	 factors. They	 studied	 such	 factors as	 energy	 prices,	 energy	 efficiency	

data,	demand	for	trucking,	and	demand	for	energy.	Here	they	find	that	the	LDV	literature	usually	identifies	a	

rebound	effect	of	5-20%	in	the	short	run	and	10-30%	in	the	long	run,	translating	to	a	.05	to	.3%	increase	in	

vehicle	 travel	 for	every	 1%	increase	in	 fuel	efficiency.		This	article	 recommends	measuring	 the	 relationship	

between	trucking	services	demanded	and	the	energy	price	of	trucking.

If	this	is	true,	one	would	expect	that	as	fuel	efficiency	increases	dramatically	for	the	overall	trucking fleet,	the	

demand	for	trucking	services	will	increase	as	well.		To	try	to	investigate whether	this	phenomenon	is	present	

at	the	individual	 fleet	level,	the	team	asked	the	 fleets	about the	potential	and	size	of	the	rebound	effect	in

their	own	 trucking	operations.		Trucks	are	used	as	 tools	in	business	 for	 transporting	goods, and	 the	cost	of	

goods	 movement is	 a	 direct	 cost	 that	 is	 passed	 on	 to consumers.	 	 The	 movement	 of	 goods	 is	 highly	

scrutinized	for	cost, and	the	study	team	recognized	the	high	attention	to	cost	when	developing a	question	to	

better	understand	the	potential	of	a	rebound	effect.		The	hypothesis	for	a	rebound	effect	was that	trucking	

fleets would	be	less	demanding	concerning	operational	factors such	as	out-of-route	miles,	speed	limiting,	less	

focus	on	back	hauls,	etc.	if	the	efficiency	of	their	vehicles	were	drastically	improved.

The	question	was	framed	in	the	following	way: “If	your	fleet	were to	achieve	a	significant	fuel	savings,	say	1.0	

MPG or	 about	 a	 15% improvement,	 what	 would	 you	 do	 differently	 in	 your	 operations?”	 	Nearly	 all	 of	 the	

interviewees	struggled	to	answer this	question.		A few	of	the	most	compelling	responses	are	listed below.

• “We	could	eventually	lower	freight	pricing	due	to	lower	fuel	costs.”
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	54

• “[We	would]	Quickly	adopt	the	practices	to	our	other	applications	and	divisions.”

• “We	did	it,	now	keep	being	aggressive	with	all	opportunities,	even	with	CNG	tractors.”

• “Become	more	aggressive	in	technologies	outside	of	mandated	ones.”

• “Lower	our	trade	cycle,	since	we	know	our	future	trucks	will	have	better	MPG.”

In	some	cases,	the interviewer	asked	if	better	MPG might	encourage	more	miles	being	driven	by	trucks	and	

universally	the	response	was	“absolutely	not.” Given	the	industry	history	of	attention	to	these	metrics,	tools	

emerging	that	assist	this	management	such	as	GPS and	routing,	the	study	team	believes	there	is	little	to no	

rebound	effect	in	the	on-road	freight	sector.

Owner-Operator Data

This	 study	 is	 unique due	 to	 the high	 number	 of	 owner-operator participants	 (1,892) that	 were	 reached

through	 the	 use	 of	 online surveys.	 As	 mentioned	 before,	 the	 survey	 was	 sent	 to	 two owner-operator	

stakeholder	 groups: Cascade	 Sierra	 Solutions	 owner-operator contacts	 and	 Kevin	 Rutherford’s	 Lets	 Truck

Sirius	 XM	 stakeholder	group.	 The	perspectives	 of	 this	group of	 owner-operators	and	 small	 companies are

interspersed	 throughout	 the report,	where	appropriate.	 	 Listed	 below	are	additional	data	 summaries from	

the	survey	results.

• 95%	have	five	or	fewer	trucks	in	their	fleet

• 49%	own	their	own	trailers

• 75%	consider	themselves	to	be	long-haul

• 122,099	 average	 miles	 driven	 per	 truck	 in	 2012 with	 the	responses	ranging from	 about	 50,000	 to	

200,000

• 6.6 average	miles	per	gallon	reported

• 59%	lease	their	trucks	to	a	fleet

• 74%	would	retrofit	their	existing	tractor	rather	than	wait	until	they	bought	another	to	employ	 fuelsaving	technologies

• 77%	 would	 replace	 their	existing	 tractor	 with	 a	more	efficient	 used	 tractor rather	 than	 buy	 a	 new	

tractor

• Purchasing	decisions	are	most	influenced	by	fuel	efficiency	and	reliability
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	55

IV. Conclusions and	Recommendations

Fuel	costs	for	on-road	truck	owners	and	fleets	are	on	average 35%	of	their	total	operating	expense.		With	the	

cost	 of	 fuel	 steadily	 increasing,	 conventional	 wisdom	 would	 dictate	 that	 available	 technologies	 to	 improve	

fuel	economy	efficiency would	be	widely	adopted	by	the	trucking	sector.		However,	in	reality,	this	is	not the	

case	as	there	are	a	number	of	available	technologies	shown	to	improve	fuel	economy that	have	had	limited	

adoption	to	date.		This	report	sought	to	investigate	the	prevailing	barriers	that	stand	in	the	way	of	the	greater	

adoption	of	fuel-saving technologies for	 tractor-trailers	in	N.	America.		The	 study	included	a	unique	 survey	

approach	 that	 amassed the	 perspectives	 of	 a	 number	 of	 critical	 decision	makers	 throughout	 the	 long-haul	

industry	sector: from	fleets,	to	manufacturers,	to	integrators	and	builders,	to	dealers,	to	equipment	leasers,	

to	 shippers,	 and owner-operators to	 better	 assess	 the	 complex	 set	 of	 issues	 that	 govern	 decisions	 about	

technology	development	and	investment.		By	design,	 the	 study	participants	are probably	more	likely	 to	be	

more	technology	progressive	than	the	industry	as	a	whole.		Consequently,	the	barriers	identified	in	this	study	

are likely	even	more	pronounced	for the	industry	as	a	whole.	The	study	identifies	barriers	in	many	areas	and	

at	key	decision-making	junctures that	limit	the	large-scale	deployment of	available	efficiency	technologies	for	

tractor-trailers.	 	 The	 five primary barriers	 that	 have	 been	 discussed in	 this	 report	 as	 well	 as	 additional	

relevant	findings	about	split	incentives	and	the	rebound	effect	are	summarized below.			

Uncertainty about	 Payback – Universally,	 fleets	 make	 decisions	 to	 buy	 new	 technologies	 using	 a	 payback	

calculation,	and	manufacturers	and	 technology	 suppliers	 utilize	 similar	payback calculations	in	 determining	

what	 technologies	 or	 technology	 packages	 to	 bring	 to	 market.	 	 Two	 distinct	 themes	 emerge:	 (1)	 short

paybacks	(i.e.	2-3	years	or	less)	are	expected by	the	industry, and	(2)	payback	calculations	are	not	very	well	

defined	 or	 consistent	 across	 the	 industry,	 partly	 due	 to	 the	 high	 degree	 of	 heterogeneity	 in	 the	 trucking	

business.		As	supported	by	 the	interview	responses,	a	general	rule-of-thumb is that	new	 technologies	must	

meet	a	payback	requirement	on	the	order	of	18	months for	for-hire	fleets,	which	tended	to	have	the	shortest	

ownership	cycles	and	expected	payback	times	out	of	all	of	the	end	user	groups.		In	fact,	it	seems	that	product	

development	 for	 the	entire	industry	 seems	 to	be	driven	by	what	is	 required	 for	 for-hire	 fleets.	In	addition,	

payback	 calculation	 methodologies	 vary	 widely	 across	 the	 industry	 in	 terms	 of	 comprehensiveness	 and	

consistency. However,	a	common	 theme	across	all	of	 the	end	users	groups	was	a	strong	 tendency	 towards	

risk	aversion,	which	is	certainly	reflected	in	their	assumptions	for	the	fuel	consumption	reduction	potential	of	

technologies

Lack	of	Capital – Often,	there	is	a	lack	of	capital	 for	acquiring	new	technologies.		It	was	 found	that	in	some

cases, even	after	the	fleet	has	confidence	that	a	technology	would	deliver	a	payback	for	their	operations,	lack	

of	 access	 to	 capital	 for	 purchasing	 technologies	 is	 an	 issue.	 	 Adjusting	 for	 inflation,	 new	 truck	 costs	 have	

increased	by	 roughly 20	- 30% over	 the	past	5-7	years,	and	 the	money	a	 fleet	can	 spend	on	 fuel	efficiency	

features	may	compete	against	other	features	such	as	cabin	amenities	to	better	attract	and	retain	drivers	as	

well	as	other	new	technologies	for	improved	safety,	communications,	routing,	etc.

Lack	of	Credible	Information	(verifying	and	sharing) – Credible	information	is	an	overarching	barrier	that	can	

be	 broken	 down	 into	 two	main	 issues:	 (1)	 verifying	 information	 early	 in	 the	 product	 cycle	 and	 (2)	 sharing	
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	56

information	 later	 in	 the	 product	 cycle.	 There	 is	 difficulty	 obtaining	 accurate	 data	 on	 new	 technologies	 to	

make	adoption	decisions	early	in	a	technology’s	life.		Verifying	technologies	in	the	early	stages	of	its	life	cycle	

is	challenging, and	redundant	testing	efforts	are commonplace as	fleets	are	hesitant	to	trust	the	claims	made	

by	 technology	 suppliers	 and	 OEMs.	 End	 users	 struggle	 with	 the	 lack	 of	 confidence	 in	 outside	 information	

coupled	with	belief	 that	 they	need	 to	perform	customized	 testing	 to	determine	 the	appropriateness	of	 the	

technologies	 for	 their	specific	 fleet.		Self-generated	reliable	data	comes	at	a	high	cost	 that	many	end	users	

are	unwilling	or	unable	to	pay.

As	 new	 technology	 is	 successfully	 adopted	 by	 the	 innovators	 and	 early	 adopters,	 the	 information	 is	 many	

times	 not	 consistently	 disseminated	 to	 the	 industry	 as	 a	 whole.	 More	 often	 than	 not	 this	 information	 is	

shared	 informally	 and	 inconsistently	 through	 anecdotal	 means.	 	 The	 sharing	 of	 data	 between	 credible,	

trusted	sources	is	the	primary	tool	for	the	later	adopting	fleets	to	accept	the	technologies	in	their	operations.

For	most	end	users,	 this	study	suggests	 that	second	 to	self-generated	data,	 fleets	and	owner-operators	are	

most	influenced	by	their	peers,	that	is	companies	(or	individuals)	engaged	in	similar	trucking	operations. The

lack	 of	 standardized	 information	 and/or	 platforms	 for	 information	sharing	 creates	 less	 confidence	 for	 the	

early	and	late	majority	adopters	to	invest in technology	and	slows adoption	cycles.	

Insufficient	Reliability – Not	surprisingly,	reliability	tends	to	be	inconsistent	on	new	technologies and	product	

lines.	 The	on-road trucking sector is	 extremely	 adverse to	 any	 sort	 of	 reliability	 issues	 in	 their	 equipment.	

Downtime	translates	directly	to	profit	losses,	and	therefore	avoiding	downtime	is	a	constant	battle	most	end	

users	 are	 tackling	 daily.	 Moreover, many	 early	 generation products develop	 initial	 reputations	 for	 being	

unreliable, and even	 when	 these	 issues	 are	 resolved in	 subsequent	 generations, the	 original	 stigma of	

unreliability	is	still	attached to	these technologies.	

Lack	of	Availability – Due	to	the	extended maturation	and	uptake cycles in	the	on-road truck	market,	many	

technologies	 take	a	 significant	length	of	 time	 (many	years)	 to	become	widely	available across	a	number	of	

different	manufacturers.	Lack	of	availability	is	a	clear	barrier	to	market	penetration.

Aside	 from	the	 five	main	barriers	discussed	above,	there	are	additional	interesting	 findings	 from	this	study.	

These	are	summarized below:

Split	 Incentives – The	 split	 incentive	 (i.e.	 the	 entity	 paying	 for	 the	 fuel	 is	 not	 the	 entity	 paying	 for	 the	

technology)	has	long	been	considered	a	key	barrier	to	technology	adoption.		This	study	found	that	the	split	

incentive	is	not	as	critical	as	once	was	perceived,	mainly	due	to	the	fact	there	are	less	and	less	cases	where	

the	 technology	 buyer	will	 see	 zero	 benefit	 (direct	 or	 indirect)	 from	 improved	 fuel	economy.	 	Although	 the	

split	incentive	was	not	found	to	be	universal	enough	to	be	included	in	the	top	list	of barriers,	there	are	still	

situations where	it	is	very	important.	The	most	obvious	of	these	is	in	the	area	of	trailer	technologies.	There	

are	many	available	cost-effective trailer	technologies	that	can	improve	fuel	efficiency	(NACFE	2013),	yet	there	

is	still	a	barrier	to	adoption due	to	ownership	dynamics.		A	significant	amount	of	tractor	owners	do	not	pull	

their	own	 trailer	and	 therefore	 trailer	owners	would	see	no	direct	benefit	 from	upgrading	 their	 trailer.	This	
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	57

split	 incentive	 for trailers	 is	 most	 prevalent	 in	 the	 for-hire fleets	 and	 less	 so for retail/private	 fleets	 and	

owner-operators, where	many	trailers	are	pulled	by	their	owners.

Rebound	Effect – Overall,	this	study	found	that	rebound	effects,	defined	as the	extent	to	which	benefits	from	

efficiency	improvements	are	counteracted by	increased	usage,	are	negligible.	The	literature	suggests	that	the	

rebound	effect	can	be	difficult	to	measure	(or	even	define).	The	results	from	this	study	are	merely	qualitative	

and	 should	 be	 taken	 as	 such.	 	 Overall,	 the	 fleets	 surveyed	 were	 adamant	 that	 no	 additional	 usage	 would	

occur	 if	 they	 were	 to	 realize	 a	 significant	 fuel	 economy	 improvement	 in	 their	 fleet.	 Instead,	 those	 savings	

would	be	invested	or	directed	elsewhere	into	strategies that	will	help	improve	their	market	competitiveness,	

such	as	into	new	technologies	or	lower	charges	for	goods	movement.

Recommendations	for	Future	Work	

Based	on	the	results	of	this	study,	we	propose	the	following	areas	for	future	work.		Further	studies	should	be	

conducted	 to	look	at	measures to	address some	of	 the	barriers	identified	in	 this	study.	The	most	pervasive

barrier,	the	lack	of	credible	information,	is	the	logical	first	one	to	focus	on due	to	the	fact	that	it	impacts	all	of	

the	 remaining	 barriers to	 some	 extent	 or	 another.	 Future	 efforts should	 focus	 on	 practical and	 credible	

methods for	 validating	 technologies	 and	 disseminating	 the	 information	 in	 a	 reliable	 and	 consistent	 way.

Policy	measures	should	be	pursued	if	they can	effectively	promote	technologies	that	are	delivering	economic	

benefits and	limit	the	adverse	consequences	on	the	industry	as	a	whole.
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	58

References

Ansar,	J.	and	Sparks,	R.	2009.	“The	Experience	Curve,	Option	Value,	and	the	Energy	Paradox.”	Energy	Policy

37		(3):	1012-1020.

Carbon	War	Room.	2012.	Road	Transport:	Unlocking	Fuel-Saving	Technologies	in	Trucking	and	Fleets.

Available	online	at	

http://www.grahampeacedesignmail.com/cwr/cwr2012_trucking_finall_download_singles.pdf

CE	Delft.	2012.	Market	Barriers	to	Increased	Efficiency	in	the	European	On-Road	Freight	Sector.	Available	

online	at	http://www.theicct.org/market-barriers-increased-efficiency-european-road-freight-sector

US	Bureau	of	Labor	Statistics.2013.	Consumer	Price	Index	(June	18,	2013).	Available	online	at	

http://stats.bls.gov/cpi/#tables

US	Department	of	Energy	(DOE).		2009.		Research	and	Development	Opportunities	for	Heavy	Trucks.		

Available	online	at	http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/truck_efficiency_paper_v2.pdf

US	Energy	Information	Administration	(EIA).	2013.	Gasoline	and	Diesel	Fuel	Update	(June	24,	2013).	Available	

online	at	http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/

Ellram	and	Golicic.	2011.	Environmentally	Sustainable	Transport. Executive	summary	available	online	at	

http://www.cascadesierrasolutions.org/libsmartway.aspx

Goodyear	Dunlop	Tires	Europe.	2012.	Driving	Fleet	Fuel	Efficiency:	The	Road	to	2020.	Available online	at	

http://www.cadenadesuministro.es/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Driving-fleet-fuel-efficiency-The-Road-to2020-informe-Goodyear-Dunlop.pdf

International	Energy	Agency	(IEA).	2009.	Transport,	Energy	and	CO2:	Moving	Toward	Sustainability.	Available	

online	at	http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/transport2009.pdf

Jaffe,	A.	and	Stavins,	R.	1994.	“The	Energy	Paradox	and	the	Diffusion	of	Conservation	Technology.”	Resource	

and	Energy	Economics 16	(2):	91-112.

Liimatainen.	H.	et	al.	2012.	“Energy	Efficiency	Practices	Among	Road	Freight	Haulers.”	Energy	Policy 50:	833-

842.	

North	American	Council	for	Freight	Efficiency	(NACFE). 2013.	Fleet	Fuel	Study,	March	2013.		Available	online	

at http://nacfe.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/2013-NACFE-Study-Major-Findings-030713.pdf
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	59

Nadel.		2012.		The	Rebound	Effect:		Large	or	Small?	An	ACEE	White	Paper, available	online	at

http://aceee.org/files/pdf/white-paper/rebound-large-and-small.pdf

National	Academy	of	Sciences	(NAS).		2010.		Technologies	&	Approaches	to	Reducing	the	Fuel	Consumption	of	

Medium	and	Heavy-Duty	Vehicle.		Available	online	at	http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12845

Northeast	States	for	Coordinated	Air	Use	Management	(NESCAUM).	 2009.		Reducing	Heavy-Duty	Long	Haul	

Combination	Truck	Fuel	Consumption	and	CO2	Emissions.		Available	online	at	

http://www.nescaum.org/documents/heavy-duty-truck-ghg_report_final-200910.pdf

National	Private	Truck	Council	(NPTC).	2011.		Benchmarking	Survey	2011.		Available	online	at	

http://go.postbidship.com/rs/postbidship/images/2011-NPTC-Benchmarking-Survey-Results.pdf

National	Renewable	Energy	Laboratory	(NREL).2013.http://www.nrel.gov/news/press/2013/2138.html

Transportation	Energy	Futures	- March	2013,	Project	Overview	and	Findings – Ref:		NREL/PR-6A20-56270.

Price	Digest.	2013.	The	Truck	Blue	Book.	Available	online	at	http://www.truckbluebook.com

Rogers,	Everett	M,	1962.		Diffusion	of	Innovations.		Glencoe:	Free	Press.	ISBN	0-612-62843-4.		150

Shama,	A.	1983.	“Energy	Conservation	in	US	buildings:	Solving	the	Potential/Low	Adoption	Paradox	from	a	

Behavioural	Perspective.”	Energy	Policy	11	(2):	148-167.

TIAX.		2009.		Assessment	of	Fuel	Economy	Technologies	for	Medium- and	Heavy- Duty	Vehicles.		Contract	

Number:		DEPS-P290355.		3-11	– 3-16

Vernon,	D.	and	Meier,	A.	2012.	“Identification	and	Quantification	of	Principal-Agent	Problem	Affect	Energy	

Efficiency	Investments	and	Use	Decisions	in	the	Trucking	Industry.”	Energy	Policy. 49:	266-273

Von	Hippel.	2005.		Democratizing	Innovation.		The	MIT	Press.		Cambridge,	Massachusetts.

Appendix	A:		List	of	Exhibits
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	60

Figure	1.	Overview	of	Barriers.........................................................................................................................5

Figure	2.	Cost	of	Trucking- Dollars	per	Mile ....................................................................................................9

Figure	3.		2015	– 2020	New	Vehicle	Potential	Fuel	Savings	Technologies	 ...................................................10

Table	1.		Industry	Stakeholder	Groups	Surveyed ..........................................................................................14

Table	2.		Summary	of	Data	Methods.............................................................................................................18

Figure	4.	CSS	Survey	Respondents’	Location.................................................................................................20

Table	3.		Preliminary	Findings	Reviews .........................................................................................................21

Table	4.	Qualitative	Summary	of	Interview	and	Survey	Responses..............................................................22

Figure	5.		Tractor	Trade	Cycles......................................................................................................................24

Figure	6.		Acceptable	Payback	for	Technologies ...........................................................................................25

Figure	7.	Importance	of	Factors	Influencing	Specifications ..........................................................................31

Figure 8.		Value	of	Resale	to	each	Company .................................................................................................32

Figure	9.		Information	across	Adoption	Cycle ...............................................................................................33

Table	5.		Interview	Answers	to	Testing	Questions ........................................................................................34

Figure	10.		Value	of	Various	Information	Sources.........................................................................................35

Figure	11.		Top	Reasons	Not	to	Purchase......................................................................................................39

Figure12.		Owner-Operator	Source	of	Information.......................................................................................40

Figure	13.		Owner-Operator	Confidence	in	the	Benefits	of	Fuel-Saving	Technologies.................................41

Figure	14.		Life	of	a	Technology	over	an	Adoption	Cycle ..............................................................................46

Figure	15.		Technologies	with	Short	Term	Potential .....................................................................................48

Figure	16.		ATA:	For-hire TL	Carrier	Driver	Turnover.....................................................................................49

Figure	17.		NPTC	Benchmark	Survey:	Private	Fleet	Driver	Turnover.............................................................50

Appendix B:		Example	of	an	interview	template (used	for	large	and	medium	sized	fleets)
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	61

ICCT	‘Barriers	to	Technology’	Fleet	Carriers	Questionnaire	

The	 International	 Council	 on	 Clean	 Transportation	 (ICCT)	 has	 undertaken	 a	 study	 of	 the	 market	

characteristics	in	the	goods	transportation	by	class	7	&	8	tractors	to	identify	the	‘barriers	to	technology’	

adoption	 that	 currently	 exist	 in	 the	 U.S.	 on-road	 freight	 sector.	 The	 results	 of	 this	 study	 will	 help	 our	

trucking	industry	to	identify	the	initiatives	and	measures	that	can	be	most	effective	in	combating	those	

barriers.

It	is	important	to	understand	the	process	that	fleet	owners	use	to	arrive	at	decisions	for	capital	purchase	

in	acquiring	new	vehicles,	 technologies,	along	with	establishing	 standards	of	‘best	practices’	 to	achieve	

greater	fuel	efficiency.	The	cost	of	fuel	impacts	trucking	fleets	of	all	sizes,	and	technologies	with	relatively	

short	 payback	 times	 can	 see	 limited	 adoption	 due	 to	 prohibitive	 up-front	 costs,	 risk	 aversion	 to	 new	

technology,	 or	 a	 disincentive	 to	 invest	 in	 more	 fuel-efficient	 equipment.	 This	 study	 will	 collect	 and	

present	the	barriers	in	a	final	report	and	presentation	to	ICCT.	

Interview Date:

Interview Conducted By: In Person ________ Conference Call ________

Interviewer Conducting Interview: 

1. Company Information

Name of Company

Contact Person 

Contact Details

Fleet Vehicle Information Number of Power Vehicles _________

Number of Operation Centers _________

Number of Maintenance Facilities ______

Class 8 Vehicles _______ Class 7 _______

Number of Trailers__________

Number of Drivers __________

Fleet Market Application Over-the-Road Long Haul ________

Truck Load (TL) ________

Less Truck Load (LTL)_______

Bulk _______

Van ________ Size of Van Trailer 

______

Pickup & Delivery ________

Intermodal ________ Container _______

Contract Carrier _______

Refrigerated ________

Flatbed ________

Company Ownership Self ________ Family ________ Stockholder Group ________ 3PL __________

Other Company ________ Name of Other Company ____________________________

Fleet Market Area 48 States + Canada _______ Regional _________ (Regions Coverage) 

_____________

City / Urban / Rural ___________ Name of City _______________________________

Notes:
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	62

Note** All company information will not be shared or distributed beyond the survey interview protocols of data collection without 

express permission of the company. 

(Surveyors’ 

initials)______________________

General Barriers to the Implementation of Energy Efficient Technology Measures

The American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) September 2012 analysis “Operational Costs of Trucking” outlined that 

fuel costs have risen nearly 10 percent in the first eight months of 2012. Fuel efficient technologies for power equipment and 

trailers have had a major influence on the decisions by fleets to control the cost of fuel. The following questions will focus on 

the process of evaluating to adopt fuel saving technologies.

1. What is your process to determine if a technology is a good investment for your fleet?

________________________________________________________________

____________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

2. Ask the 7 common questions.

a. Rate the importance of the following factors when putting together specifications for new 

equipment.

b. What	is	the	necessary	payback?

c. Which factors influenced your decision not to install a technology and rate its importance?

d. How do you evaluate new technologies for adoption?

e. When researching a technology, how do you value the information from these various sources?

f. Which technologies do you see having the most short-term potential?

g. If your fleet has adopted technologies that deliver a 1 mpg, 5% improvement, what effect would 

this have on your operation?

3. How do you calculate ROI? (Please indicate the following that apply to your calculation)

Total cost of ownership (TCO) _____ Incremental cost of technology _____ Maintenance _____

Durability cycle _____ Residual value _____
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	63

4. When considering technologies for adoption into your fleet, how do you determine whether to buy it only on new 

equipment, retrofit only on old equipment or both?

5. A number of the ‘alternative’ fuel options currently provide a considerable reduction in the price of fuel compared to 

diesel. Please indicate your position on the ‘alternative’ fuel option for your fleet:

_____ Currently considering ‘alternative’ fuel technology – LNG _____ CNG _____ Bio-fuels _____

_____ Wait for technology to mature in the industry – LNG _____ CNG _____ Bio-fuels _____

_____ Not considering the ‘alternative’ fuel technology

Notes and Comments: __________________________________________________________________

6. Does your organization contract with Owner-operators and small independent fleets?

Yes _____ No _____

If ‘Yes’, does your contract require the Owner/Operator or small independent fleets to meet a technology threshold 

established for your fleet with the vehicle and/or trailer they have under the contract?

Yes _____ No _____ 

7. In evaluating the cost of complying with regulations for existing fleets, does this restrict the adoption of fuel efficiency 

technologies that have been determined to work for your fleet?

Yes _____ In some instances _____ No _____

2a. Please explain _____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

8. Would you consider a fuel efficient technology for your fleet even though the technology does not assist your fleet in 

meeting emission regulation mandates? 

Yes _____ No _____ Open to consideration _____

**Special Question**Your fleet has been selected to participate in this survey because of the value of your responses which will 

assist in discovering the barriers that exist to the adoption of fuel efficient technologies. Would you commit to become a 

stakeholder in a future effort to examine the solutions to these barriers which would include an internet based survey?

Yes _____ No _____ 
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	64

Appendix C:		Common	questions	template

All	 in-person	 and	 telephone	 interviews	 were	 asked	 a	 set	 of	 Common	 Questions with	 possible	 answers	

predetermined	as	drop	down	menus	in	the	interviewer’s	template.		The	interviewer	tried	to	ask	all	questions,	but	

due	to	time	constraints	had	to	prioritize	which	ones	to	get	answers.		This	data	was	used	to	compare	responses	

amongst	different	stakeholder	groups.		Supply	Chain	interviewees	were	sometimes	asked	to	answer	the	question	

as	if	they	were	a	fleet,	or	how	they	believe	the	fleets	would	answer.

1. Rate	the	importance	of	the	following	factors	when	putting	together	specifications	for	new	equipment.

a. Fuel	Economy

b. OEM	make/model

c. Mandated	regulations

d. Application	drive	cycle

e. Reliability

f. Driver	recruitment/retention

g. Resale	value

h. Fleet	image

i. Durability/longevity

j. Maintenance

2. What	is	your	necessary	payback?

a. What	is	the	needed	payback	to	purchase	a	technology?

b. Do	grants	influence	your	purchase?

c. Given	your	trade	cycle,	what	is	the	absolute	maximum	payback	you	would	consider?

3. Which	factors	influenced	your	decision	not	to	install	a	technology	and	rate	it’s	importance.

a. Research	data	suggested	this	technology	was	not	appropriate	for	your	fleet

b. Available	data	was	not	relevant	to	your	operations.

c. Although	available	data	suggested	it	would	work,	you	were	not	convinced

d. No	outside	validation	of	manufacturers	claims

e. The	testing	methods	for	the	data	did	not	meet	your	standards

f. Gathering	the	data	yourself	was	too	expensive	or	time-consuming

g. Product	support/warranty	was	not	adequate

h. Additional	maintenance	and	overall	lifecycle	cost	were	too	high

i. Weight	of	the	new	technology	was	too	much

j. The	technology	was	not	available	from	your	preferred	equipment	dealer

k. Concerned	about	disruptions/negative	impacts	on	your	operations

l. Your	drivers	did	not	like	the	technology

m. Buying	and	installing	the	technology	was	simply	too	expensive

4. How	do	you	evaluate	new	technologies	for	adoption?

a. Do	you	require	suppliers	to	test	product	by	a	third-party?

b. If	so,	what	percentage	of	the	cost	do	they	pay?

c. Do	you	require	a	trial	run	in	your	fleet?
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	65

d. If	yes,	how	many	units	would	you	test?

e. How	many	months	would	you	run	the	test?

5. When	researching	a	technology,	how	do	you	value	the	information	from	these	various	sources?

a. Technology	manufacturer

b. EPA	SmartWay

c. Third-party validation

d. Other	fleets	at	an	event	like	TMC

e. Other	fleets	experience

f. Other	testing	reports

g. OEM	and	dealers

h. Your	own	research	capabilities

Looking	at	the	source	you	scored	highest,	to	what	degree	does	it	influence	your	decision?

6. Which	technologies	do	you	see	having	the	most	short	term	potential?

a. Low	rolling	resistance	tires

b. Tire	inflation	/	monitoring	systems

c. Idle	reduction

d. Trailer	aerodynamics

e. Tractor	aerodynamics

f. Automated	manual	transmissions

g. 6x2	axle	configurations

h. Direct	drive	transmissions

i. Telematics

7. If	your	fleet	has	adopted	technologies	that	deliver	big	savings,	1	mpg	or	15%	improvement,	what	effect	

would	this	have	on	your	operations?

a. What	might	you	do	differently?

b. Decisions	/	actions	in	your	fleet?
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	66

Appendix	D:		Questions	in	the Owner-operator Survey
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	67
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	68
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	69
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	70
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	71
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	72
			 Barriers	to	Increased	Adoption	of	Fuel	Efficiency Technologies	in	Freight	Trucking				

July	2013 Page	73