Medium- & Heavy-Duty Vehicles
Market structure, Environmental Impact, and EV Readiness
July 2021
2
Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... 4
M/HDV In-Use Fleet: Vehicle Types & Uses ........................................................................................... 8
M/HDV In-Use Fleet: Environmental Impact ........................................................................................ 13
M/HDV EV Market Readiness ................................................................................................................ 16
Policy Implications .................................................................................................................................. 24
Appendix A – Methodology & Data Sources .......................................................................................... 26
Appendix B – Supplemental Information ................................................................................................ 37
References ................................................................................................................................................ 40
3
Acknowledgements
Lead Authors: Dana Lowell and Jane Culkin
This report summarizes an analysis of the U.S. medium and heavy-duty in-use truck fleet to identify the
most common vehicle types/uses, estimate the environmental impact of each, and assess near-term
readiness for greater adoption of electric vehicles based on typical usage patterns and market status. For
this analysis we have included all vehicles with gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) above 8,500 pounds,
encompassing vehicle classes from Class 2b (8,500 – 10,000 lb GVWR) to Class 8 (>33,000 lb GVWR).
Totaling 22.8 million vehicles that annually travel more than 430 billion miles and consume more than
55 billion gallons of fuel, this is a very diverse group, ranging from heavy-duty pickups and vans to transit
and school buses, freight and work trucks, and tractor-trailers. Most of these vehicles are used
commercially, rather than for personal transportation.
This report was developed by M.J. Bradley & Associates for the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF).
About M.J. Bradley & Associates
MJB&A, an ERM Group company, provides strategic consulting services to address energy and
environmental issues for the private, public, and non-profit sectors. MJB&A creates value and addresses
risks with a comprehensive approach to strategy and implementation, ensuring clients have timely access
to information and the tools to use it to their advantage. Our approach fuses private sector strategy with
public policy in air quality, energy, climate change, environmental markets, energy efficiency, renewable
energy, transportation, and advanced technologies. Our international client base includes electric and
natural gas utilities, major transportation fleet operators, investors, clean technology firms, environmental
groups and government agencies. Our seasoned team brings a multi-sector perspective, informed
expertise, and creative solutions to each client, capitalizing on extensive experience in energy markets,
environmental policy, law, engineering, economics and business. For more information we encourage
you to visit our website, www.mjbradley.com.
© M.J. Bradley & Associates, an ERM Group company, 2021
For questions or comments, please contact:
Dana Lowell
Senior Vice President
M.J. Bradley & Associates, LLC
+1 978 369 5533
This report is available at www.mjbradley.com.
4
Executive Summary
This report summarizes an analysis of the U.S. medium and heavy-duty (M/HD) in-use truck fleet to
identify the most common vehicle types/uses, estimate the environmental impact of each, and assess
readiness for greater adoption of zero emitting technologies over the next decade, based on typical usage
patterns and market status. It is intended to help inform the Environmental Protection Agency’s
deliberations involving future criteria and greenhouse gas emissions standards and policies for medium-
and heavy-duty engines and vehicles.
This analysis focuses on prospects for electric vehicle penetration because all scenarios for avoidance of
detrimental future climate warming point to the need for significant reductions in emissions from the
transportation system, coupled with further decarbonization of the electric sector. Net reductions in
transportation emissions could come from a range of zero-emitting vehicle types including battery-
electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles. For this study, MJB&A evaluated the current
state of battery electric vehicles for each M/HDV market segment, to assess prospects for near-term
(through 2025) and medium-term (through 2030) uptake of zero-emission vehicles within each segment.
While fuel cell vehicles could also play a role in transforming the transportation system within this
timeframe, the focus of this report on battery electric vehicles is based on the relatively greater
commercial maturity of this technology in the U.S. market
Also, while comprising less than 10 percent of all vehicles on the road, M/HD trucks account for more
than 60 percent of tailpipe nitrogen oxide (NOx) and particulate (PM) emissions from the onroad fleet
1
;
these emissions contribute to poor air quality in many urban areas, including areas with vulnerable
populations. Deploying zero-emitting vehicles coupled with greater use of renewable electricity will
provide significant public health benefits by reducing urban air pollution. A recent study indicates that
eliminating tailpipe emissions from new medium- and heavy-duty vehicles by 2040 could provide up to
$485 billion in health and environmental benefits as a result of pollution reductions (2020$)
2
.
For this analysis we have included all vehicles with gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) above 8,500
pounds, encompassing vehicle classes from Class 2b (8,500 – 10,000 lb GVWR) to Class 8 (>33,000 lb
GVWR).
Totaling 22.8 million vehicles that annually travel more than 430 billion miles and consume more than
55 billion gallons of fuel, this is a very diverse group, ranging from heavy-duty pickups and vans to transit
and school buses, freight and work trucks, and tractor-trailers. Most of these vehicles are used
commercially, rather than for personal transportation.
While very diverse, approximately 80 percent of the fleet can be grouped into 17 market segments each
with broadly similar vehicle configuration and usage patterns; these 17 market segments are the focus of
this analysis
3
.
1
Per EPA MOVES model emissions inventory.
2
EDF, Clean Trucks, Clean Air, American Jobs, March 2021; https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/2021-
03/HD_ZEV_White_Paper.pdf
3
The remaining 20 percent of the fleet encompasses a wider diversity of vehicle types and uses, some of which
includes a relatively small number of vehicles. This includes Fire Trucks, ambulances and other emergency
vehicles, Motor Homes, and trucks used in Forestry and Mining. It also includes vehicles that could not be
classified based on VIN-defined vehicle type or the type of company that registered them. See Appendix A for
more information about how the market segments were determined and number of vehicles in each was estimated.
5
For each market segment the number of vehicles
in the segment was estimated using registration
data collected from all 50 states by IHS Markit
[1]. EPA’s MOtor Vehicle Emissions Simulator
(MOVES3) model [2] was used to estimate the
environmental impact of each market segment –
from both a climate and air quality perspective.
Various resources and considerations were then
used to evaluate prospects for near-term uptake of
battery-electric vehicles within each market
segment, as a proxy for uptake of zero-emission
vehicles more generally.
Each market segment was evaluated based on
four relevant factors that will significantly impact
truck owner decisions about whether to purchase
an electric vehicle: availability of electric models
from major manufacturers (Commercial EV
Market), infrastructure requirements for vehicle
charging (Charging), the ability of current EV
models to meet operating requirements
(Technical Feasibility), and prospects for cost
parity with current diesel and gasoline vehicles
(EV Business case). See the appendix for a full
discussion of the methodology and data sources
used for the EV market readiness analysis.
The analysis finds that there are a large number of
market segments that have favorable ratings
across at least 3 of the 4 relevant factors, which
indicates strong potential for near-term EV
uptake
4
. Representing approximately 66 percent of the current in-use fleet, these market segments include
Heavy-duty Pickups and Vans, Local Delivery and Service Trucks and Vans, Transit and School Buses,
Class 3 - 5 Box Trucks, Class 3 – 7 Stake Trucks, Dump Trucks, and Refuse Haulers. Electrifying these
vehicles would deliver significant public health benefits – including up to 1,500 fewer premature deaths,
1,400 fewer hospital visits, and 890,000 incidents of exacerbated respiratory conditions and lost or
restricted workdays annually. Additional major take-aways from the full analysis are summarized below
and are discussed more fully in the following sections.
4
While not formally evaluated, other zero-emitting technologies such as hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles could
also play an important role in many market segments.
Class 2B
Class 3
Regional Haul Tractor Class 7 - 8
Long Haul Tractor Class 8
Transit Bus Class 8
School Bus Class 7
Shuttle Bus Class 3-5
Delivery Van Class 3-5
Delivery Truck Class 6-7
Service Van Class 3-5
Service Truck Class 6-7
Refuse Hauler Class 8
Box Truck (freight) Class 3-5
Box Truck (freight) Class 6-7
Box Truck (freight) Class 8
Stake Truck (construction) Class 3-5
Stake Truck (construction) Class 6-7
Dump Truck Class 8
MARKET SEGMENT
Weight
Class
Heavy Duty Pickup & Van
Figure 1
M/HD Market Segments
6
Climate
While less than 15% of vehicles, long- and regional-haul
tractor-trailers have the greatest climate impact - accounting
for 60% of greenhouse gases - due to their high annual
mileage.
The second most important market segment is heavy-duty
pickups and vans (Class 2b – 3) which account for more
than 20% of GHGs because there are so many of them.
Air Quality
Market segments with the highest relative impact on
urban air quality – NOx and PM emissions relative to
the number of vehicles and miles traveled – include
buses of all types, tractor-trailers, refuse trucks, heavy
freight trucks, and construction trucks
EV Market
The market segments that can be considered fully
mature in 2021 with respect to commercial EV offerings
are transit and school buses.
While most other M/HDV market segments currently
have few commercial EV models from key market
actors, they are seeing rapidly increasing activity from
established players and well-financed start-ups.
Virtually all market segments have the potential to be
fully mature by 2025, with EV models available from multiple companies, including
the majority of major OEMs that currently have 90% market share of the in-use fleet.
A number of companies have near-term plans to launch light-duty electric pickups
and vans (<8,500 lb GVWR), including the market leader Ford. Developments in
this market can help to advance electrification of the heavier Class 2B (8,500 –
10,000 lb GVWR) segment of the M/HD market
Charging
The majority of M/HDVs have relatively modest
charging needs (<20 kW/vehicle) and can do most if not
all charging overnight at their “home base”
Developing additional fueling infrastruture is needed
for wide adoption of zero-emitting long-haul freight
trucks, as those vehicles will require a nation-wide
network of high-power shared (public) chargers (for
battery electric trucks) or hydrogen fuel stations (for fuel
cell electric trucks).
80% of Climate
impact is from
three of the 17
market segments
Air quality impact is
less concentrated
among market
segments than
climate impact
In Most market
segments the EV
market is emerging
with the potential to
be fully
commercially
mature by 2025.
Most M/HD EVs can
be charged
overnight at their
“home base” and
will not need public
chargers
7
$
EV Business
Case
The current cost of M/HD EVs present some challenges
for the business case, but projected cost reductions will
substantially improve EV economics in all market
segments over the next 10 years. Increased EV sales
volumes will accelerate expected cost reductions.
EVs in the majority of market segments have the
potential to achieve life-cycle cost parity with internal
combustion engine vehicles by model year 2025 or
earlier if M/HD battery costs follow a similar trajectory
as battery costs for light-duty EVs.
Policy
Implications
Vehicle segments for near-term ZEV policy focus include
School and Transit buses – mature ZEV market, high urban air quality
impact, high visibility
Urban delivery and service fleets (Class 3 – 5), to include vans and box
trucks of variuous sizes – duty cycle matches EV capability, low charging
barriers, large number of vehicles which can advance techical and
commercial development
Heavy-duty Pickups and Vans (Class 2B) – duty cycle generally matches EV
capability, generally low charging barriers, large number of vehicles which
can advance techical and commercial development
Construction trucks, including Class 3 -7 Stake Trucks, and Dump Trucks –
high urban air quality impact, generally low charging barriers
Refuse Haulers - high urban air quality impact, high visibility
For most Market
Segments the EV
business case
remains
challenging but is
improving rapidly in
a very dynamic
market
8
M/HDV In-Use Fleet: Vehicle Types & Uses
This section discusses the composition of the current M/HD fleet, including the number of vehicles of
each type/use, the percentage of vehicles by fuel type, and manufacturer market shares.
Under EPA’s Phase 2 rules, GHG emissions are regulated both from new engines and from new vehicles
[3]. Engine standards are separated into three categories: those applicable to light-heavy duty engines
(LHD) used in Class 2b – Class 5 trucks, those applicable to medium-heavy duty engines (MHD) used in
Class 6 – 7 trucks, and those applicable to heavy-heavy duty (HHD) engines used in Class 8 trucks.
Vehicle regulations are separated into three vehicle categories: those applicable to Heavy-duty Pickups
and Vans (Class 2b – 3), those applicable to Combination Truck tractors (Class 7 – 8), and those
applicable to all other trucks that are not in either of the first two categories, which are called Vocational
Vehicles. The vocational vehicle category is very diverse, covering vehicles from Class 3 to Class 8 with
a wide range of uses, from freight trucks, to buses, to construction and other work trucks; see Figure 2
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Given the diversity of the Vocational Vehicle Category it is further divided by the characteristics of the
duty cycle seen by “typical” vehicles. The defined duty cycles are Urban (low speed, frequent stops),
Regional (higher speeds, less frequent stops) and Mixed Use (a combination of Urban and Regional duty
cycles). Vehicles regulated under the different duty cycles are subject to different regulatory test cycles
that reflect the chosen duty cycle and subsequently have different numerical emission limits.
Manufacturers are allowed to specify the duty cycle used to certify each Vocational Vehicle model.
See Figure 3 for a summary of the M/HDV market segments analyzed here, and the estimated number of
in-use vehicles in each. Each market segment is identified by vehicle type and weight class range. Also
included is information on the EPA vehicle and engine regulatory category that the vehicles in the
segment are covered by, for the purposes of regulating new engine and vehicle fuel economy and
greenhouse gas emissions.
Figure 2
Vehicle Weight Classes and EPA Regulatory Categories
Weight Class 2b 3 4 5 6 7 8
GVWR (lb)
8,500 to
10,000
10,001 to
14,000
14,001 to
16,000
16,001 to
19,500
19,501 to
26,000
26,001 to
33,000
>33,000
Engine Regulatory
Category
Heavy Heavy-
Duty
Medium Heavy-duty
Vehicle Regulatory
Category
Heavy Duty Pickup & van
Combination Trucks
Vocational Trucks
Light Heavy-Duty
Example Vehicles
9
For most market segments the estimated number of vehicles shown in Figure 3 is based on an analysis of
state vehicle registration data collected by IHS Markit [1]. For this analysis all in-use vehicles were
categorized based on manufacturer-defined vehicle type
5
and weight class, plus the “registration
vocation” assigned by IHS Markit based on the company that registered each vehicle (i.e. construction,
sanitation, freight, services). The market segmentation summarized in Figure 3 is an organic outcome of
the in-use vehicle analysis, and the market segment names are intended to be illustrative of the vehicle
configuration and use for the majority of vehicles in each segment, based on vehicle configuration and
using company. Within each segment there is some variation in vehicle configuration and daily/annual
usage patterns. See Appendix A for a full discussion of how the in-use vehicle segmentation analysis
summarized in Figure 3 was conducted.
Source: IHS Markit, M.J. Bradley & Associates
5
This information is encoded in the vehicle identification number (VIN) assigned by the original equipment
manufacturer (OEM). Other data encoded in the VIN and included in the IHS Markit database for each vehicle
includes manufacturer name, vehicle model, and weight class.
Figure 3
U.S. In-use Medium- & Heavy-duty Fleet by Market Segment
Engine Vehicle
Class 2B LHD 8,951,335 39.3%
Class 3 LHD 2,330,763 10.2%
Regional Haul Tractor Class 7 - 8 MHD, HHD Combination Trucks 1,094,056 4.8%
Long Haul Tractor Class 8 HHD Combination Trucks 2,057,164 9.0%
Transit Bus Class 8 HHD
Vocational Vehicle
Urban 77,720 0.3%
School Bus Class 7 MHD
Vocational Vehicle
Urban 497,201 2.2%
Shuttle Bus Class 3-5 LHD
Vocational Vehicle
Urban 149,773 0.7%
Delivery Van Class 3-5 LHD
Vocational Vehicle
Urban 500,110 2.2%
Delivery Truck Class 6-7 MHD
Vocational Vehicle
Urban 400,969 1.8%
Service Van Class 3-5 LHD
Vocational Vehicle
Urban 808,802 3.5%
Service Truck Class 6-7 MHD
Vocational Vehicle
Urban 296,999 1.3%
Refuse Hauler Class 8 HHD
Vocational Vehicle
Urban 101,401 0.4%
Box Truck Class 3-5 LHD
Vocational Vehicle
Regional 162,731 0.7%
Box Truck Class 6-7 MHD
Vocational Vehicle
Regional 172,354 0.8%
Box Truck Class 8 HHD
Vocational Vehicle
Regional 153,776 0.7%
Stake Truck Class 3-5 LHD
Vocational Vehicle
Mixed Use 391,348 1.7%
Stake Truck Class 6-7 MHD
Vocational Vehicle
Mixed Use 191,925 0.8%
Dump Truck Class 8 HHD
Vocational Vehicle
Mixed Use 247,475 1.1%
OTHER Class 3 - 8
LHD,MHD,HHD
Vocational Vehicle
Mixed Use 4,216,527 18.5%
22,802,427 100.0%
MARKET SEGMENT
Weight Class
Number
% of Fleet
Estimated In-use Vehicles
EPA Phase 2 Regulatory Category
Heavy Duty Pickup &
Van
HD Pickup & Van
HD Pickup & Van
10
Weight Class 2 (VIN-defined) does not identify the sub-set of vehicles in Class 2b (8,500 – 10,000 lb
GVWR), so the IHS Markit data could not be used to estimate the number of these vehicles in the fleet;
the estimate of Class 2b vehicles in Figure 3 is from EPA’s MOVES3 model [2].
As shown, as of December 2020 there were an estimated 22.8 million medium- and heavy-duty vehicles
(Class 2b – 8) registered in the U.S. Almost 50% of these vehicles are heavy-duty pickups and vans (Class
2b – 3), 13% are combination trucks (tractor-trailers), and 37 percent are various types of vocational
vehicles. Of the vocational vehicles about 33 percent have a primarily urban duty cycle, 6 percent have
a primarily regional duty cycle, and 61 percent have a mixed duty cycle.
Based on analysis of in-use tractor characteristics, MJB&A estimates that approximately one third of
tractor-trailers are primarily used for local or regional freight hauling (return-to-base) and two thirds are
primarily used to deliver freight across much longer distances, with vehicles not returning to the same
location every day.
6
Some examples of local/regional hauling using tractor trailers include beverage
delivery and shuttles between major regional warehouses or logistics centers.
The market segmentation analysis is most helpful in breaking down the diverse group of vocational
vehicles into different use cases. Almost 9% of vocational vehicles are buses of different types, and
another 11% are construction trucks. Approximately 16% of vocational vehicles are single-unit freight
delivery vans and trucks primarily used for local and regional freight deliveries (return-to-base) and 14%
are vans and single unit trucks used in the delivery of various local services – including by electric and
gas utility companies, telecom companies, and local contractors (plumbers, electrician, landscapers, etc.).
The last category in Figure 2, labeled “other” includes a diverse mix of vocational vehicles, none of which
individually make up more than 0.5% of the fleet. These vehicle types include fire trucks and other
emergency vehicles, motor homes, and mining and forestry trucks. Most of the trucks in this category,
however, are trucks that could not be identified as belonging in one of the other market segments due to
a lack of data – because they were registered to individuals rather than companies (and therefore have no
registration vocation), or because they were registered by companies which could not be easily
categorized by IHS Markit (see the Appendix).
As shown in Figure 3, most of the market segments used to frame this analysis map directly to a single
combination of EPA engine and vehicle regulatory categories – i.e., Transit Bus is HHD/Vocational
Vehicle/Urban Duty Cycle, and Delivery Van is LHD/Vocational Vehicle/Urban Duty Cycle. However,
multiple market segments may map to the same combination of EPA regulatory categories – for example
Delivery Van, Shuttle Bus and Service Van all map to LHD/Vocational Vehicle/Urban Duty Cycle.
See Figure 4 for a summary of the in-use M/HDV fleet by weight class and fuel type
7
. Today, less than
one percent of the M/HDV fleet are hybrid-electric or battery-electric vehicles and less than 2% are
alternative fuel vehicles (natural gas, propane, other). Over 95% of the largest Class 7 and Class 8 trucks
have diesel engines. A much larger percentage of smaller vehicles have gasoline engines, especially
Class 2B and Class 4 trucks – over 50% of these vehicles have gasoline engines, with most of the rest
diesel.
6
As discussed more fully in Appendix A the estimate of regional versus long-haul tractor trailers is based on
characteristics of vehicles in the registered in-use fleet, including engine displacement, number of driven wheels,
and cab style.
7
Data for Class 3 – 8 in this his figure is based on IHS Markit registration data; the fuel type distribution for Class
2b trucks is based on EPA’s MOVES3 model.
11
Source: IHS Markit
See Figure 5 for a summary of the in-use M/HDV fleet by manufacturer; as shown, 12 companies account
for 90% of the fleet. The remaining 10% of the fleet (“Other” in Figure 5) was primarily produced by
small specialty manufacturers, including those that exclusively make transit buses, fire trucks, and motor
homes.
The twelve primary manufacturers of M/HDV trucks can be divided into three groups – those that
primarily make smaller vehicles (Class 3 – 6), those that almost exclusively make the largest Class 8
trucks, and those that have significant market share across the entire size range. Manufacturing of the
smallest vehicles is dominated by the “big 3” US car companies – Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler
(Dodge)
8
. There are only two companies that have significant market share from Class 4 through Class
8 – International and Freightliner. The companies that primarily produce the largest Class 8 trucks –
most of which are combination truck tractors and construction trucks – include PACCAR (which owns
Kenworth, and Peterbilt), Volvo (Volvo also owns Mack), and Freightliner (which owns Sterling Truck
and Western Star). Note that the manufacturers shown in Figure 5 produce their own engines, but typically
also offer engines from Cummins in many of their models. Cummins is the only large fully independent
engine manufacturer in North America (it produces only engines and not full vehicles)
9
; over the past
three years Cummins has had a 25 percent market share of engines in new Class 3 -8 vehicles, with engine
sales across all weight classes
10
.
For new vehicles registered in the last three years (2018 – 2020) manufacturer market shares are very
similar to those shown in Figure 5 for the full in-use fleet, with the exception that for smaller vehicles
8
Though not included in Figure 3, these companies also dominate manufacturing of Class 2b trucks, which are
primarily heavy-duty pickups and vans, as well as a small number of large SUVs.
9
Detroit Diesel is also an independent engine manufacturer but is a subsidiary of Freightliner.
10
IHS Markit, new Class 3 – 8 vehicle registrations 2018 – 2020.
Figure 4
U.S. In-use Medium- & Heavy-Duty Fleet by Fuel Type
12
(Class 3 - 7) Mercedes and Hino each have about 1.5% market share of recent truck sales, and Sterling
Trucks has less than 1% market share of recent Class 8 truck sales. [4]
Source: IHS Markit
13
M/HDV In-Use Fleet: Environmental Impact
EPA estimates that in 2020 the M/HDV fleet consumed 55.3 billion gallons of fuel and emitted 561
million metric tons (mill MT) of greenhouse gases (GHG), 1.5 million MT of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and
38,000 MT of particulate matter (PM)
11
[2]. Almost 60% of NOx and PM exhaust emissions from the
M/HDV fleet were in urban areas. NOx and PM emissions from the M/HD fleet are currently responsible
for up to 4,550 premature deaths, 4,290 hospital visits, and 2.7 million incidents of exacerbated
respiratory conditions and lost or restricted workdays annually. The monetized cost of these public health
impacts from the M/HD fleet are estimated to exceed $53 billion annually
12
.[5]
In their 2021 Annual Energy Outlook the Energy Information Administration estimates that national
M/HD VMT will grow by 29 percent through 2050
13
, a compound annual average growth rate of 0.75
percent [6]. Projected regional growth rates vary, with higher projected growth in the Southeast and
Mountain West than in most other parts of the country, mirroring projected regional population growth.
Based on EIA VMT growth projections, and current EPA new engine fuel economy and emission
standards, MJB&A estimates that annual M/HDV fuel use and GHG emissions will fall by 18 percent
through 2050 as the fleet turns over to new, more efficient vehicles [7]. Through 2045 annual fleet NOx
and PM exhaust emissions are projected to fall by 43 percent and 72 percent respectively, as the fleet
turns over to new vehicles with engines that meet more stringent emission standards. After 2045 annual
fleet NOx and PM emissions are projected to start rising again due to continued VMT growth.
See Figure 6 for a summary of the estimated relative environmental impact of the different M/HDV
market segments in 2020, as a percentage of total M/HD fleet impact. For each segment Figure 6 includes
the estimated percentage of total in-use M/HD vehicles included in the segment, the percentage of total
M/HD fleet miles (VMT) driven by these vehicles, and the percentage of M/HD fleet total GHG, urban
NOx, and urban PM
14
produced by the segment. These estimates were developed by mapping MOVES3
data, delineated by vehicle type and regulatory category, to the vehicle types in each segment. See the
appendix for a full discussion of how this mapping was conducted.
As shown, almost 50% of GHGs from the entire M/HDV fleet are emitted by combination truck tractors
used in long-haul service. This market segment also accounts for over 40% of M/HDV tailpipe NOx
and PM emitted in urban areas. Regional haul tractors account for another 12% of GHGs and a similar
percentage of urban tailpipe NOx and PM emissions. From both a climate and air quality perspective
the third most important market segment is heavy duty pickups and vans, which contribute 16% of GHGs,
17% of tailpipe NOx emissions, and 23% of tailpipe PM emissions from the M/HD fleet. These three
market segments together account for greater than three quarters of the climate and air quality impact of
the M/HDV fleet.
As a group Class 3 – 8 vocational trucks account for 27 percent of fleet VMT, 25 percent of fleet GHGs,
23 percent of urban tailpipe NOx and 26 percent of urban tailpipe PM. Within the vocational vehicle
11
This is estimated direct exhaust emissions of PM with mean aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5 microns
(PM
2.5
). It does not include PM emissions from brake and tire wear, or secondary PM emissions formed in the
atmosphere from exhaust gases such as NOx.
12
This is based on EPA’s Co-Benefits and Risk Assessment (COBRA) screening tool. Values are national
estimates of health impacts due to the contribution of M/HD vehicle exhaust to ambient PM concentrations.
Hospital visits includes hospital admissions and emergency room visits.
13
EIA’s AEO 2021 includes the effects and projected recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic and includes
slower near-term M/HD VMT growth than had been projected by EIA in recent years.
14
Direct exhaust PM, not including secondary PM or PM from brake and tire wear.
14
category approximately 17 percent of urban air quality impact (tailpipe NOx and PM) comes from buses
of different types, 17% comes from construction trucks, 17% comes from single-unit freight trucks
primarily used for local and regional freight deliveries (return-to-base) and 9% comes from vans and
single unit trucks used in the delivery of various local services.
Source: IHS Markit, EPA MOVES3, M.J. Bradley & Associates
For most market segments climate and air quality impact is generally proportional to the miles traveled
by vehicles in the segment (VMT). There are a few segments however, with air quality impact higher
than their proportion of fleet VMT - these segments include both regional and long-haul tractors; transit,
school, and shuttle buses; refuse trucks, the largest (Class 8) freight hauling box trucks, and dump trucks.
It is also worth noting that a long-term trend in the M/HD fleet is the increasing importance of smaller
Class 3 vehicles, most of which are pickup trucks, or are vans and small box trucks used for local services
and deliveries. In 1990 only 7 percent of new M/HD truck sales were Class 3, but by 2000 this had risen
to 20 percent, and since 2010 it has averaged 40 percent; see Appendix B [8]. In 2020 384,000 new Class
Figure 6
U.S. In-use Medium- & Heavy-duty Fleet Environmental Impact by Market Segment
Class 2B 39.2% 22.7% 11.7% 14.6% 18.8%
Class 3 10.2% 6.0% 4.0% 2.8% 4.0%
Regional Haul Tractor Class 7 - 8 4.8% 9.0% 11.9% 12.7% 10.6%
Long Haul Tractor Class 8 9.0% 35.8% 47.8% 46.5% 41.0%
Transit Bus Class 8 0.3% 0.6% 0.7% 0.9% 0.5%
School Bus Class 7 2.2% 1.2% 1.1% 1.3% 1.9%
Shuttle Bus Class 3-5 0.7% 1.0% 1.3% 1.6% 1.9%
Delivery Van Class 3-5 2.2% 1.4% 1.0% 0.7% 1.1%
Delivery Truck Class 6-7 1.8% 2.8% 2.7% 2.2% 2.7%
Service Van Class 3-5 3.5% 2.3% 1.7% 1.2% 1.8%
Service Truck Class 6-7 1.3% 0.8% 0.8% 0.7% 0.8%
Refuse Hauler Class 8 0.4% 0.4% 0.6% 1.0% 1.4%
Box Truck (freight) Class 3-5 0.7% 0.5% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2%
Box Truck (freight) Class 6-7 0.8% 0.6% 0.5% 0.4% 0.5%
Box Truck (freight) Class 8 0.7% 1.8% 1.9% 2.2% 1.7%
Stake Truck (construction) Class 3-5 1.7% 1.0% 0.7% 0.5% 0.8%
Stake Truck (construction) Class 6-7 0.8% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.5%
Dump Truck Class 8 1.1% 2.3% 2.6% 3.4% 2.8%
OTHER Class 3 - 8 18.5% 9.5% 8.1% 6.6% 7.2%
100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Heavy Duty Pickup & Van
% of GHG
% Urban
NOx
% Urban
PM
SEGMENT IMPACT
% of
VMT
% of
Fleet
MARKET SEGMENT
Weight
Class
15
3 vehicles were registered, an increase of 42 percent compared to the previous year. By comparison, in
2020 registrations of new Class 4 – 8 trucks were down 19 percent compared to 2019, likely due to the
effects of the COVID 19 pandemic [4].
See Figure 7 for a summary of relative market segment impact for Vocational trucks (the market
segments other than Heavy-duty Pickup and Van, and tractors).
Among the Vocational truck market segments, the most impactful are dump trucks, Class 8 box trucks,
Class 6-7 delivery trucks, Class 3 -5 service vans, and school and shuttle buses.
Note that the “other” category at the bottom of Figure 7 includes a wide range of vehicles. As
discussed above, some vehicles in this segment are known specialty vehicles with very low total
numbers in the fleet (i.e. ambulances, forestry trucks) but the majority of vehicles in this segment could
not be fully characterized by type and usage due to a lack of data
15
; it is likely that a significant
percentage of these vehicles actually belong in one of the other market segments.
The analysis summarized in Figure 6 is based on the current 2020 in-use fleet. As described above,
EPA projects that total annual GHG, NOx, and PM emissions from the M/HD fleet (Class 2B-8) will
fall by 2030 due to turnover of the in-use fleet to new, cleaner vehicles. However, estimated reductions
15
This is because they were registered by individuals or by companies that could not be characterized by business
type. See the Appendix for a full discussion of the data and methods used to apportion vehicles to market
segments.
Transit Bus Class 8 0.9% 2.1% 2.9% 3.8% 1.8%
School Bus Class 7 5.9% 4.4% 4.6% 5.6% 7.5%
Shuttle Bus Class 3-5 1.8% 3.8% 5.3% 6.9% 7.5%
Delivery Van Class 3-5 6.0% 5.2% 4.2% 3.2% 4.2%
Delivery Truck Class 6-7 4.8% 10.5% 11.0% 9.6% 10.6%
Service Van Class 3-5 9.7% 8.5% 6.8% 5.1% 6.8%
Service Truck Class 6-7 3.5% 3.1% 3.2% 2.8% 3.1%
Refuse Hauler Class 8 1.2% 1.6% 2.3% 4.4% 5.4%
Box Truck Class 3-5 1.9% 1.7% 1.3% 0.7% 0.9%
Box Truck Class 6-7 2.1% 2.3% 2.2% 1.7% 1.9%
Box Truck Class 8 1.8% 6.7% 7.6% 9.5% 6.5%
Stake Truck Class 3-5 4.7% 3.8% 3.0% 2.3% 3.0%
Stake Truck Class 6-7 2.3% 1.8% 1.9% 1.7% 1.9%
Dump Truck Class 8 3.0% 8.7% 10.6% 14.4% 10.9%
OTHER Class 3 - 8 50.4% 35.8% 33.1% 28.3% 28.1%
RELATIVE SEGMENT IMPACT
% of Fleet
% of
VMT
% of
GHG
% Urban
NOx
% Urban
PM
MARKET
SEGMENT
Weight Class
Figure 7
Market Segment Impacts – not Including Tractors and Heavy-Duty Pickups and Vans
16
in average emissions (g/mi) are generally consistent across different vehicle types, and the relative
environmental impact of the different market segments is expected to remain consistent with the values
in Figure 6, with only minor shifts based on changes in the fleet vehicle mix (see Appendix B). For
example, if the trend of increasing Class 3 vehicle sales continues this would slightly increase the
relative impact of market segments such as Heavy-duty Pickup and Van, Delivery Van and Service
Van.
M/HDV ZEV Market Readiness
In the last two years there has been significant activity in the M/HD ZEV market, with a number of fleets
making commitments to electrification, and vehicle manufacturers introducing prototype vehicles and
pilot fleets, and announcing commercial launch dates [9]. Volvo and Freightliner are operating ZEV
demonstration fleets across the country and have both begun taking commercial orders for their e-models.
Kenworth has developed a prototype Class 6 electric truck and plans to produce up to 100 of them in
2021.
Both Navistar (NEXT) and General Motors (Bright Drop) have launched new business units to focus on
electric mobility solutions, including vehicles, software, and services. Navistar, Volvo, and Freightliner
have all announced major investments to build or upgrade U.S. factories to produce zero emitting
vehicles. Cummins will invest more than $500 million into its Electrified Power technology, and, by
2050, has committed to powering its products using carbon neutral technologies that address air quality.
Ford will soon begin taking pre-orders for an electric version of their Transit commercial van, to be
introduced in Model Year 2022; the electric version of Ford’s F150 pickup – the bestselling vehicle in
the U.S. – will also launch in Model Year 2022
16
.
In addition to these major market players there are several smaller players and start-ups already selling
M/HD ZEVs into the market or planning to launch vehicles in the next three years. These include Lion
Electric, Workhorse, Tesla, Nikola, Rivian, and UK-based Arrival. Roush CleanTech also recently
announced a collaboration with electric bus maker Proterra and Penske Truck Leasing to develop a next
generation all-electric commercial truck build on the Ford F-650 chassis.
Fleets that have already made significant commitments to electrification include Amazon (100,000
electric delivery vans ordered from Rivian), UPS (950 electric trucks ordered from Workhorse and 10,000
electric vans from Arrival), Pride Group (6,400 electric vehicles ordered from Workhorse, Tesla, and
Lion), FedEx (500 electric delivery trucks ordered from Bright Drop), Montgomery Maryland Public
Schools (326 electric school buses from Thomas Built), and PepsiCo (100 electric semi-trucks ordered
from Tesla).
In addition, there are over 2,000 electric transit buses in-service or on order at over 160 U.S. transit
agencies in 45 different states. Agencies that have already made major commitments to electric buses
include Los Angeles Metro and Los Angeles Department of Transportation (369 electric buses), and the
Antelope Valley and Foothill transit systems in California (80+ buses each). Many other private and
public fleets have made public commitments to electrify their entire fleets by 2030 but have yet to order
a significant number of vehicles; see Appendix B [9].
For this analysis MJB&A evaluated the current state of electrification for each M/HDV market segment,
to assess prospects for near-term (through 2025) and medium-term (through 2030) uptake of battery-
1616
Neither the Ford e-Transit or F150 Lightning electric vehicles are expected to initially be available with
GVWR above 8,500 pounds; as such they are “light-duty” vehicles but are prevalent in many commercial fleets.
17
electric vehicles within the segment. This analysis focused on prospects for electric vehicle penetration,
as a proxy for uptake of all zero-emitting technologies, because all scenarios for avoidance of detrimental
future climate warming point to the need for significant pollution reductions from the transportation
system, coupled with further decarbonization of the power sector. In addition, as described above,
medium- and heavy-duty vehicles are a significant source of health harming air pollution, which ZEVs
would likewise help to eliminate.
Each market segment was evaluated based on four relevant factors that will significantly impact truck
owner decisions about whether to purchase an electric vehicle:
• Charging - infrastructure requirements for vehicle charging, including required charging
capacity (kW/vehicle) and location (at vehicle home base or shared public charging)
• Technical Feasibility - the ability of current and future EV models to meet operating
requirements of the segment, primarily based on range per charge compared to typical daily
mileage accumulation,
• Commercial EV Market – current and announced availability of electric models from major
manufacturers in the short (through 2025) and medium (through 2030) term, and
• EV Business Case - prospects for lifetime cost parity with current diesel and gasoline vehicles
in the short (through 2025) and medium (through 2030) term. Potential cost parity was evaluated
based on incremental EV purchase cost – compared to a diesel or gasoline vehicle – compared
to life-time projected discounted fuel cost savings.
See the appendix for a full discussion of the methodology and data sources used to evaluate each of these
metrics for each M/HDV market segment. The results of the analysis are discussed below.
Charging
Charging needs in each market segment were evaluated based on the likely/feasible location of charging
for most vehicles in the segment, and the typical charging capacity required (kW/vehicle). Charging
location is assessed as “Home Base” or “Public”. Home Base charging means that a significant majority
of vehicles in the segment are primarily used during day light hours and return to the same location every
afternoon/evening, allowing for overnight charging at the home base. Public charging means that a
significant percentage of vehicles in the segment are used for long-haul freight operations and do not
routinely return to the same location for overnight parking. These vehicles will need to have access to a
shared (Public) network of chargers.
Required charging capacity for vehicles in each segment was estimated based on typical daily energy use
(kWh/day) and available charging time (hours); estimated daily energy use is based on typical daily usage
patterns (miles driven) and the average energy use (kWh/mi) of vehicles in the segment.
For some market segments required charging capacity is low enough (<19 kW/vehicle) that many
vehicles in the segment can use relatively inexpensive Home Base Level 2 chargers, similar to “home
18
chargers” used with many light-duty EVs
17
. Other market segments will require more expensive Level
3 chargers for home-base charging due to higher typical daily energy needs
18
.
See Figure 8 for a summary of estimated charging needs of vehicles in each market segment; details of
how these charging needs were determined is in the Appendix.
Home Base, Level 2
Home Base, Level 3
Public
• Heavy-duty Pickup & Van
• School Bus
• Delivery Van
• Service Van
• Service Truck
• Box Truck (Class 3 – 5)
• Stake Truck (Class 3 – 5)
• Stake Truck (Class 6 – 7)
• Heavy-duty Pickup
• Regional Haul Tractor
• Transit Bus
• Shuttle Bus
• Delivery Truck
• Refuse Hauler
• Box Truck (Class 6 – 7)
• Box Truck (Class 8)
• Dump Truck
• Long Haul Tractor
• Regional Haul Tractor
• Box Truck (Class 6 – 7)
• Box Truck (Class 8)
As shown in Figure 5, the vehicles in fifteen of the market segments – which include more than 60% of
all vehicles in the M/HDV fleet - will generally be able to use Home Base charging. Of these vehicles
that can use home base charging, for more than 80% of them their charging requirements can likely be
met by an inexpensive Level 2 charger. For these vehicles, charging is not a significant barrier to EV
adoption, either in terms of cost or practicality. Note that the charging needs of many Heavy-duty Pickups
can be met using a Level 2 charger, but for those that regularly tow trailers a Level 3 charger might be
required due to higher daily energy demand.
There is only one market segment – Long Haul Tractor – for which virtually all vehicles will require
access to a public charging network. There are three other market segments – Regional Haul Tractors
and Class 6-7 and Class 8 Box Trucks – for which a large number of vehicles (but not the majority) will
likely require access to a public charging network on a regular basis if not every day (these market
segments are therefore shown in Figure 8 as requiring both Home Base, Level 3 and Public charging).
For these market segments charging requirements are a greater near-term barrier to EV adoption than for
the other segments that can primarily use home base charging
19
. This is primarily because charger
17
Level 2 chargers have 240-volt input voltage and provide alternating current (AC) output to the vehicle; these
chargers typically have a maximum charge rate of 19 kW or less.
18
Level 3 chargers require 480-volt input voltage and deliver direct current (DC) output to the vehicle.
Level 3 chargers can be designed with maximum charge rate between 25 kW and 600 kW.
19
Other zero-emitting technologies – such as hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles – will also require development
of new public fueling infrastructure to support adoption in these market segments.
Figure 8
Charging Needs by Market Segment
19
siting/availability is outside of the span of control of any individual company or fleet. To keep charging
time low (<2 hr/day/vehicle) public chargers will need to have high charge rates (>500 kW) and will
therefore be expensive. However, they will be a shared resource with one charger able to support 12 –
20 vehicles in the medium and long term, so average charging capacity (kW/vehicle) will be similar to
that required for home base charging of a similar vehicle
20
.
Technical Feasibility
The near-term technical feasibility of electric vehicles in each market segment was evaluated by
comparing the estimated range per charge (miles) of currently available vehicles to average daily usage
(accumulated miles) of vehicles in the segment; see Figure 9 for a summary of this analysis, and Appendix
A for a more detailed discussion of how the analysis was conducted
21
.
Range > Average Daily
Mileage
60% <Range <100%
of Average Daily Mileage
Range < 60%
of Average Daily Mileage
• Heavy-duty Pickup and Van
• Transit Bus
• School Bus
• Delivery Van
• Service Van
• Service Truck
• Refuse Hauler
• Box Truck (Class 3 - 5)
• Box Truck (Class 6 – 7)
• Stake Truck (Class 3– 5)
• Stake Truck (Class 6 – 7)
• Regional Haul Tractor
• Delivery Truck (Class 6 – 7)
• Dump Truck
• Long Haul Tractor
• Shuttle Bus
• Box Truck (Class 8)
As shown, there are 11 market segments, representing 63% of the fleet, for which current commercially
available battery electric models have large enough batteries to power an average day’s driving for
vehicles in the segment; in most cases the range is sufficient to go at least 50% further than the average.
For these market segments, currently available EV models could meet operational needs for the majority
of in-use vehicles in the segment.
20
In the short term when the percentage of in-use vehicles that are electric is low more chargers will likely be
required in order to achieve necessary geographic network coverage.
21
Hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles do not have the same limitations of on-board energy storage as battery
electric vehicles so “range between fueling events” is generally not a significant barrier to their adoption for any
market segments.
Figure 9
EV Usability by Market Segment
20
Current EV models available for another three market segments, representing an additional 8% of the
fleet, have large enough batteries to cover at least 60% of average daily driving for vehicles in the
segment. For these market segments there will be some individual vehicles for which current EVs can
meet fleet operational needs, while for other vehicles they cannot.
There are only three market segments for which range limits of current commercially available EVs pose
a significant operational challenge – however two of these segments (Long Haul Tractor and Class 8 Box
Truck) also require public charging, which could alleviate some or all the range constraints.
The evaluation summarized in Figure 9 indicates that currently available electric vehicles could replace
diesel and gasoline vehicles for 40 – 60% of the M/HDV fleet while meeting all operational needs.
22
It is
important to note that this estimate is based on current commercially available EVs. Projected
improvements in battery energy density over the next 5 – 7 years should increase vehicle range and
increase the total number of vehicles in the fleet for which EVs can replace diesel and gasoline vehicles
while meeting all operational requirements.
Commercial EV Market
The maturity of the commercial EV Market in each market segment was evaluated based on the number
of electrified models currently available for purchase, and those projected to be available in the next five
years based on announcements already made by manufacturers [10]. Also important is whether the major
full line manufacturers that currently dominate M/HD truck sales (see Figure 5) offer EV models, or
whether they are only offered by small start-up or specialty manufacturers (e.g., ZEV only manufacturers
or retrofitters).
The only market segments that are fully mature in 2020 with respect to EVs are the Transit Bus and
School Bus markets. For both of these vehicle types, EV models are already fully commercially available
from more than one manufacturer that has significant market share in the segment. In the case of Transit
buses every bus manufacturer that sells diesel buses in North America also offers an electric version; in
addition, there are two electric-only manufacturers that have already made a large number of sales.
For other market segments current (2021) commercial EV models are limited and generally produced
only by small start-up manufacturers. However, there is growing and accelerating interest from the 12
major OEMs shown in Figure 5 which account for 90% of the current in-use fleet. Most of these
manufacturers have prototype EV models under development or have in-use pilot or demonstration fleets
under test. Several have announced they will begin limited production or full commercial introduction
of one or more electric models in 2021 or 2022 [11]. The announced model introductions from major
OEMs include vehicles across the M/HD spectrum, from Class 3 vans to Class 6 box and work trucks, to
Class 8 tractors. There are also a number of well-funded start-up companies entering the market
specifically to produce electric trucks – primarily for short- and long-haul freight deliveries.
Several major manufacturers have recently announced plans to introduce light-duty (<8,500 lb GVWR)
electric delivery vans, and two major OEMs and four start-up companies have announced the launch of
light-duty electric pickups in the next three years. No companies have yet announced any plans for
electrification of heavy-duty vehicles in this segment (Class 2b-3), though the announcements from
manufacturers like Ford and Rivian in the light duty truck space may pave the way for manufacturing
opportunities in the heavier duty truck space in the next few years.
22
Hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles could potentially meet the operational needs of virtually all M/HD vehicles
if supported by depot-based and public hydrogen fueling infrastructure.
21
Figure 10 summarizes the number of companies with at least one EV model in either production (i.e.
currently available for sale in 2021), pre-production (i.e., vehicles with an announced
production/availability date from 2022 - 2025), or concept (i.e., prototypes and/or pilot fleets with no
announced commercial launch date)
23
. In table 10, Company Type “Major OEM” refers to established
players in the U.S. with significant market share of diesel and gasoline vehicles; “EV Manufacturer”
refers to established and start-up companies making only purpose-built EV; and “EV Retrofit” refers to
manufacturers that purchase incomplete vehicles from major OEMs and up-fit them to EV.
There are currently 30 companies with at least one EV model for sale commercially. An additional nine
companies have announced they will begin production of EV models between 2022 and 2025, including
5 of the 12 OEMs that currently hold 90% of the M/HD market share (Figure 5). Based on existing
manufacturer announcements there will be multiple companies selling EV in virtually all MHD market
segments by 2025, including 58% of the major OEMs.
23
There are also a small number of hydrogen fuel cell vehicle models in-service, under test, and in development
by several manufacturers.
22
Vehicle
Type
Regulatory Category
(Vehicle, Engine)
Company
Type*
Number of Companies with at least one
ZEV Model
Production
Pre-
production
Concept
Transit
Bus
Vocational Urban,
Heavy Heavy-Duty
Engine
Major OEM
4
EV
Manufacturer
4
2
EV Retrofit
3
School Bus
Vocational Urban,
Medium Heavy-Duty
Engine
Major OEM
2
EV
Manufacturer
2
EV Retrofit
2
Coach Bus
Vocational Urban,
Heavy Heavy-Duty
Engine
Major OEM
EV
Manufacturer
3
EV Retrofit
1
Shuttle
Bus
Vocational Urban,
Light Heavy-Duty Engine
Major OEM
5
EV
Manufacturer
2
EV Retrofit
6
Class 2b-3
Heavy Duty Pick-up and
Van/ Vocational Trucks,
Light Heavy-Duty Engine
Major OEM
3
EV
Manufacturer
11
EV Retrofit
4
Class 4
Vocational Trucks,
Light Heavy-Duty Engine
Major OEM
1
EV
Manufacturer
2
4
EV Retrofit
6
Class 5-6
Vocational Trucks,
Light Heavy-Duty
/Medium Heavy-Duty
Engines
Major OEM
3
EV
Manufacturer
7
EV Retrofit
7
Class 7-8
Single
Unit
Combination Trucks,
Medium Heavy Duty
Engine
Major OEM
6
EV
Manufacturer
7
2
EV Retrofit
1
Class 7-8
Tractor
Combination Trucks,
Medium Heavy Duty/
Heavy Heavy-Duty
Engine
Major OEM
9
EV
Manufacturer
3
2
EV Retrofit
Terminal
Tractor
Combination Trucks,
Medium Heavy Duty/
Heavy Heavy-Duty
Engine
Major OEM
EV Only
5
EV Retrofit
Figure 10
Announced and Available M/HD Electric Vehicles
23
EV Business Case
While electric M/HD vehicles are currently more expensive than their diesel counterparts, several studies
have indicated that costs are anticipated to fall dramatically within the next 10 years as manufacturers
introduce more models, and as increased vehicle volumes enable manufacturers to move down the
learning curve in electric vehicle production.
One reason for expected M/HD EV cost reductions are projected continuing reductions in the cost of
batteries, which are a significant contributor to the current increased cost of M/HD EVs compared to
diesel and gasoline vehicles. Light-duty EV battery costs have fallen from over $1,100/kWh in 2010 to
$156/kWh in 2019 [12]. Many analysts are projecting costs will continue to fall, to as low as $61/kWh in
2030; several major car companies have endorsed these estimates [11].
While average battery costs for M/HD EVs have also fallen in the last 10 years they currently remain
higher than costs for light-duty EVs, at approximately $375/kWh [12]; this implies that there is currently
about a 5-year lag between cost reductions for LD EV and M/HD EV batteries. Even if this lag continues,
M/HD EV battery costs should still fall below $90/kWh by 2030 (76% reduction from today). It is likely
that increased production volumes will cause this cost gap to close such that M/HD EV battery costs
could fall below $70/kWh by 2030 (81% reduction). As noted above in Figure 5, the manufacturers that
dominate Class 3 – 7 trucks sales also dominate US car and light truck sales and may therefore be well
positioned to apply to the M/HD segment cost reduction strategies developed for the much higher volume
light-duty segment.
A 2019 study conducted by ICF that evaluated costs of M/HD ZEVs in California estimated that between
2020 and 2030 the purchase cost of most M/HD EVs would fall by almost 50% [13]. ICF assumed that
in 2030 M/HD EV battery costs would average $157/kWh; as such, this study’s conclusions are likely
conservative, and M/HD EV purchase costs will likely fall even further over the next 10 years if the
current trend of LDV battery cost reductions is mirrored in the M/HDV market.
For this study MJB&A used the ICF M/HD EV cost estimates for different vehicle types but adjusted
them downward based on an assumed continued 5-year cost lag between LD EV and M/HD EV battery
costs ($132/kWh in 2025, $86/kWh in 2030). The resulting incremental EV purchase costs were then
compared to an estimate of life-time discounted fuel cost savings for M/HD EVs in each market segment
(compared to equivalent diesel vehicles), to identify when EVs in different market segments might reach
“cost-parity” with diesel vehicles over their lifetime.
24
See Figure 11 for a summary of the analysis. As shown, there are nine market segments – which
account for approximately 72% of the in-use fleet – in which EVs could reach life-time cost parity with
diesel and gasoline vehicles by 2025 based on discounted lifetime fuel savings and projected
incremental purchase costs. EVs in an additional three market segments (4% of the fleet) could reach
cost parity by 2030. Note that neither Transit Buses nor School Buses are shown in Figure 11 due to
significant uncertainty around the ICF future EV cost projections for these two vehicle types. ICF
2030 cost estimates – even when adjusted for lower battery costs – indicate that neither Transit nor
School buses will achieve life cycle cost parity with diesel vehicles by 2030. However, these cost
24
When evaluating the EV Business case this analysis used U.S. average fuel prices (diesel, electricity), as
projected by the Energy Information Administration [6]. Estimated annual fuel cost savings for an EV compared
to a diesel vehicle over the full vehicle life were discounted at a 7% discount rate and compared to the projected
incremental EV purchase cost. The vehicle life used for this calculation varied from 10 years for Class 2b-5
vehicles, to 14 years for Class 6-7 vehicles, and 18 years for Class 8-vehicles.
24
estimates indicate much higher cost reductions by 2030 for electric tractors and Class 8 single unit
trucks than for electric transit and school buses, despite having similar power and energy requirements.
The reason for the difference is not clear. If relative cost reductions for electric transit and school
buses match projected reductions for other Class 8 electric trucks, these market segments could also
achieve life-cycle cost parity with diesel buses by 2030.
Note also that this analysis does not assume any local, state, or federal EV purchase incentives nor does
it take into consideration the potential for more stringent NOx emission standards – currently under
consideration by EPA – to increase purchase costs for new diesel and gasoline vehicles, and thus reduce
net incremental purchase costs for M/HD EVs.
Given significant uncertainties as to future EV incremental purchase costs, the EV-ICE cost parity
projections in Figure 11 are a first order estimate; additional work to refine future EV cost estimates based
on recent and on-going market developments is warranted to refine this preliminary understanding of
how the M/HD EV business case will evolve in the short- and medium-term.
Policy Implications
There are a large number of medium- and heavy-duty applications that have favorable ratings for early
deployment of ZEVs in all four categories evaluated (Heavy-duty Pickup and Van, Refuse Hauler,
Delivery Van, and Service Van) or three of four categories (Transit Bus, School Bus, Service Truck
Delivery Truck, Dump Truck, Box Truck (Class 3-5), Stake Truck (Class 3-5) and Stake Truck (Class 6-
7)). Collectively, these segments represent 66 percent of the fleet and account for 28 percent of GHGs,
30 percent of urban NOx and 37 percent of urban PM emitted by the fleet. Eliminating tailpipe pollution
from these vehicles would deliver significant public health benefits – including up to 1,500 fewer
premature deaths, 1,400 fewer hospital visits, and 890,000 incidents of exacerbated respiratory conditions
Projected EV Life-Cycle Cost Parity with Diesel & Gasoline Vehicles
By 2025
By 2030
After 2030
• Heavy-duty Pickup and Van
• Regional Haul Tractor
• Long Haul Tractor
• Delivery Van
• Delivery Truck
• Service Van
• Refuse Hauler
• Box Truck (Class 8)
• Dump Truck
• Shuttle Bus
• Service Truck
• Box Truck (Class 3 - 7)
• Stake Truck (Class 3– 7)
Figure 11
Projected EV -ICE Cost Parity by Market Segment
25
and lost or restricted workdays annually
25
. Together these segments represent a large number of vehicles
which can also advance the technical and commercial development of all M/HDV market segments.
This analysis is based on the current landscape and does not consider future technological improvements
or policy interventions that might further enhance the near-term attractiveness of zero-emitting medium
and heavy-duty vehicles across all applications. For instance, policies could support the development of
high-volume commercial ZEV markets and improving the ZEV value proposition for fleet owners.
Specific policy interventions that could address both barriers include low interest loans or tax credits for
ZEV research and development and for development of U.S. manufacturing facilities. Direct ZEV
purchase subsidies for fleets could also significantly strengthen the near-term ZEV business case, which
would advance development of the commercial market by creating more demand from customers.
President Biden has put forward proposals along these lines as part of his American Jobs Plan
26
25
These values are based on the estimated public health impact of the current in-use M/HD fleet in 2020, using
exhaust emissions estimates from MOVES3 and EPA’s CO-Benefits Risk Assessment Health Impacts Screening
and Mapping Tool (COBRA). Annual public health impacts from the entire M/HD fleet, and from this segment of
the fleet, are projected to fall over time as the fleet turns over to newer vehicles with engines that meet more
stringent emission standards. However, electric vehicles have lower annual and life-time public health impact
than even the newest diesel and gasoline vehicles, even after accounting for emissions from generating the
electricity used to charge them.
26
See https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/05/18/fact-sheet-the-american-jobs-
plan-supercharges-the-future-of-transportation-and-manufacturing
26
Appendix A – Methodology & Data Sources
M/HDV In-Use Fleet: Vehicle Types & Uses
The number of M/HD vehicles in each market segment was estimated using vehicle registration data
collected by IHS Markit [1]. For each registered vehicle IHS uses data encoded in the vehicle
identification number (VIN) to identify vehicle attributes. The VIN-defined attributes used for this
analysis include Gross Vehicle Weight Class, Fuel Type, Vehicle Type, and Manufacturer. In addition,
IHS assigns a Registration Vocation based on the entity that registered the vehicle.
27
Certain VIN-defined vehicle types map directly to the market segments used here – for example PICKUP,
VAN CARGO, BUS SCHOOL, and TRACTOR TRUCK – because they are definitively descriptive of
the final vehicle configuration. Others are more ambiguous and provide little information about the
actual vehicle configuration and use – examples include CAB CHASSIS, STRAIGHT TRUCK, and
INCOMPETE (STRIP CHASSIS).
For this project, assignment of vehicles to each market segment is therefore based on a combination of
VIN-defined Vehicle Type and, if necessary, IHS-defined Registration Vocation and weight class. See
Figure A1, which shows how these attributes were mapped to market segments to estimate the number
of vehicles in each segment. Single unit trucks with indeterminate VIN-defined vehicle type were
assigned to the different market segments based on the type of company that registered them (Registration
Vocation) – as an indication of the vehicle configuration/use based on the work performed by the owning
company.
For example, there are many types of buses in the fleet, but only School Buses are definitively identified
by VIN-defined vehicle type. As shown in Figure A1 the other types of buses in the fleet (Transit, Coach,
Shuttle) were assigned to the bus market segments based on the registering company having Registration
Vocation “Bus Transportation”.
Similarly, Class 3 – 5 single-unit trucks with indeterminate VIN-defined vehicle type were assigned to
the Delivery Van market segment if the registering company had a registration vocation of
Wholesale/Retail, Beverage Processing and Distribution, or Food Processing and Distribution as these
types of companies typically use Class 3-5 vehicles to make local deliveries of the products they
manufacture and sell. In addition, 75% of the vehicles of this type that were registered by companies with
registration vocations characterized as General Freight delivery companies were also put into this market
segment. The remaining 25 percent of Class 3 – 5 vehicles registered by General Freight companies were
classified as small Box Trucks.
Note that Registration Vocation is based on the type of company that registered the vehicle, and is not
directly based on vehicle attributes, so the mapping shown in Figure A1 produced a first order estimate
of market segment population subject to some uncertainty. For example, not all trucks with Registration
Vocation “Sanitation/Refuse” are necessarily refuse-hauling trucks. Similarly, not all vehicles with
Registration Vocation “Wholesale/Retail” are necessarily box trucks used to deliver freight.
27
The IHS VIO database that includes Registration Vocation over-estimates the number of in-use vehicles in
Arizona and California, because these states have non-expiring registrations for some vehicles. MJB&A used IHS
estimated in-use vehicle totals from their statistical database for AZ and CA (which includes scrappage
assumptions) to adjust for this overcount when developing national total estimates presented here. At the national
level the VIO database overcount is approximately 4%.
27
Figure A1 M/HD Vehicle Attribute Mapping to Market Segments
PICKUP
SPORT UTILITY VEHICLE
STEP VAN
VAN CARGO
VAN PASSENGER
GLIDERS
TRACTOR TRUCK
Transit Bus BUS NON SCHOOL ALL
Class 8
2
School Bus BUS SCHOOL ALL Class 7 - 8
BUS NON SCHOOL ALL
CAB CHASSIS
CUTAWAY
INCOMPLETE (STRIP CHASSIS)
INCOMPLETE PICKUP
STRAIGHT TRUCK
UNKNOWN
CAB CHASSIS
CUTAWAY
INCOMPLETE (STRIP CHASSIS)
INCOMPLETE PICKUP
STRAIGHT TRUCK
UNKNOWN
SERVICES
UTILITY SERVICES
UTILITY/HAZARDOUS MATERIAL
GOVERNMENT/MISCELLANEOUS
LANDSCAPING/HORTICULTURE
MARKET SEGMENT
Heavy Duty Pickup &
Van
Class 2b
1
& 3
Class 7 - 8
Class 3 - 5
VIN-Defined Vehicle Type
IHS-Defined Registration Vocation
Weight Classes
BUS TRANSPORTATION
ALL
ALL
Delivery Van
Regional Haul Tractor
& Long Haul Tractor
Shuttle Bus
Delivery Truck
Same vehicle types as delivery
van
Same vehicle types as delivery
van
Same vehicle types as delivery
van
Service Van
Service Truck
WHOLESALE/RETAIL, BEVERAGE
PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION,
FOOD PROCESSING &
DISTRIBUTION, and 75% of General
Freight
5
Same registration vocations as
Delivery Van
Class 6 - 7
Class 3 - 5
Same registration vocations as
Service Van
Class 6 -7
Class 3 - 5
28
Figure A1 M/HD Vehicle Attribute Mapping to Market Segments
For Tractor Trucks, the estimated number of vehicles used in long-haul versus regional haul service is
based on supplemental data from IHS which included additional attributes for each registered tractor,
including engine displacement, axle/wheel configuration, and cab style. Using these attributes MJB&A
estimated the number of tractors equipped with day cabs as opposed to sleeper cabs. The estimated
number of regional haul tractors includes 100% of estimated day-cab equipped trucks and 5% of
estimated sleeper-cab equipped trucks. Individual tractors were assumed to have day cabs if:
• Engine displacement is less than 10 liters,
SANITATION/HAZ MATERIAL
SANITATION/REFUSE
CONSTRUCTION
ROAD/HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE
OTHER
All other
3
ALL
4
Class 3 - 8
1
IHS database does not include Class 2b; Class 2b estimate from MOVES model
2
Transit Bus estimate is 69% of total; remainder are estimated to be Coach buses
3
Includes MOTOR HOME and FIRE TRUCK
4
Includes vehicles in weight classes from above registration vocations not otherwise assigned, plus
all vehicles in registration vocations FORESTRY/LUMBER PRODUCTS, MINING/QUARRYING,
AGRICULTURE, MANUFACTURING, EMERGENCY VEHICLES, DEALER, INDIVIDUAL, MISCELLANEOUS, and
UNCLASSIFIED
5
The General Freight category includes registration vocations: GENERAL FREIGHT,
GENERAL FREIGHT/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, LEASE/FINANCE, LEASE/MANUFACTURER SPONSORED,
and LEASE/RENTAL
IHS-Defined Registration Vocation
Weight Classes
Same vehicle types as delivery
van
Class 3 - 5
Same registration vocation as small
stake trucks
Class 6 - 7
Same registration vocation as stake
trucks
Class 8
Same vehicle types as delivery
van
Refuse Hauler
MARKET SEGMENT
VIN-Defined Vehicle Type
Dump Truck
Stake Truck (large)
Stake Truck (small)
Box Truck (large)
Box Truck (medium)
Box Truck (small)
Same vehicle types as delivery
van
Same vehicle types as delivery
van
Same vehicle types as delivery
van
Same vehicle types as delivery
van
Same vehicle types as delivery
van
Class 8
VEHICLE TRANSPORTER, MOVING
AND STORAGE, PETROLEUM,
SPECIALIZED/HEAVY HAULING,
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS,
PETROLEUM/HAZARDOUS
MATERIAL, and 25% of General
Freight
5
Class 3-5
Class 6 - 7
Class 8
Same registration vocations as
other Box Trucks
Same registration vocations as
other Box Trucks
29
• Engine displacement is greater than 10 liters but there are only two driven wheels (4x2 and 6x2
configuration), or
• Engine displacement is greater than 10 liters, and there are more than two driven wheels, but cab
style is any of the following: Low Tilt Cab, High Tilt Cab, Cab Forward, Short Conventional
Cab, Medium Conventional Cab, or Half Cab.
Based on this analysis, 30% of in-use Tractor Trucks are estimated to be used for regional haul operations
and 70% for long-haul operations.
The IHS VIO database cannot be used to estimate the number of Class 2b trucks in the fleet, which are a
subset of VIN-defined Class 2 trucks
28
. To estimate the number of these vehicles, MJB&A used EPA’s
MOVES3 model [2]. The Class 2b estimate includes vehicles identified in MOVES as Source Type
equals “Light Commercial Truck” or “Passenger Truck”, and Registration Class equals “41-LHD2b3”.
Definitive data on the composition of the Class 2b fleet is unavailable but the limited data that is available
indicates that the majority of these vehicles are “heavy duty” pickups and vans, with a small percentage
large SUVs [14]
29
The IHS VIO database also cannot distinguish Transit Buses from other “BUS NON SCHOOL” vehicles
(VIN-defined) or based on registration vocation. The estimated number of vehicles in the Transit Bus
market segment is 69% of registered Class 8 vehicles with vehicle type BUS NON SCHOOL; the other
31% are estimated to be intercity coach buses. These relative percentages of transit and coach buses are
based on vehicle populations reported in the National Transit Database (transit bus) [15], and the ABA
Coach Census (coach bus) [16].
28
VIN-defined Class 2 includes vehicles with GVWR 6,000 – 10,000 lbs. Class 2b includes vehicles with GVWR
8,500 – 10,000 lbs.
29
Class 2B examples for model year 2017 include Chevy Silverado 2500HD; Ford F250, F350 and E350; Ford
Transit; GMC Sierra 2500, and GMC Yukon 2500. Typically, only a portion of total sales of these models would
be Class 2b, with other vehicles of the same model classified as Class 2 or Class 3 depending on actual vehicle
configuration.
30
M/HDV In-Use Fleet: Environmental Impact
To estimate the environmental impact of each market segment, MJB&A calculated total annual fuel use
by the segment (diesel equivalent gallons) using the estimated number of vehicles in the segment, average
fuel economy for vehicles in the segment (MPG), and average annual miles driven per vehicle (VMT).
See Figure A2 for the MPG and VMT assumptions used.
Figure A2 M/HD Vehicle MPG and VMT Assumptions by Market Segment
For each market segment average MPG and average VMT/vehicle was estimated using a number of
different sources, including EPA’s MOVES model, data collected by California Air Resources Board in
the context or their regulatory activities [17], and MJB&A engineering judgement based on project
experience. In general MPG and VMT assumptions from MOVES were used directly, for MOVES
vehicle types that could be directly mapped to the vehicles in each market segment (see below discussion
of MOVES vehicle segmentation and development of emission factors). For some market segments
MOVES MPG and/or VMT assumptions were adjusted to better reflect the vehicle type/use case of the
segment.
For example, MOVES VMT assumptions are averages for a wide range of vehicle configurations in the
same weight class range. For some market segments variations were made around this average to reflect
a greater percentage of vehicles in the segment used for long- or short-haul operations. The resulting
Class 2B
15.10 10,900 58%
Class 3 11.50 11,000 58%
Regional Haul Tractor Class 7 - 8 5.85 35,332 50%
Long Haul Tractor Class 8 5.83 75,000 42%
Transit Bus Class 8 6.19 30,947 65%
School Bus Class 7 8.16 10,219 58%
Shuttle Bus Class 3-5 6.06 29,144 62%
Delivery Van Class 3-5 10.50 12,000 60%
Delivery Truck Class 6-7 8.10 30,000 60%
Service Van Class 3-5 10.50 12,000 60%
Service Truck Class 6-7 8.10 12,000 60%
Refuse Hauler Class 8 5.72 17,847 58%
Box Truck (freight) Class 3-5 11.50 12,000 50%
Box Truck (freight) Class 6-7 8.70 15,000 45%
Box Truck (freight) Class 8 7.50 50,000 40%
Stake Truck (construction) Class 3-5 10.50 11,000 59%
Stake Truck (construction) Class 6-7 8.10 11,000 59%
Dump Truck Class 8 6.90 40,000 59%
OTHER Class 3 - 8 9.10 9,700 58%
VMT
Weight
Class
MARKET SEGMENT
Heavy Duty Pickup & Van
mi/yr/veh
% urban
AVG
MPG
31
total annual fleet VMT and fuel use, including for vehicles in the “other” (uncategorized) market segment,
match the 2020 MOVES national totals +/-1%.
MOVES was also used to develop NOx and PM emission factors (grams per gallon of fuel use, g/gal) for
each combination of Source Type and Regulatory Category in the model. This was done by dividing
MOVES’ estimate of total emissions (g) by MOVES’ estimate of total fuel use (gal) for each combination
of source type and regulatory category. These emission factors represent average emissions of each
group of vehicles in the current in-use fleet (calendar year 2020).
In MOVES “Source Type” represents the type of vehicle, and “Regulatory Category” represents the
vehicle’s size (Weight Class). Each vehicle (source) type includes a range of vehicle sizes (regulatory
category), including Light Heavy-Duty Class 2b-3, Light Heavy-Duty Class 4 – 5, Medium Heavy-Duty
Class 6-7, and Heavy Heavy-Duty Class 8. See Figure A3 for how MOVES vehicle types were mapped
to market segments, and the MOVES in-use average NOx and PM emission factors for each. Emission
factors were calculated separately for diesel and gasoline vehicles of each type. To calculate total NOx
and PM emissions attributed to each market segment total estimated fuel use (gallons) for the segment
was multiplied by a weighted average emission factor (g/gal), which was based on the percentage of the
vehicles in the segment that are diesel vs gasoline (IHS data). The percentage of emissions for each
market segment that is emitted in urban areas was also estimated based on the percentage of total VMT
projected by MOVES to be operated on roadway types “Urban Restricted” and “Urban Unrestricted” for
relevant vehicle types.
Figure A3 MOVES Emission Factors by Market Segment
IHS
Gas Diesel Gas Diesel
Class 2B
Pass Truck, Light Comm Truck 41 LHD2b3 23.48 34.35 0.38 1.62 55%
Class 3 Single Unit Short-haul Truck 41 LHD2b3 7.18 20.47 0.19 0.80 36%
Regional Haul Tractor Class 7 - 8 Combination Short-haul Truck 47 HHD8 27.79 0.60 0%
Long Haul Tractor Class 8 Combination Long-haul Truck 47 HHD8 30.28 0.69 0%
Transit Bus Class 8 Transit Bus 48 Urban Bus 25.41 0.35 0%
School Bus Class 7 School Bus 46 MHD67 26.55 1.00 0%
Shuttle Bus Class 3-5 Other Buses 42 LHD45 4.09 40.96 0.19 1.22 40%
Delivery Van Class 3-5 Single Unit Short-haul Truck 42 LHD45 7.74 21.53 0.27 0.83 38%
Delivery Truck Class 6-7 Single Unit Short-haul Truck 46 MHD67 6.62 20.45 0.13 0.65 10%
Service Van Class 3-5 Single Unit Short-haul Truck 42 LHD45 7.74 21.53 0.27 0.83 38%
Service Truck Class 6-7 Single Unit Short-haul Truck 46 MHD67 6.62 20.45 0.13 0.65 10%
Refuse Hauler Class 8 Refuse Truck 47 HHD8 40.57 1.41 0%
Box Truck Class 3-5 Single Unit Long-haul Truck 42 LHD45 3.81 16.57 0.15 0.57 38%
Box Truck Class 6-7 Single Unit Long-haul Truck 46 MHD67 5.06 18.17 0.06 0.57 10%
Box Truck Class 8 Single Unit Long-haul Truck 47 HHD8 26.88 0.52 0%
Stake Truck Class 3-5 Single Unit Short-haul Truck 42 LHD45 7.74 21.53 0.27 0.83 38%
Stake Truck Class 6-7 Single Unit Short-haul Truck 46 MHD67 6.62 20.45 0.13 0.65 10%
Dump Truck Class 8 Single Unit Short-haul Truck 47 HHD8 29.69 0.63 0%
OTHER Class 3 - 8 Single Unit Short-haul Truck 42, 46, 47 5.81 22.22 0.15 0.63 22%
% gas
MARKET SEGMENT
Weight
Class
Source Type
Regulatory
Category
Heavy Duty Pickup &
Van
NOx (g/gal)
PM (g/gal)
MOVES CY2020
32
M/HDV EV Market Readiness
To evaluate M/HD EV market readiness for each market segment, MJB&A developed estimates for the
following key evaluation factors for vehicles in each market segment: 1) daily vehicle use (range of hours,
miles, fuel), 2) battery size and range per charge (current commercial EV models), 3) incremental EV
purchase cost (compared to diesel vehicles - current and projected through 2030), 4) EV fuel cost savings
(compared to diesel vehicles), and 5) EV charging location and average demand. These estimates were
developed using the data sources and methodology described below.
To calculate the average daily usage (miles driven) for vehicles in each market segment MJB&A used
the average annual VMT shown in Figure A2 divided by 250 days per year, since most M/HD vehicles
are used commercially. High and low estimates of daily VMT for vehicles in each market segment were
taken from the California Air Resources Board Advanced Clean Truck Market Segment Analysis
spreadsheet (“ARB ACT Spreadsheet”) and previous project experience [17]; the Truck and Engine
Manufacturer Association battery electric route information from the ARB ACT Spreadsheet was used
to determine the “high” and “low” estimated daily miles traveled.
Figure A4 Vehicle Daily Use Analysis
For vehicles in each market segment average EV energy use (EV kWh/mile) was calculated based on
average diesel MPG for vehicles in the segment (Figure A2) assuming an EV chassis efficiency of 95
percent compared to diesel vehicles and average diesel engine efficiency of 35 percent
30
. Average, high,
and low daily mileage estimates were then multiplied by the average EV energy use (kWh/mile) to
30
EV Energy [kWh/mi] = (Diesel Energy Content [kWh/gal] x Engine Efficiency [%] x Chassis Efficiency [%]) ÷
MPG. Diesel Energy Content = 128, 450 btu/gal = 37.6 kWh/gal
AVG EV
low AVG high low high kWh/mi low AVG high
Class 2B
Class 3
Regional Haul Tractor Class 7 - 8 100 141.3 200 8 10 2.14 214 302 428
Long Haul Tractor Class 8 200 300 600 10 12 2.15 429 644 1,288
Transit Bus Class 8 100 123.8 300 8 15 2.02 202 250 607
School Bus Class 7 30 40.88 125 4 7 1.53 46 63 192
Shuttle Bus Class 3-5 70 116.6 150 6 12 2.06 145 241 310
Delivery Van Class 3-5 30 48 150 8 10 1.19 36 57 179
Delivery Truck Class 6-7 80 120 150 8 10 1.55 124 185 232
Service Van Class 3-5 30 48 75 8 10 1.19 36 57 89
Service Truck Class 6-7 30 48 75 8 10 1.55 46 74 116
Refuse Hauler Class 8 40 71 80 4 8 2.19 88 156 175
Box Truck (freight) Class 3-5 30 48 150 8 10 1.09 33 52 163
Box Truck (freight) Class 6-7 40 60 175 8 10 1.44 58 86 252
Box Truck (freight) Class 8 150 200 500 10 12 1.67 250 334 834
Stake Truck (construction) Class 3-5 30 44 100 8 10 1.19 36 52 119
Stake Truck (construction) Class 6-7 30 44 100 8 10 1.55 46 68 155
Dump Truck Class 8 100 160 250 8 10 1.81 181 290 454
Weight
Class
MARKET SEGMENT
Heavy Duty Pickup & Van
30
150
8
10
1.09
33
47
163
44
HOURS
EV KWh/day
MILES
TYPICAL DAILY USE
33
determine the range of typical daily energy use for EVs in each market segment (EV kWh/day); see
Figure A4.
To calculate the high and low range per charge (miles) for MY 2020 EVs in each market segment and to
determine the EV incremental purchase cost, MJB&A used the 2019 Medium- and Heavy-Duty
California Trucking Report produced by ICF (“ICF Truck Report”), previous project experience, and an
EDF Electric Truck and Bus Commercial Database (“EDF Truck Database”) [10] [13]. The ICF Report
was the primary source used to determine typical installed battery size by market segment. In situations
where the battery size data was not listed for a particular market segment, MJB&A used previous project
experience and the EDF Truck Database to estimate battery size. For vehicles in each market segment
MJB&A calculated the range per charge (miles) using estimated average EV daily energy use from Figure
A4 (kWh/day +/- 10%) and assuming that only 85 percent of installed battery capacity is usable.
For each market segment MJB&A calculated the EV incremental purchase cost by subtracting the
estimated purchase cost of a diesel truck from the cost of an electric truck (2020$), using 2020 and 2030
estimated purchase prices from the ICF Truck Report, adjusted for assumed lower future battery costs.
Average battery costs for EVs have fallen dramatically in the last 10 years, and they are projected to
continue to fall through at least 2030 [12]. However, at $375/kWh average battery costs for M/HD EVs
remain higher than costs for light-duty EVs ($132/kWh); current relative prices imply that there is
currently about a 5-year lag between cost reductions for LD EV and M/HD EV batteries. If this lag
continues, M/HD EV battery costs should fall below $90/kWh by 2030 (76% reduction from today); if
increased production volumes cause this cost gap to close M/HD EV battery costs could fall below
$70/kWh by 2030 (81% reduction). See figure A5.
Figure A5 Battery Cost Projections
Source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance; MJB&A
The 2019 ICF Truck Report assumed that in 2030 M/HD EV battery costs would average $157/kWh.
This study’s EV cost estimates are therefore likely conservative, and M/HD EV purchase costs will likely
34
fall even further over the next 10 years than ICF estimated if the current trend of LDV battery cost
reductions is mirrored in the M/HDV market.
For this study the ICF 2030 M/HD EV purchase cost estimates for different vehicle types were adjusted
downward based on the M/HD battery cost projections shown in Figure A5 ($86/kWh in 2030). Estimates
for 2025 EV purchase costs were also developed from the 2020 and 2030 estimates assuming that average
battery costs will be $132/kWh in that year. Finally, the ICF 2020 estimates for Class 2B and Class 3
EVs were also adjusted downward based on recently announced pricing for the model year 2022 Ford
F150 Lightning electric pickup truck and the Ford eTransit electric delivery van; the base model F150
Lighting targeted toward fleets has an announced MSRP of $40,000 - $49,000 depending on battery size.
This compares to an MSRP of $34,000 for the base gasoline model
31
[18]
The resulting estimated battery size, range per charge, and EV incremental purchase costs for EVs in each
market segment are summarized in Figure A6.
Figure A6 Estimated EV Range and Incremental Purchase Cost
Note that the estimated incremental EV purchase cost values shown in Figure A6 may still be conservative
(high) as there is significant uncertainty as to future EV costs in a very dynamic market. For example,
if the current 5-year lag in M/HDV battery costs (relative to LDV battery costs) disappears by 2030 as
the M/HD EV market develops, incremental EV purchase costs for most market segments could be $4,000
- $6,000 lower than shown in Figure A6, and up to $12,000 lower for long-haul tractors and transit buses
(the vehicles with the largest batteries). The estimated EV incremental purchase costs in Figure A6 also
do not account for potential future compliance costs for new diesel and gasoline engines to meet more
31
The F150 lighting base model is <8,500 lb GVWR so is not a Class 2B vehicle. While similar, Class 2B and
Class 3 heavy-duty pickups and vans would have higher energy needs than the base F150 lighting and would
therefore be expected to have higher incremental EV cost than this vehicle, as reflected in Figure A6.
kWh low high 2020 2025 2030
Class 2B
Class 3
Regional Haul Tractor Class 7 - 8 250 89 109 $187,000 $93,500 $49,250
Long Haul Tractor Class 8 500 178 218 $215,000 $50,000 -$16,500
Shuttle Bus Class 3-5 100 37 45 $150,000 $79,600 $28,900
Delivery Van Class 3-5 100 64 78 $40,000 $12,750 $5,200
Delivery Truck Class 6-7 150 74 91 $103,667 $43,693 $13,268
Service Van Class 3-5 150 96 118 $40,000 $6,050 $1,650
Service Truck Class 6-7 150 74 91 $103,667 $43,693 $13,268
Refuse Hauler Class 8 500 175 214 $202,500 $49,750 -$4,500
Box Truck (freight) Class 3-5 100 70 86 $50,000 $26,100 $21,900
Box Truck (freight) Class 6-7 150 80 97 $187,000 $106,939 $56,427
Box Truck (freight) Class 8 250 115 140 $215,000 $83,500 $1,250
Stake Truck (construction) Class 3-5 100 64 78 $50,000 $26,100 $21,900
Stake Truck (construction) Class 6-7 150 74 91 $187,000 $106,939 $56,427
Dump Truck Class 8 250 105 129 $215,000 $83,500 $1,250
ICF
Battery
Size
Range per Charge
MY2020 EV
miles
Heavy Duty Pickup & Van
100
70
86
$25,000
EV INCREMENTAL PURCHASE COST
(2020$)
$5,200
ICF Adjusted
$5,250
Weight
Class
MARKET SEGMENT
35
stringent NOx emission standards currently under consideration by EPA. More stringent NOx standards
will likely increase the cost of future diesel and gasoline vehicles, thus reducing incremental EV costs.
In addition, the 2025 and 2030 incremental cost estimates for School and Transit buses are not included
in Figure A6 due to significant concerns about the original ICF cost estimates for these vehicle types.
The original ICF estimates show significantly greater cost reductions for Class 8 single-unit and
combination trucks than for Transit and School buses between 2020 and 2030, despite similar electric
drive train and battery requirements among all these vehicle types. The reason for the difference is not
clear. If relative cost reductions for electric transit and school buses match projected reductions for other
Class 8 electric trucks, 2025 and 2030 incremental EV Transit and School bus costs will be significantly
lower than ICF’s estimates.
Annual fuel use for diesel trucks in each market segment (gallons/year), was calculated using the data in
Figure A2. Average EV energy use for trucks in each market segment (kWh/yr) was calculated using data
in Figure A2 (mi/yr) and Figure A4 (kWh/mi). To calculate annual fuel cost savings for EVs compared
to diesel vehicles, MJB&A used these estimates combined with U.S. average projected future energy
costs ($/gallon, $/kWh) from the Energy Information Administration [19]. Estimated annual fuel cost
savings over the vehicle life was discounted using a 5% real discount rate (7% nominal discount rate) to
calculate the Lifetime Discounted Fuel Cost Savings for EVs compared to diesel vehicles in each market
segment. For this calculation, vehicle lifetime was assumed to be 10 years for Class 2b – 5 trucks, 14
years for Class 6 – 7 trucks, and 18 years for Class 8 trucks.
Given the uncertainties as to future EV incremental purchase costs (discussed above), the projections
presented here of when M/HD EVs in each market segment might achieve life-cycle cost parity with ICE
vehicles are a first order estimate; additional work to refine future EV cost estimates based on recent and
on-going market developments is warranted to refine this preliminary understanding of how the M/HD
EV business case will evolve in the short- and medium-term.
MJB&A used previous project experience, and data from the ARB ACT Spreadsheet to determine EV
charging location (Private, Public) for vehicles in each market segment, and calculated “low” and “high”
average charging demand (kW/vehicle) by dividing EV daily energy use (kWh/day) by the number of
hours available for charging each day. For Public charging vehicles were assumed to charge for only 1
hour per day, with one charger for every 12 vehicles. For Private (depot-based) charging, available charge
time varies by market segment, based on the number of hours per day that vehicles are typically used.
For most market segments vehicles are assumed to be used for 8 – 10 hours per day; exceptions include
School Bus (4 – 7 hours), Transit Bus (8 – 15 hours), Refuse Hauler (4 – 8 hours), and Class 8 Box Truck
(10 – 12 hours). See Figure A7 for a summary of estimated annual energy use, discounted EV lifetime
fuel savings, and charging requirements for vehicles in each market segment.
36
Figure A7 Energy Use, EV Discounted Fuel Cost Savings, and EV Charging Requirements
Diesel EV Location
gal kWh low high
Class 2B
Class 3
Regional Haul Tractor Class 7 - 8 6,040 75,602 $120,794 MIXED 35.7 78.5
Long Haul Tractor Class 8 12,864 161,031 $257,289 PUBLIC 35.8 107.4
Transit Bus Class 8 5,000 62,581 $99,990 PRIVATE 16.9 121.3
School Bus Class 7 1,252 15,676 $20,281 PRIVATE 2.9 14.8
Shuttle Bus Class 3-5 4,806 60,162 $56,601 PRIVATE 10.3 38.7
Delivery Van Class 3-5 1,143 14,306 $13,459 PRIVATE 3.0 17.9
Delivery Truck Class 6-7 3,704 46,361 $59,978 PRIVATE 10.3 23.2
Service Van Class 3-5 1,143 14,306 $13,459 PRIVATE 3.0 8.9
Service Truck Class 6-7 1,481 18,544 $23,991 PRIVATE 3.9 11.6
Refuse Hauler Class 8 3,120 39,056 $62,403 PRIVATE 5.5 14.6
Box Truck (freight) Class 3-5 1,043 13,062 $12,289 PRIVATE 2.7 16.3
Box Truck (freight) Class 6-7 1,724 21,582 $27,921 MIXED 9.6 46.2
Box Truck (freight) Class 8 6,667 83,450 $133,333 MIXED 45.9 173.9
Stake Truck (construction) Class 3-5 1,048 13,114 $12,337 PRIVATE 3.0 11.9
Stake Truck (construction) Class 6-7 1,358 16,999 $21,992 PRIVATE 3.9 15.5
Dump Truck Class 8 5,797 72,565 $115,942 PRIVATE 15.1 45.4
Weight
Class
MARKET SEGMENT
957
11,973
$11,265
PRIVATE
2.7
16.3
Heavy Duty Pickup & Van
Life-time EV
Discounted Fuel
Cost Savings
Avg Demand
(kW/veh)
EV CHARGING
Annual Fuel
37
Appendix B – Supplemental Information
Figure B1 Historical M/HD Vehicle Sales by Weight Class
Source: Oakridge National Laboratory, Transportation Energy data Book
38
Figure B2 Example Fleet Electrification Commitments
Source: M.J. Bradley & Associates
Sector
Company
Electric Fleet Plans
Retail
Ikea Group*
2020: Electrify deliveries in Amsterdam, Los Angeles, New York, Paris, and Shanghai
(25% global of deliveries)
2025: 100% EV or other zero-emissions solutions for deliveries and services through
suppliers
Amazon
2022: 10,000 electric delivery vans (short-term goal)
2030: 100,000 electric delivery vans total (long-term goal)
Clif Bar & Company*
2030: 100% fleet electrification
Unilever
2030: 100% fleet electrification (11,000 vehicles)
Walmart
2040: Zero emission vehicle fleet, including long-haul (6,000 trucks)
Power
Schneider Electric*
2030: 100% electric fleet (14,000 vehicles)
Edison Electric Institute
(EEI) Member
Companies (investor-
owned utilities)
2030: More than 70 percent of EEI member companies will collectively electrify more
than one-third of their total fleet vehicles, including two-thirds of passenger vehicles in
fleets. Examples include:
• Xcel Energy: 2023: 100% electric sedan portion of fleet; 2030: 100% electric
light-duty fleet; 30% M/HD vehicles
• Consumers Energy: 2025: Buy or lease 100% of EVs for fleet
• Southern California Edison: 2030: 100% electric passenger car and small-to-
midsize SUV, 30% medium-duty vehicles and pickup trucks, 8% heavy-duty
trucks, 60% forklifts
Transportation
Lyft**
2026: 100% new vehicles for Express Drive (driver rental program) are electric
2030: 100% EVs on platform
King County Metro
(WA)
2030: 100% zero-emissions fleet
Lime*
2030: 100% conversion of operations fleet
Uber**
2030: 100% of rides take place in EVs in U.S., Canadian, and European cities
2040: 100% of rides take place in ZEVs, on public transit or with micromobility
Delivery
DHL
2025: 70% of first- and last-mile delivery services with clean transport modes
2050: Reduce logistics-related emissions to zero
FedEx
2025: 50% of Express global parcel pickup and delivery (PUD) fleet purchases electric
2030: 100% PUD fleet purchases electric
2040: 100% ZEV PUD fleet
Biotech
Genentech
2030: 100% electrification of sales fleet (1,300 vehicles) and commuter buses
Municipal
New York City, New
York
2017: Only purchase PHEVs for non-emergency sedans going forward
2025: Add 2,000 EVs to NYC sedan fleet
2040: 100% electric MTA bus fleet
New Jersey
2024: At least 10% of new bus purchases will be zero emission buses
2026: At least 50% of new bus purchases will be zero emissions buses
2032: 100% of new bus purchases will be zero emissions buses
Los Angeles, California
2028: 100% ZEV vehicle conversions “where technically feasible” (2028: taxi fleet,
school buses; 2035: urban delivery vehicles)
2035: 100% electrification of sanitation fleet through LA Department of Sanitation
Commitment
Houston, Texas
2030: 100% EV non-emergency, light-duty municipal fleet
Chicago, Illinois
2040: 100% electric Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) bus fleet (1,850 buses)
Montgomery County,
Maryland
2033 (approximately 12-year process): Electrify entire school bus fleet for Montgomery
County Public School district (1,400 school buses serving over 200 schools)
*Member companies of EV100, through which 102 committed member companies will electrify over 4.8 million vehicles globally
**Drivers for Lyft and Uber are contractors rather than employees, so it may be difficult to convince drivers to switch to EVs. Lyft does not intend to remove drivers from
platform who do not drive electric or provide financial incentives to drivers for the transition. Instead, much of the plan revolves around exerting pressure on competitors,
lawmakers, and automakers. Uber will pay BEV and hybrid drivers an incentive of $1.50 and $0.50 per trip, respectively, and GM and Renault-Nissan will offer discounts to
EVs. While Uber has not explicitly stated they will not remove non-electric drivers, they may be in a similar position as Lyft. Uber recently announce it will roll out “Uber
Green” in 1,400 North American cities and launch partnerships to expand EV access for its drivers.
39
Figure B3 EPA Estimated Annual M/HDV Fleet NOx Emissions, 2020 - 2030
Source: EPA MOVES3
Figure B4 EPA Estimated Annual M/HDV Fleet PM Emissions, 2020 - 2030
Source: EPA MOVES3
40
References
[1] IHS Markit, Vehicles in Operation (VIO), U.S., as of September 2020, Vehicle Classes 3-8 VIN
defined
[2] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, MOtor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES3),
https://www.epa.gov/moves/latest-version-motor-vehicle-emission-simulator-moves
[3] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency
Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles—Phase 2, Federal Register / Vol.
81, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 25, 2016 / Rules and Regulations, 73478
[4] IHS Markit, New Vehicle Registrations, U.S., Jan 2018 – December 2020, Vehicle Classes 3-8
VIN defined
[5] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “CO-Benefits Risk Assessment (COBRA) Health
Impacts Screening and Mapping Tool,” last updated April 2021,
https://www.epa.gov/statelocalenergy/co-benefits-risk-assessment-cobra-health-impacts-
screening-and-mapping-tool.
[6] Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2021, Reference Case
[7] M.J. Bradley & Associates, Accelerating Clean Trucks & Buses, Benefits for Climate, Public
Health and the Economy, May 2021; the cited modeling was done using MJB&A’s STate
Emission Pathways (STEP) tool and emission factors developed form EPA’s MOVES3 model.
[8] S. Davis and R. Boundy, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Transportation energy Data Book,
Edition 39, Table 5.3, New Retail Truck Sales by Gross Vehicle Weight, 1970 – 2020, Updated
April 2021
[9] M.J. Bradley & Associates, Electric Vehicle Market Status- Update, Manufacturer Commitments
to Future Electric Mobility in the U.S. and Worldwide, April 2021
[10] EDF, Comparison of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Technologies in California, Electric Truck and
Bus Commercial Database
[11] M.J. Bradley & Associates, Electric Vehicle Market Status- Update, Manufacturer Commitments
to Future Electric Mobility in the U.S. and Worldwide, April 2021
[12] Bloomberg New Energy Finance, Battery Price Forecast, 2019.
[13] ICF, Comparison of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Technologies in California, December 20
[14] Birky, Alicia, et al., Electrification Beyond Light-Duty: Class 2b-3 Commercial Vehicles,
ORNL/TM-2017/744, December 2017.
[15] Federal Transit Administration, National Transit Database, NTD Data, Annual Data Tables,
2018, Vehicles, https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/ntd-data; The estimated number of transit buses
is the total of all vehicles listed for modes MB (motor bus), RB (rapid bus) and CB (commuter
bus) with vehicle type Bus, Articulated Bus and Over-the-Road Bus.
[16] American Bus Association Foundation, Motor Coach Census, A study of the Size and Activity of
the Motorcoach Industry in the United States and Canada in 2017, June 5, 2019,
https://www.buses.org/assets/images/uploads/pdf/FINAL_2017_Census_1.pdf
41
[17] California Air Resources Board, Advanced Clean Truck Market Segment Analysis, February 22,
2019
[18] Ford Motor Company, 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning, https://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/f150-
lightning/2022/;
J. Ramey, Auto Week, 2022 Ford E-Transit Target Pricing Announced, May 5, 2021,
https://www.autoweek.com/news/green-cars/a36341199/2022-ford-e-transit-pricing/
[19] U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2021, Reference Case, Table
3 Energy Prices by Sector and Source; Commercial - Electricity, Transportation – Diesel Fuel
