I just saw a report that the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory is studying the “soft costs” of deploying charging infrastructure for battery electric vehicles.
Soft costs can account for more than half of the total cost of EV supply equipment projects, and the study seeks to confirm this in the hopes of helping the industry mitigate these soft costs.
While this particular study focuses on soft charging infrastructure costs, I think that sometimes the trucking industry is too quick to quantify soft costs and too slow or reluctant to do the same with the soft benefits.
To be clear, I am not against quantifying soft costs because we need to know how to monetize them to get an accurate total cost of operation, but I think we need to give equal time to the benefits side of the equation.
Let’s step away from the infrastructure and look at the trucks themselves. With battery electric trucks, discussions tend to center around battery weight, cost, and vehicle range. Don’t get me wrong; those are all valid areas of concern. But how often do you hear conversations about improving driver retention costs?
Drivers tell us they love battery electric vehicles; in more than one case, a driver has shared with us that they were contemplating retirement until their fleet put them in a BEV. Won’t your driver retention and attraction be less expensive if you buy your drivers EVs?
See also: Fleet Advantage program designed to offer ‘easy’ EV path
And what about the value of the positive changes to your brand image? Do you think about how your customers—many of whom have their own sustainability initiatives—view you when they find out that you are investing in BEVs?
Taking steps to improve the environment is becoming more important to more companies. In fact, we are hearing of instances where shippers are asking fleets about their sustainability practices when deciding which carrier to use.
I don’t want to go so far as to say the trucking industry is hypocritical when it evaluates new technology, but it does seem like we tend to focus on ferreting out and monetizing every cost and challenge. Somehow, we seem less diligent in applying the same rigor to the savings and benefits.
I am not advocating for any technology over another, nor am I naïve enough to underestimate the importance of cost when making purchasing decisions. I want to make sure that we remember that there are two sides to every decision—the cost side and the savings side—and I encourage the industry to consider both sides before dismissing a technology solution.
