for Class 8 trucks with sleeper cabs, which, the committee assumes, may have been a blending of idling hours for single and team drivers. As an example, for a Class 8 mid-roof, sleeper cab with a 2017 proposed standard of 7.2 gal/1,000 ton-miles, idle reduction technology could provide nearly 30 percent of the reduction required to achieve the standard (assuming a total reduction of 1.8 gal/1,000 ton-miles to meet the 7.2 gal/1,000 ton-miles standard, by assuming the standard is a 20 percent reduction [which is within the EPA/NHTSA range of 9 to 23 percent] from the 2010 status, subsequently calculated to be 9.0 gal/1,000 ton-mile). The 0.5 gal/1,000 ton-mile reduction in fuel consumption amounts to a 6 percent reduction in overall fuel consumption (0.5 gal/1,000 ton-mile/9.0 gal/1,000 ton-mile × 100 = 6 percent).

Finding 6-4. Idle reduction technologies could provide 6 percent reduction in overall fuel consumption for Class 8 long-haul trucks with sleeper cabs, which is nearly 30 percent of the 20 percent reduction in the fuel consumption required to meet the EPA/NHTSA proposed 2017 fuel consumption standards.

Recommendation 6-4. The 21CTP should review and potentially revise its idle reduction plans and goals in view of the fact that the proposed 2017 fuel efficiency standards provide an incentive for the adoption of idle reduction technologies as a means for achieving these standards for Class 8 long-haul trucks with sleeper cabs.


Seven findings and recommendations were made regarding idle reduction technologies in the NRC (2008) Phase 1 report (Findings and Recommendations 6-1 to 6-4 and 6-6 to 6-8) (Finding and Recommendation 6-5 was omitted in the Phase 1 report). The DOE concurred with all of the recommendations except Recommendation 6-4 (see Appendix C in this report), thereby reconfirming the 21CTP engine idle reduction goals that are directed toward substantially reducing energy consumption and exhaust emissions due to heavy-duty-vehicle idling.

Recommendation 6-4 suggested that the EPA renew its efforts to promulgate national anti-idling regulations. The 21CTP commented that the EPA has no legal authority to promulgate anti-idling laws, or any time or behavior limits on truck owners. However, as noted above with respect to Goal 3, the patchwork of anti-idling regulations nationally have been an impediment to the broader use of anti-idling measures and efforts. Finding 6-1 and Recommendation 6-1 in this chapter address this issue by recommending that the EPA and the DOT should work to find incentives for states to promulgate uniform anti-idling regulations.


In the February 2011 “21CTP Draft White Paper on Idle Reduction” (DOE, 2011), the 21CTP no longer recognizes the previously reviewed goals that extended from the NRC Phase 1 review through 2010. Instead, the 21CTP is recommending the following five goals for FY 2012.

•   21CTP Goal 1 Recommended for FY 2012: Work with OEM truck manufacturers to obtain data on the number of new trucks being ordered with idle reduction options.

•   21CTP Goal 2 Recommended for FY 2012: Conduct a fleet survey to gather data on the amount of in-use idling hours that are accumulated by type of heavy-duty vehicle.

•   21CTP Goal 3 Recommended for FY 2012: Acquire data from the EPA SmartWay Program to measure fuel savings and emissions reductions associated with the various types of idle reduction equipment available.

•   21CTP Goal 4 Recommended for FY 2012: Establish a nationwide multi-mode idle reduction education program.

•   21CTP Goal 5 Recommended for FY 2012: Promote the incorporation of idle reduction equipment on new trucks as fuel saving devices as they are identified through the DOE SuperTruck program.

The 21 CTP stated in the February 2011 idle reduction white paper: “Without funding dedicated to this effort [i.e., the above goals], it is quite difficult, if not impossible, for the 21st Century Truck Partnership to accomplish these goals” (DOE, 2011). The white paper states: “Assuming there is funding, the action items [previously identified as goals through 2010] … lay out a path to accomplishing the stated objective.” In contrast, the committee finds that the new goals, which focus on measuring the usage and benefits of idle reduction and the incorporation of idle reduction technologies on new trucks, are generally not supported by the “action items,” which focus on cost-effective add-on idle reduction technologies; the development of some specific technologies such as electrically powered HVAC systems, cab insulation, and fuel cell APUs; and education programs and incentives to encourage the deployment of cost-effective technologies to reduce fuel use and emissions due to idling.

Finding 6-5. In February 2011, the 21CTP deleted the quantification of the overall goal to reduce fuel use and emissions produced by idling engines. The 21CTP issued five new goals for idle reduction and designated the goals that had been in place through 2010 as “action items.” The new goals are generally not supported by the “action items.” A separate budget for idle reduction for FY 2012 has not been proposed, although idle reduction will be addressed by the SuperTruck program. The 21CTP has stated that, “without

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement