Truck News

Feature

Budget should focus on low-carbon trucking


Each fall, the Canadian Trucking Alliance (CTA) participates in the federal consultations on the following year’s federal budget. The 2017 budget will likely be tabled sometime in February or March. The focus of our submission this year is on greenhouse gas (GHG)-reduction. The industry wants to transition to lower-carbon heavy trucks, trailers and fuel. Why wouldn’t it? Diesel is the second largest component of operating costs. But, there are significant obstacles and costs associated with the transitioning from initial stage adoption to a mature lower-carbon market.

For example, currently the only alternative to diesel fuel for large heavy trucks showing some potential – at least for some applications – are natural gas tractors which produce 17% less GHG than diesel, but which are about $60,000 or 30-40% more expensive to purchase than a conventional diesel tractor and require a major retrofit of maintenance shops. Add to that the lack of distribution and re-fueling infrastructure in Canada and you see the problem.

Trucking is unique in that unlike other sectors, it is subject to both federal GHG reduction regulations and carbon pricing. The Government of Canada has announced it will not only implement aggressive Phase II GHG-reduction standards for heavy trucks/trailers, but it will also introduce a minimum price on carbon of $10 per tonne in 2018, rising by $10 per tonne per year to $50 per tonne by 2022. Both measures are bound to increase the costs of new tractor-trailers and of the cost of diesel fuel.

In going down the carbon pricing road in Canada, CTA would have preferred a consistent, national approach. But, that horse has left the barn. Several provinces have already introduced (or are in the process of introducing) carbon pricing mechanisms. B.C. and Quebec have a carbon tax. Quebec also has a cap-and-trade system that Ontario is joining. Alberta is taking a hybrid approach. The federal government is coming somewhat late to the game. It needs to avoid adding further to the burden on the Canadian supply chain, which must remain competitive continentally and globally.

It is also imperative that revenues generated from federal carbon pricing and from the federal excise tax on diesel fuel do not simply flow to the black hole of general revenue or are simply handed over to the provinces (which appears to be the federal government’s approach), but are dedicated to supporting early adoption of GHG-reduction equipment, technologies and alternative fuel in the industries affected.

Trucks consume about 18 billion liters of on-road diesel fuel annually. The excise tax generates an additional $750 million a year from the trucking industry. A federal carbon pricing program could generate $2 billion in government revenue. These funds should be plowed back into accelerating GHG reduction by the industry.

In its pre-budget submission, CTA recommends three measures.

The first is to accelerate the capital cost allowances (CCA) for new, GHG-compliant/natural gas powered tractors and trailers. In Canada, tractors are currently depreciated at a 40% per annum rate on a declining balance basis. (By comparison, in the US tractors are depreciated on a double declining balance basis; three-year asset vs seven years in Canada). Trailers are depreciated at a 30% declining balance rate.

There are several precedents for this in other industries. The federal income tax regulations provide accelerated CCA (30% and 50%, respectively, on a declining-balance basis) for investments in specified clean energy generation and conservation equipment as an exception to basing CCA rates on the useful asset life. The 2006 federal budget accelerated the CCA for energy generation equipment using renewable fuel in the pulp and paper sector. The 2008 budget introduced accelerated CCA for new railway locomotives to 30% from 15% “to encourage rail operators to acquire newer, more fuel-efficient fleet of locomotives.”

Our second recommendation is to establish a Trucking Industry GHG-Reduction Fund from the proceeds of carbon pricing and the federal excise tax on diesel, to provide an additional capital injection to assist investment and allow the market to mature. Such a fund would complement programs that exist in some provinces such as the $28-million, three-year, Quebec Programme Ecocamionnage introduced in 2014, which provides financial assistance (up to $1 million per applicant per year) to freight transportation for the installation of technologies to reduce GHG emissions. Or the Ontario Green Commercial Vehicle Program, which will, starting in 2017-2018, provide $125-$170 million to buy low-carbon vehicles, including natural gas trucks and shop conversions, aerodynamic and anti-idling devices, electric trailer refrigeration, etc.

The federal NRCan Anti-Idling Device Program which existed from 2003-2006, provided a 20% rebate to trucking companies for installing pre-qualified cab heating/cooling systems is a good precedent.

A $5.8-million injection from NRCan generated a $30 million industry investment (13,280 units) reducing idling time by 2,200 hours per truck and reducing GHG by 200,000 tonnes per year.

Finally, the federal government should restore the longstanding excise tax exemption for diesel fuel used by anti-idling devices. Will Finance Minister, Bill Morneau, act on any of these recommendations? Time will tell.

***
David Bradley is CEO of the Canadian Trucking Alliance and the Ontario Trucking Association.


Print this page


1 Comment » for Budget should focus on low-carbon trucking
  1. Cliff says:

    Are we really that silly that we believe the carbon tax will reduce emissions, have a look at BC they introduced the carbon tax then increased the speed limit. Really? we all know that going faster only increases fuel consumption which increases emissions. How about the new GHG tractors they require a permit to allow them to exceed 63,500 kgs to compete with regular tractors, aren’t they damaging the roads which will cause extensive repairs which will also increase the emissions into the environment. Not sure I am understanding whether it’s the environment or government that is benefiting from this carbon process. When you compare us to other countries you might be surprised to find that we are in the top best performers when it comes to lack of emissions along with the amount of carbon reducing industries (farms and trees) that we have.

Have your say:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*