So far, there’s still not many trucks that have rolled off the assembly lines equipped with EPA ’07 engines (designated 2008 model year). Mostly, the OEMs are shipping their last 2007 models (with the pre-’07 engines), thus fulfilling the end of the pre-buy (or pre-build, if you like) orders.

We’ve not yet even begun to experience the effects of the ’07 EPA emissions reductions, and we’re already beginning to sweat the details of the 2010 round of reductions.

There was a large crowd of people at the ATA’s Technology and Maintenance Conference (TMC) in Tampa, Fla. already losing sleep over EPA’s 2010 standards — with good cause. They’re concerned over which strategy might be anointed to meet those standards, and how they’ll be affected by those changes.

EPA 2010 requires a further 85-percent reduction in NOx output, and that will mean some additional exhaust aftertreatment devices in all likelihood. Several bits of technology offer some hope of making 2010, including Homogenous Charge Compression Ignition (HCCI), clean NOx adsorbers, plasma reformers with NOx traps, and Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR).

Don’t worry about what all these terms mean for the moment. You’ll be reading more about them in the months to come. Presently, the solution that seems most promising is SCR. It’s widely used in Europe, and some engine makers have lots of experience with the technology. The upside to SCR is that it could permit improvements in fuel economy by scaling back the level of EGR required to meet current NOx emissions levels.

The downside to SCR is that it requires an additional catalytic converter — which could be integrated with present aftertreatment devices — an additional storage tank on the truck, and a national distribution infrastructure.

Detroit Diesel (Freightliner), Mack, and Volvo have already committed to using urea-based SCR to meet 2010. They’ve all got the European experience behind them. Caterpillar and Cummins have yet to commit, though Cummins has been doing a lot of work with NOx adsorbers.

There’s a lot at stake this time, and the decision on which technology gets the nod will affect many more people than just the truck makers and their customers.

Canadian trucks may not have the frame space required to fit the additional catalytic device and the urea storage tanks. Or, if there’s room for that stuff, we’ll be at wit’s end trying to fit APUs, storage boxes, and other accessories — like large-capacity fuel tanks. All that could (should) prompt a close look at Canada’s 244-in. wheelbase limits.

Fleets will certainly want time to test the new technology in real-world situations. There was almost no evaluation time going into Oct 2002. We had a little more road time going into 2007, but any fleet will tell you it wasn’t enough. And even with that additional time, we’re still hurting from a suspicion-induced pre-buy that will lay many assembly plants idle for some months this year.

So, if we hope to avoid a repeat performance going into 2010, the truck makers are going to have to make test units available much sooner than last time.

At a TMC technical session on 2010 technology, a chap from Ryder Truck Rentals said he wants 16 to 18 months evaluation time to check out the new equipment. Other maintenance and purchasing personnel expressed the same desire.

Another significant concern is the distribution network we’ll need for the liquid urea catalyst.

Estimates suggest trucks will consume urea at a rate of one gallon of urea to 100 gallons of fuel. Most trucks will need at least a gallon a day. Truckstop owners, we’re told, are really unhappy about having to make substantial changes to their fuel islands to accommodate the urea dispensing hardware. The upside for those guys is they’ll have another revenue stream.

With several thousand fuel outlets in Canada and about 33,000 outlets in the U.S. we’ll need a lot of urea pumps. How long will it take to install all those pumps? We won’t need full coverage by day one — probably only 15 percent coverage would be adequate — but we’re still not sure if all the truck makers will be using urea, or how long it might be until a better solution than urea emerges.

If we hope to avoid another pre-buy in 2010, we’ll need to consider incentives for buyers too. This industry has swallowed a lot in the course of reducing our environmental footprint; we simply can’t afford to take too much more uncertainty on the chin.