Colombia ha avanzado significativamente en la incorporación de autobuses eléctricos (BEBs) en su sistema de transporte público, y ahora es uno de los países líderes en movilidad sostenible en América Latina. Bogotá cuenta con 1.486 autobuses eléctricos de las 1.590 unidades que tiene el país.   

Colombia ha impulsado la descarbonización del transporte urbano a través de la Ley 1964 de 2019, la cual exige la incorporación progresiva de autobuses de cero emisiones en los sistemas de transporte público, con el objetivo de alcanzar el 100% de la flota para el año 2035, con metas intermedias del 60% hacia el año 2031. Adicionalmente, la Ley 2294 de 2023, en su artículo 172, establece un mecanismo de cofinanciación por parte del gobierno central, que permite “la financiación entre un 40 y 70% de proyectos de sistemas de transporte público de pasajeros.” Debido a este mecanismo, otras ciudades del país—Medellín, Ibagué, Santa Marta, Montería, Sincelejo y Armenia—han realizado pilotos con buses eléctricos liderados por la Alianza ZEBRA. 

Este blog tiene como objetivo cuantificar los beneficios climáticos de la transición hacia autobuses eléctricos. Compara las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero (GEI), expresadas en dióxido de carbono equivalente (CO₂e), a lo largo del ciclo de vida de autobuses eléctricos a batería, a gas natural vehicular (GNV) y diésel, para calcular las emisiones de GEI que pueden evitarse mediante la electrificación de la flota.   

El Consejo Internacional de Transporte Limpio (ICCT, por sus siglas en inglés), colíder de la Alianza ZEBRA junto con C40, ha desarrollado una metodología simplificada de análisis de ciclo de vida. Esta metodología considera las emisiones de GEI producidas durante la vida operativa de un autobús, incluyendo tanto las emisiones asociadas a la fabricación y el mantenimiento (ciclo vehicular), como las derivadas de la producción y el uso de combustible y electricidad (ciclo energético). Más detalles sobre el alcance de este análisis se encuentran en un documento de trabajo publicado en 2024.  

En la Tabla 1 se resumen los datos sobre las características operativas de los autobuses, presentando los promedios de América Latina. La tabla enumera los valores medios de las distancias recorridas anualmente, la capacidad de la batería, el consumo de energía de los BEBs, así como el consumo de energía equivalente para autobuses a diésel y GNV. Estos datos se presentan para los cuatro tipos y tamaños de autobús considerados en este análisis.  

Tabla 1. Características operativas medias de vehículos estándares

En cuanto al chasis y los sistemas de propulsión, tanto de autobuses eléctricos a batería como de combustión interna, se aplicó un factor fijo de emisión de 6,6 kg CO₂e/kg. Se supone que todos los vehículos utilizan baterías de litio-ferrofosfato con ánodo de grafito, con emisiones equivalentes a 58 kg CO₂e/kWh y una densidad de batería de 0,14 kWh/kg.  

La metodología considera una vida útil fija de proyecto de 15 años para BEBs, con un recambio de batería previsto tras siete u ocho años de funcionamiento. Por lo tanto, el cálculo tiene en cuenta las emisiones equivalentes a la fabricación de un BEB y dos baterías. Para mantener un periodo de análisis comparable en los autobuses con motor de combustión interna, que normalmente operan durante 10 años, la herramienta considera las emisiones equivalentes a la fabricación de 1,5 autobuses con motor de combustión interna. 

Las emisiones de mantenimiento se basan en los factores de emisión de autobuses urbanos de 12 m de longitud. Estos factores son de 52,4 g CO₂e por kilómetro recorrido por vehículo (vkm, por sus siglas en inglés) para autobuses con motor diésel, de 70,1 g CO₂e/vkm para autobuses a GNV y de 67,5 g CO₂e/vkm para autobuses eléctricos. 

Las emisiones del ciclo de combustible y electricidad incluyen aquellas generadas por la producción y el consumo de energía utilizada por el vehículo, ya sea combustible fósil, biocombustible o electricidad. Estas emisiones se clasifican en dos fases: del pozo al tanque, que corresponden a las emisiones generadas durante la producción de combustible y electricidad, y del tanque a la rueda, que son emitidas por el tubo de escape durante la combustión del combustible. En Colombia, la red eléctrica es mayoritariamente hidroeléctrica; el país cuenta con una de las intensidades de carbono en generación de electricidad más bajas de la región, según la Agencia Internacional de la Energía.  

La Figura 1 muestra las emisiones de GEI de autobuses eléctricos y con motor de combustión interna durante su vida útil en Colombia. Las barras muestran la composición total de emisiones de GEI por fuente: fabricación del chasis y del sistema de propulsión, fabricación de la batería, mantenimiento, producción de combustible, consumo de combustible, y generación de energía eléctrica. 

Figura 1. Comparación de emisiones de GEI de autobuses de un solo cuerpo (entre 8 y 27 m) para autobuses eléctricos a batería, a gas natural y diésel durante sus vidas útiles en Colombia

Para autobuses entre 8 y 11 m, el BEB emite un 78% menos de GEI que el autobús a GNV y un 76% menos que el autobús diésel. Resultados similares se observan para los otros tamaños de autobús considerados en este análisis, con reducciones de emisiones estimadas para el BEB de 80% al 81%. En todas las categorías, los autobuses a GNV emiten más emisiones que los autobuses diésel, y las diferencias se amplían a medida que los autobuses se hacen más grandes: las emisiones del autobús a GNV son 9% superiores a las del autobús diésel en la categoría de 8–11 m, 21% en la de 12–15 m, 28% en la de 18 m y 31% en la de 27 m. 

Colombia se ha comprometido a reducir sus emisiones de GEI en un 51% para el 2030, como parte de su camino hacia la carbono neutralidad en el año 2050. Para alcanzar estos objetivos, será necesario realizar esfuerzos constantes para reducir las emisiones del sector transporte. Los análisis de emisiones del ciclo de vida, como el que se presenta aquí, son herramientas clave para comprender las fuentes actuales de emisiones y evaluar los beneficios de la transición a tecnologías de cero emisiones. Con esta información, las autoridades pueden diseñar políticas específicas y efectivas para reducir las emisiones del transporte por carretera y contribuir al cumplimiento de las metas climáticas del país. 

Este blog forma parte del trabajo que realizamos en el marco de la Iniciativa ZEBRA.  

The UK Department for Transport (DfT) published the outcome of the consultation on its zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) regulation last month and it generally signals more flexibility and some relaxation of the policy. Let’s take a look at a few reasons to celebrate, a few areas of concern, and a few key points where the yet-to-be-determined details will make a big difference. 

I’ll start with some good news: There are no changes to the regulation’s annual targets for 2025–2030. Regardless of flexibilities, the annual targets set the pace for reductions in emissions, and the targets are staying at 80% ZEVs for cars and 70% ZEVs for vans in 2030. (Here ZEVs include battery electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel-cell electric vehicles, but not plug-in hybrids or vehicles using e-fuels.) This remains a world-leading regulation. The United Kingdom also remains committed to 100% ZEV sales for cars and vans in 2035, as DfT reiterated that there are no exceptions to that target. 

Now, about the newly proposed flexibilities. The regulation includes two “big” ones: (1) transfer of credits for sales of non-ZEVs with lower carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions and (2) borrowing. Both were extended through 2029, rather than expiring after 2026, as originally planned. In terms of the borrowing flexibility, the limits for cars in the extended years are relatively low—20% in 2027, 15% in 2028, and 10% in 2029 (roughly aligned with the ICCT’s suggestions). All borrowed allowances must be repaid by 2030 and there’s no mention of lowering or removing the 3.5% “interest rate” applied when these are used. Maintaining that interest for the duration of the policy would be critical for encouraging timely compliance and sticking to the United Kingdom’s legally binding carbon budgets. 

A large opening for PHEVs 

The much bigger change is to the ability to earn credit in the ZEV scheme by reducing the average CO₂ emissions of non-ZEVs. This flexibility was originally strictly limited: It was only available in 2024, 2025, and 2026, and these sales could only account for a declining fraction of a manufacturer’s overall ZEV mandate compliance. This reflected the reality that automakers had already invested in hybrids and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) and couldn’t change their product mixes dramatically in the near term. It allowed them to get credit for the reduced emissions from those vehicles while still requiring a focus on ZEVs in the medium term. Table 1 shows both the original (current) limits and the newly proposed limits on how much manufacturers can use this flexibility for cars as a percentage of their annual ZEV credit requirement.  

As you can see, the consultation outcome allows for a relatively high portion of transfers through 2029. The changes to compliance with the ZEV sales requirement make the overall regulation function more like a technology-neutral CO₂ standard, at least for the next 3 years or so. This is bad news for any certainty regarding future ZEV sales (and hurts the case for investing in charging infrastructure and ZEV supply chains), but the impact on total CO₂ savings from the regulation is difficult to forecast. That’s in part because of the way PHEVs are treated in the consultation outcome.  

Although the United Kingdom is adopting new PHEV utility factors in line with the Euro 6e emission standard, it will allow manufacturers to submit the “old” PHEV CO₂ scores, which are known to be artificially low, for the purposes of complying with the non-ZEV CO₂ score. And it’s not clear how long this will last. When combined with the relaxed limits on non-ZEV CO₂ transfer, this has the effect of making PHEVs a very compelling option for compliance. PHEVs would effectively provide more than 0.5 ZEV credits per vehicle, especially as more longer-range PHEVs are coming on the market. So, while PHEVs don’t count as ZEVs, the regulation now rewards their sale much more than before, particularly in the early years. 

How could this look in practice? The figure below illustrates a scenario in which manufacturers maximize the credit transfers and sell more PHEVs. Here all PHEVs match the specifications of the Volkswagen Tiguan eHybrid, which was the best-selling PHEV in the United Kingdom in the first quarter of 2025, and we assume that manufacturers do not use any borrowing. Manufacturers may also sell PHEVs to comply with the non-ZEV CO₂ standard (which does not require any reductions from 2021–2030), but these cannot be double-counted in the ZEV standard and are not shown in the figure. The new changes to the UK regulation mean that in 2025, hardly any ZEV sales would be required at all, and through 2029, manufacturers could comply by selling more PHEVs than ZEVs. 

Figure 1. Maximum contribution of PHEVs to ZEV mandate compliance before and after proposed changes

Important decisions are still to come

Of course, the ZEV mandate isn’t the only policy influencing the market. If PHEVs don’t receive fiscal incentives or tax benefits, most manufacturers are unlikely to pursue a PHEV-heavy compliance pathway. Thus, whether the flexibilities create a sort of PHEV “lock-in” in the United Kingdom is probably going to depend on when DfT switches to using the new utility factors and how PHEVs are taxed.

Because the consultation remains “subject to further engagement with industry on detailed legislation,” switching to the Euro 6e PHEV utility factors as soon as possible, and no later than January 1, 2028, is an important opportunity to strengthen the policy. It’s also worth exploring whether the limits on flexibilities could be tightened more quickly, and it’s important to maintain the interest rate on borrowing.

Taken as a whole, this regulation keeps the United Kingdom among the global leaders. When thinking in terms of long-term climate goals, the most important opportunity is to lock in the 100% ZEVs by 2035 ambition by finalizing the regulation for 2031–2035. This would provide a solid signal of the medium- and long-term trajectory of the market and ensure that all stakeholders—including vehicle manufacturers, fleets, charging providers, and electricity grid operators—are ready to invest and make the United Kingdom’s ZEV transition a success.

In seeking to advance sustainability in the aviation industry, robust estimates of emissions are essential because they support informed decision-making. Previous ICCT research found that travelers on U.S. routes can reduce carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions attributable to their ticket by 22% on average, and up to 63%, by choosing the least-emitting flight available.  

Consumers can access emissions estimates for future flights around the world from Google’s Travel Impact Model (TIM), and since 2023, the ICCT has worked with global experts to refine the model through an Advisory Committee that we lead. This partnership established seven core principles and a roadmap to ensure continuous improvement of the TIM for rigorous, transparent, and consistent emissions reporting.  

As the TIM continues to evolve, it holds promise to become the global standard in low-carbon travel search. Here I’ll highlight some of the work behind its development, including the model validation and model selection approaches that enhance its reliability for travelers, airlines, and policymakers.  

Estimating fuel burn is the first step in assessing emissions, and this is challenging due to the variability in flight operations. Emissions will differ based on aircraft technology, weather, and operational practices, and even for the same aircraft and route, fuel burn can vary significantly. The TIM uses the European Environment Agency (EEA) model, which bases estimates on aircraft type and route distance and creates simplified linear relationships. Using the operations of Brazilian airlines in 2019 and the four most commonly used aircraft types, Figure 1 compares the TIM (version 1.8.0) estimates (dashed lines) with real-world fuel burn at the flight level (dots). The large variability reflects the complexity and uncertainty of flight operations, where fuel burn depends on a range of interdependent and sometimes unpredictable factors such as weather and operational practices.
 

Figure 1. Fuel burn versus distance for each individual flight by the four most common aircraft types in the ANAC data in 2019

Model validation

Validation is a quantitative assessment of how well model prediction represents real-world data. For validating the TIM, we needed data from past flights, including fuel burn, ideally at the flight level or at least aggregated by route and aircraft type. The only public dataset identified that met the requirements was the Brazilian Civil Aviation Agency (ANAC) microdata, which provides historical flight data for Brazil since the year 2000 at the flight level. As it’s limited to Brazilian airlines, Google combined ANAC’s public data with private operational data shared by partner airlines worldwide. The aircraft types covered by this sample represent approximately 76% of global flights in 2019 and the validation sample now contains more than 3 million flights. The Google engineering team is continuously working with airlines to expand it to enhance model representativeness and reliability. There is a three-step process to promote reliability: 

1. Data cleaning: We remove irrelevant or incomplete data. 
2. Data aggregation: We group fuel burn data by route, aircraft type, and airline. This is necessary because some private airline data was shared in aggregated form; it contained fuel burn averages by route and aircraft type rather than at the flight level. By aligning our analysis with the level of granularity available in the shared data, we ensure consistency. 
3. Error analysis: We compare the TIM’s estimates with real-world fuel burn using metrics such as median absolute error and error distribution. “Error” is defined as the difference between actual and estimated fuel burn, expressed as a percentage. The actual fuel burn refers to the values in the validation dataset, and estimated fuel burn refers to the TIM estimates. Positive errors indicate overestimation and negative errors indicate underestimation. 

The TIM validation framework uses four key metrics for evaluation: median absolute error (the central tendency of errors), error threshold analysis (the percentage of estimates within different error bounds), distance-based metrics (error trends by route length), and the distance and aircraft error metric (error trends by route length and aircraft type). Details of the metrics are in this technical brief, and Figure 2 illustrates the error distribution curve for the TIM (version 1.8.0) estimates. As shown, the fuel burn is more often underestimated than overestimated by the model. The TIM underestimates the fuel burn for nearly 75% of the airline-aircraft type-route combinations in the validation sample.

Figure 2. Frequency (left) and cumulative (right) distributions of the error in the TIM’s fuel burn estimates when compared with the real-world fuel burn from the combination of ANAC 2019 and private airlines data

Model selection 

The TIM fuel burn estimation was originally based on the EEA 2019 model, which allows users to define only aircraft type and stage length; other significant factors like flight trajectory and payload are not included. Recognizing these limitations, the TIM Advisory Committee explored alternative fuel burn models. 

Nine models were assessed qualitatively (details in the technical brief), and five were shortlisted for detailed evaluation using the validation methodology: EEA 2023, OpenAP, Poll-Schumann, Piano 5, and ICAO ICEC. Because these models vary in structure and require different operational assumptions such as trajectory and payload, we standardized assumptions where possible to be able to compare them. The tested scenarios, based on real-world operations and described in the technical memo, reflect these simplifications. Figure 3 illustrates how the error distributions of these models compare with EEA 2019.  

Both EEA 2019 and EEA 2023 showed narrow error distributions, reflecting good accuracy. However, EEA 2023 consistently outperformed EEA 2019 across key metrics. In contrast, OpenAP demonstrated a wider error spread, indicating lower predictive accuracy for the data used. Intermediate performers, such as ICAO ICEC, Poll-Schumann, and Piano 5, showed moderate error variability. These evaluations showed EEA 2023 to be the most suitable model, and it was adopted in mid-2024. 

Figure 3. Comparison of the error distribution across alternative models

In January 2024, the Advisory Committee incorporated validation into the TIM workflow to evaluate fuel burn model updates. Then, in June 2024, in addition to adopting EEA 2023, they applied a distance correction factor that enhanced the TIM’s accuracy and alignment with real-world operations. The distance correction factor refines stage length inputs by replacing Great Circle Distance with an average route distance based on real-world flight paths. This adjustment reduced the median absolute error from 7.80% to 6.30%. Future Advisory Committee work on second-order fuel burn effects like payload, engine variants, and aircraft age is expected to further improve the accuracy of the TIM and thus further improve its value for a wide range of stakeholders, including the flying public.

Special thanks to Ana Beatriz Reboucas and Jayant Mukhopadhaya for their significant contributions to the research on the TIM website.

There has been a remarkable rise in new battery electric vehicle (BEV) registrations in Belgium over the last few years, with nearly 128,000 units registered in 2024, a 37% increase over the previous year. The growth between 2022 and 2023 was even more impressive, as new registrations grew by 148% (Figure 1). This case highlights how progressive, targeted government policies can help grow the BEV market. Let’s dive into it.

Figure 1. Total new registrations of battery electric cars by year in Belgium

Sources: ACEA and the European Alternative Fuels Observatory  

In 2024, more than one in four new passenger cars registered in Belgium was a BEV (28%). This percentage was significantly higher than in other key European markets, including the United Kingdom (20%), France (17%), and Germany (14%), as shown in Table 1. From 2023 to 2024, Belgium recorded the largest growth in BEV shares among these markets, with an increase of almost 9 percentage points.

Table 1. Shares of battery electric cars in new registrations in key markets  

Source: ACEA  

Companies are vital to these changes. In 2024, company cars accounted for 62% of the over 448,000 new passenger car registrations in Belgium; that’s about 276,000 cars, 40% of them BEVs. In comparison, private individuals registered around 172,000 passenger cars, just 10% of them BEVs. Of the almost 128,000 new BEVs registered in 2024, 87% were by companies. Additionally, by the fourth quarter of 2024, there were nearly 74,000 charging points accessible to the public in Belgium, a 66% jump over the same quarter the previous year.

This isn’t surprising when you consider that a key piece of legislation implemented in Belgium in December 2021 encouraged the uptake of zero-emission vehicles in company fleets. One part of the story in Belgium involves tax deductions for company cars. This approach is gradually discouraging the acquisition of traditional internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) and plug-in-hybrid vehicles (PHEVs) while offering benefits for BEVs and fuel-cell electric vehicles (FCEVs). For ICEVs purchased, leased, or rented by companies between July 2023 and December 2025, the tax deduction will drop from a maximum of 100% until end 2024 to 0% by January 2028 (Table 2). On the other hand, BEVs and FCEVs bought or leased until December 2026 will still benefit from a full 100% tax deduction; starting January 2027, deductible rates on these will also decrease to a maximum of 67.5% by 2031.

The second part of the story is the private use of a company car by an employee. If an employee has the permission by his employer to use a company car for personal purposes, this is a taxable benefit. Consequently, it will be treated as part of an employee’s income and taxed accordingly. The private use of a company car by an employee is a common practice in Europe. In Belgium, the benefit in kind (BIK) is calculated based on factors like car catalogue value, fuel type, carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions, and registration date. The rates for BEVs and FCEVs have remained stable, while CO₂ emission rates and minimum benefit amounts for ICEVs have become stricter over the past decade. The solidarity contribution, also known as the CO₂ contribution, is the employer’s obligation; this is a monthly charge based on the vehicle’s CO₂ emissions, fuel type, and an indexation coefficient. Since July 2023, an “increase coefficient multiplier” has been added for ICEVs. For example, in 2024, the yearly solidarity contribution for a diesel car with CO₂ emissions of 129 g/km exceeded €1,900, whereas for a BEV it was less than €400.

Figure 2 shows selected policies and monthly shares of new BEV registrations beginning in January 2022. While there are fluctuations among the months, the policies aimed at companies appear to have contributed to a rise in BEV adoption when considering the yearly averages.

Figure 2. Monthly BEV shares in new passenger car registrations in Belgium and selected policy measures

The most high-profile setback came when Airbus pushed back its ambitious goal to introduce hydrogen-powered commercial aircraft in 2035. Citing a mix of infrastructure challenges and slower-than-expected technology development, it made the announcement during the Airbus Summit 2025 and expects a 5-10-year delay. Airbus isn’t alone. Other manufacturers have recently dialed back plans or hit financial difficulties. Why this turbulence? Well, as with Airbus, the primary challenges are technology and infrastructure. 

Technologically, battery-electric aircraft remain limited to serving short routes (less than 500 km) due to severe battery weight limitations. Jet fuel is still roughly 50 times more energy dense than today’s most advanced lithium battery. While jet fuel contains about 43 MJ/kg of energy, the most advanced lithium-ion batteries today offer only around 0.9–1.0 MJ/kg, making them roughly 40 to 50 times less energy dense by weight. The additional battery weight increases the total mass the aircraft must lift and thus the energy to sustain flight—creating a compounding penalty. Hydrogen technologies such as fuel cells and combustion engines can offer greater range but face their own set of engineering hurdles, particularly concerning the need to develop lighter hydrogen storage tanks and more powerful fuel cells to minimize their significant mass and volume penalty. One of the major aircraft manufacturers, Embraer, recently pushed back its Energia project, a family of low-emission hybrid-electric aircraft, because both battery and hydrogen fuel cell advancements have been slower than hoped. This necessitated the delay of the project from its original intended entry-into-service year of 2035. 

Infrastructure is probably an even bigger barrier. Airbus noted that inadequate hydrogen infrastructure—including hydrogen production, distribution, and fueling facilities, airport expansion and modification, and new safety protocols—is one of the major roadblocks to its ZEROe program, the flagship hydrogen-powered aircraft initiative aimed at launching the world’s first commercial ZEP. Indeed, green hydrogen, which is produced using renewable electricity and water electrolysis, comprised less than 1% of global hydrogen production in 2024. And even if green hydrogen were being produced in large volumes, the infrastructure to reliably distribute hydrogen remains sparse and expensive to build. Regulatory frameworks are also lagging, and that’s creating uncertainty and slowing investment. For example, Airbus recently reduced the budget for ZEROe by 25%. 

What about the innovative startups we heard about a few years ago? Universal Hydrogen, a U.S.-based company that aimed to decarbonize regional aviation by retrofitting planes to run on hydrogen fuel cells, achieved a remarkable goal when it flew the largest aircraft ever on hydrogen-electric power. However, Universal shut down a year later after failing to secure enough funding to continue research and development. Eviation, an electric-plane startup based in Washington state, paused its Alice program and laid off most of its employees. That these firms struggled to secure the substantial funding and regulatory support necessary to scale is a lesson for the aviation industry: Zero-emission flight requires sustained and coordinated investment and collaboration beyond the reach of individual companies.  

What does this all mean for aviation’s climate targets? Well, our recent study found that even with optimistic sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) and fuel efficiency assumptions, the net-zero carbon target could be exceeded as early as 2037. Therefore, to meet the 2050 net-zero target, accelerating efforts to develop ZEPs seems critical. But with Airbus and others suggesting that 2035 is infeasible, achieving the net-zero target by 2050 looks more difficult than ever.  

This puts more pressure on SAF, technical efficiency improvements, and operational optimization to fill the gap. Due in part to this reality, hybrid-electric solutions have emerged as intermediate alternatives because they can be integrated in the medium term and offer moderate emission reductions (even though they are short of climate goals, including when combined with SAFs).  

The upcoming update to our Vision 2050 report will reflect the latest industry realities and reassess the role that ZEPs, SAFs, and other mitigation measures must play to realistically meet global targets. It will also feature an updated version of the ICCT’s net-zero aviation roadmap, which for the first time will include the climate impact of non-CO₂ emissions. 

Ultimately, stakeholders have to ask: Are hydrogen tanks getting lighter? Are fuel cells getting more powerful? Is battery chemistry improving? The recent setbacks are a wake-up call and these indicators will tell us if ZEPs can move from prototypes to actionable climate solutions. Even if there is continued progress on the technology side, the business case will need to be addressed—both the capital and regulatory aspects—to make ZEPs into a reality. In the meantime, as important as ZEPs are to the long-term solution, to stay on track for 2050 it’s likely that policymakers and the aviation industry will have to focus on alternative measures that can deliver medium-term emission savings. 

A general rate case proceeding for Southern California Edison illustrates this well. Southern California Edison serves the region that’ll have the highest demand for truck charging of any in the United States by 2030, according to the ICCT’s estimates. State policy requires state and local fleets to purchase 100% zero-emission vehicles by 2027, transit agencies to purchase 100% zero-emission buses by 2029, and as much as 75% zero-emission truck sales by 2035, depending on the vehicle group. The utility has proposed that it proactively invest in the grid to serve these future transportation electrification loads, but consumer advocates represented by the Public Advocates Office of the California Public Utilities Commission and The Utility Reform Network (TURN) oppose the proposal. These groups question the methodology used to estimate heavy-duty vehicle charging needs and call on the California Public Utilities Commission to reject spending proposals related to truck electrification.

We think common ground exists between those who need truck charging infrastructure and those who want to keep utility rates down. It lives at the intersection of information that both groups need to achieve their goals. This is information about the costs of truck charging infrastructure, the options that exist to lower those costs, and the kinds of commitments utilities can make to energize the most charging infrastructure at the lowest cost.

​​​To explore this, the ICCT contracted with Black & Veatch (BV), an electric vehicle charging and utility engineering and construction firm. The company developed a prototype public corridor charging facility based on its industry knowledge and estimated the costs of designing and constructing truck charging facilities. For example, BV provided costs for a prototypical public corridor charging facility and Figure 1 is a schematic of the site design. This approximately 8-acre facility with a combined nameplate capacity of 15.6 MW has thirty pull-in spots served by twenty 240-kW dual-port chargers and ten 480-kW single-port chargers, as well as five pull-through stalls each served by a 1 MW charger.

Figure 1. Layout of corridor charging facility prototype by Black & Veatch

Figure 2. Distinction between front-of-the-meter and behind-the-meter infrastructure and scope of analysis

Major distribution grid upgrades cost more than $10 ​​million—that alone is the cost of a 115 kV greenfield substation—and take years to build. That’s a large front-of-the-meter cost and it’s much different in a project that only requires adding a substation bank to an existing substation, as that costs the utility only around $1.5 million. For sites like the prototype in Figure 1, if they can access existing substation capacity, that’s a clear opportunity for lower costs. Utilities can facilitate buildout in these locations by proactively communicating to potential commercial charging customers where substation capacity already exists and easing the process for them to utilize it.

This is important because the truck industry is investing in electrification. Daimler, Volvo, and Cummins are constructing a 21 GWh battery production facility in Mississippi (launch date in 2027) and Tesla is building a 50,000-unit Semi tractor factory in Nevada (to come online in 2026). New businesses providing charging services to electric trucks that have launched in just the last 5 years include WattEV, Forum Mobility, Terawatt Infrastructure, Greenlane, Voltera, EV Realty, and Zeem Solutions. And public policies at the local, state, and federal levels are providing incentives and setting requirements for fleets to transition to zero-emission technologies.

Utility regulators can help meet the needs of both truck charging developers and utility ratepayers by establishing common ground for a discussion about what it takes to meet the needs of truck charging facilities, and that requires transparency and data about ​​costs. By engaging with data showing what these facilities would likely cost, options for minimizing the costs ultimately shouldered by ratepayers, and actions that streamline the deployment of least-cost solutions, all stakeholders can come away confident that their interests have been served.

In 2021, Colombia’s Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) under the Paris Agreement became legally binding with the passage of Law 2169, which commits the country to reducing carbon dioxide (CO₂) equivalent emissions by 51% from the projected baseline by 2030 and to achieving carbon neutrality by mid-century. Meeting these goals will require significant reductions in emissions from transportation, which currently accounts for nearly 40% of Colombia’s final energy consumption.

Accelerated adoption of zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) and improved internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle efficiency are key levers to decarbonize road transport. Here we’ll unpack the findings of a recent global study by the ICCT on the pace of the ZEV transition and highlight implications for Colombia’s policies.

We analyzed three scenarios for Colombia’s road transport emissions. The Baseline scenario reflects current policies, including Colombia’s 2019 legislation, Law 1972, which mandates Euro VI-equivalent standards for new medium- and heavy-duty vehicles from 2023 onward, and Law 1964, which requires all urban bus purchases to be ZEVs by 2035. The Momentum scenario incorporates Colombia’s international commitments to the ZEV Declaration (100% ZEV sales for light-duty vehicles by 2035) and the Global MOU on Zero-Emission Medium and Heavy-Duty Vehicles (30% ZEV sales for buses and trucks by 2030, and 100% by 2040); fulfilling these commitments would also achieve Colombia’s target of putting 600,000 electric vehicles on the road by 2030. The Ambitious scenario is a Paris-aligned scenario for global ZEV uptake; in the case of Colombia, it extends the Momentum scenario by accelerating electrification of two- and three-wheelers, segments that have seen exponential growth in ICE vehicles in recent years.

The good news is that Colombia’s ZEV ambitions for light- and heavy-duty vehicles are already Paris-aligned, as shown in the close alignment of the Momentum and Ambitious scenarios (Figure 1). However, projected ZEV uptake in the Baseline scenario, which reflects regulations currently in place, would fall far short of Colombia’s ZEV goals. This underscores the need for further policy action to close this “regulatory gap” and support fully achieving Colombia’s ambitions.

These projections further illustrate the “regulatory gap” between announced commitments and adopted policies. When considering the need for additional action to realize Colombia’s climate ambitions, a critical missing element is supply-side regulations (SSRs). These are important policy tools because they set the future direction of the market for all automakers and in doing so provide the confidence for investments in new technology and infrastructure. SSRs can take the form of fuel efficiency standards, CO₂ standards, or ZEV regulations. Of these three options, a ZEV regulation could be developed quickly and would be easier to implement than fuel efficiency or CO₂ standards. However, ZEV regulations are not currently under discussion in Colombia, whereas fuel efficiency standards are actively being considered.

Although fuel efficiency standards are more complicated to implement than a ZEV regulation, they could be designed to meet Colombia’s ZEV targets while still providing an incentive for cost-effective ICE efficiency improvements. The European Union’s CO₂ standards for cars and vans and heavy-duty vehicles are examples of SSRs that are stringent enough to accelerate ZEV uptake while allowing automakers the flexibility to deploy ICE technologies to help meet the targets as they ramp up ZEV uptake. If Colombia adopts fuel efficiency standards, it’s crucial to ensure these are stringent enough to meet its ZEV goals; setting weak standards that achieve only incremental ICE improvements or provide generous credits for ZEVs would leave a substantial regulatory gap.

Two-wheeler electrification represents an additional opportunity, as Colombia has not yet established targets for 100% ZEV sales as it has done for light- and heavy-duty vehicles. A ZEV regulation would be a logical choice for this rapidly growing segment as it could be electrified quickly if manufacturers offer competitively priced electric models.

The Colombian government has established four strategic axes for decarbonizing transportation: public policies, sustainable mobility and smart cities, reindustrialization of mobility, and multimodality. In addition to reducing emissions, implementing well-designed SSRs would also support Colombia’s reindustrialization agenda by providing market confidence and driving investments in vehicle supply and charging infrastructure. With decisive policy action, Colombia could become a leader in transportation decarbonization in Latin America while realizing the economic, environmental, and public health benefits of a cleaner vehicle fleet.

En 2021, la Contribución Determinada a Nivel Nacional (NDC, del inglés National Determined Contribution) de Colombia, bajo el Acuerdo de París, se volvió jurídicamente vinculante con la aprobación de la Ley 2169, que compromete al país a reducir las emisiones equivalentes de dióxido de carbono (CO₂) en un 51% en referencia a la línea base proyectada hacia el año 2030 y lograr la neutralidad del carbono para mitad de siglo. Cumplir estas metas requerirá reducir significativamente las emisiones del transporte, que actualmente representa cerca del 40% del consumo final de la energía en Colombia.

La adopción acelerada de vehículos de cero emisiones (ZEV, de zero-emission vehicles) y la implementación de estándares de eficiencia energética de los vehículos con motor de combustión interna (ICE, de internal combustion engine) son medidas fundamentales para descarbonizar el transporte de carretera. Aquí desglosaremos los hallazgos de un reciente estudio global hecho por el ICCT en la vía de la transición hacia los ZEV y resaltaremos sus implicaciones en las políticas públicas colombianas.

Analizamos tres escenarios respecto a las emisiones del transporte de carretera colombiano. El escenario Línea Base refleja las políticas actuales, incluyendo dos medidas clave del año 2019: la Ley 1972, que decreta estándares de emisiones equivalentes a los establecidos en la normativa Euro VI para vehículos medianos y ligeros a partir de 2023, y la Ley 1964, que requiere que todos los autobuses urbanos sean ZEV para 2035. El escenario Momentum incorpora los compromisos internacionales de Colombia en la Declaración ZEV (100% de ventas de ZEV para los vehículos ligeros en 2035) y al Memorando de Entendimiento Global (30% de ventas de ZEV para autobuses y camiones en 2030, y 100% en 2040). Cumplir estos compromisos también lograría la meta que tiene Colombia de colocar 600,000 vehículos eléctricos en carreteras para el año 2030. El escenario Ambicioso está alineado con el Acuerdo de París en el despliegue global de los ZEV; en el caso colombiano, este escenario extiende el del Momentum mediante la electrificación de motocicletas, que han crecido exponencialmente en los años recientes.

La buena noticia es que las ambiciones que tiene Colombia respecto a los vehículos ligeros y pesados ZEV están ya alineados con París, como lo muestra la cercanía de los escenarios Momentum y Ambicioso (Figura 1). Sin embargo, la incorporación de ZEV proyectada en el escenario Línea Base, que refleja las actuales regulaciones, sería insuficiente ante las metas de ZEV que tiene Colombia. Esto subraya la necesidad de políticas adicionales para cerrar la “brecha regulatoria” y apoyar el cumplimiento de las ambiciones de Columbia.

La Figura 2 muestra las implicaciones de estas trayectorias de penetración de ZEV en las emisiones de CO₂ del transporte de carretera en Colombia. En el escenario Línea Base, las emisiones del tanque a la rueda incrementan cerca de un 70% sobre los niveles actuales para 2050. Las emisiones acumuladas de CO₂ hacia 2050 alcanzarían 1,352 millones de toneladas y colocarían la meta de neutralidad de carbono fuera de alcance. El escenario Momentum reduciría las emisiones de CO₂ en un 80% en 2050, en comparación con el Línea Base, y el Ambicioso entregaría reducciones adicionales de 21 millones de toneladas de CO₂ acumulados con la electrificación de motocicletas.

Estas proyecciones ilustran la “brecha regulatoria” entre los compromisos anunciados y las políticas adoptadas. Al considerar la necesidad de acciones adicionales para lograr las ambiciones climáticas de Colombia, las regulaciones del lado de la oferta (SSR, de supply-side regulations) son un elemento faltante y crítico. Éstas son herramientas importantes para elaborar políticas, pues orientan el mercado de los fabricantes de vehículos y, al hacerlo, generan confianza para las inversiones en nuevas tecnologías e infraestructura. Las SSR pueden tomar la forma de estándares de eficiencia energética, estándares de CO₂ o regulaciones en los requisitos de venta de ZEV. De estas tres opciones, una regulación de ventas de ZEV puede desarrollarse rápidamente y sería más fácil de ejecutar que los estándares de eficiencia energética o de CO₂. Sin embargo, las regulaciones de ventas de ZEV no están actualmente en discusión en Colombia, mientras que los estándares de eficiencia energética están siendo activamente considerados.

Aunque los estándares de eficiencia energética son más complicados de ejecutar que una regulación de ventas de ZEV, pueden diseñarse para cumplir las metas de ventas de ZEV de Colombia al tiempo que estimulen mejoras costo-efectivas de eficiencia de ICE. Los estándares de CO₂ de la Unión Europea para automóviles y camionetas y vehículos pesados son ejemplos de SSR suficientemente estrictos como para acelerar el despliegue de ZEV y permitir a los fabricantes de vehículos el uso de tecnologías ICE que ayuden a lograr las metas y refuercen el despliegue de ZEV. Si Colombia adopta estándares de eficiencia energética, es crucial asegurar que éstos sean lo suficientemente rigurosos para lograr sus metas de penetración de ZEV. Establecer estándares poco ambiciosos que consigan sólo mejoras esporádicas en los ICE, o provean créditos generosos para los ZEV, dejaría una brecha regulatoria sustancial.

La electrificación de motocicletas representa una oportunidad adicional, pues Colombia aún no ha establecido metas para el 100% de ventas de ZEV, como ya lo ha hecho con vehículos ligeros y pesados. Una regulación de ventas de ZEV sería una opción lógica para este segmento en rápido crecimiento, puesto que puede ser electrificado rápidamente si las empresas ensambladoras locales e importadores ofrecieran modelos eléctricos a precios competitivos.

El gobierno colombiano ha establecido cuatro ejes estratégicos para la descarbonización del transporte: políticas públicas; movilidad sostenible y ciudades inteligentes; reindustrialización de la movilidad, y la multimodalidad. Adicionalmente a la reducción de emisiones, ejecutar SSR bien diseñadas daría soporte a la agenda de reindustrialización de Colombia, dando confianza a los mercados y orientando inversiones en suministros de vehículos e infraestructura de carga. Con acciones decisivas en políticas públicas, Colombia puede convertirse en líder de la descarbonización del transporte en América Latina y gozar de los beneficios económicos, ambientales y de salud pública que conlleva tener vehículos más limpios.

This piece originally appeared in the Hindustan Times.

Karnataka ranked third among all states in India in total new battery electric vehicle (BEV) sales (two-wheelers, three-wheelers, passenger vehicles, and commercial vehicles) in calendar year 2024. That was enough for a 9% BEV sales share, higher than most states, and more than 5,700 new public charging stations were installed in Karnataka that year, the most of any state in the country. 

There’s more good news. The Clean Mobility Policy 2025-30 launched last month includes a special focus on developing the state’s manufacturing ecosystem for zero-emission vehicles, a term that includes BEVs and hydrogen fuel-cell electric vehicles (FCEVs). Already a major automobile manufacturing hub, Karnataka could, with the additional support from the policy, become a locus for innovation in clean automotive technologies and play a pivotal role in realising India’s ZEV transition goals. The new policy offers support across the ZEV value chain, from battery and cell manufacturing and recycling to charging infrastructure, hydrogen refuelling stations, and more. 

This comes in the form of incentives, including a capital investment subsidy, waiver of stamp duty, concessional registration charges, and reimbursement of the land-conversion fee. The policy also includes initiatives for developing the skills of the automotive workforce to align with the needs of the ZEV transition.

Governments in leading auto markets such as California and China supplement such incentives with supply-side regulations like sales mandates to ramp up ZEV adoption across segments. These mandates require manufacturers to sell a certain minimum percentage of ZEVs in their total vehicle sales over a period of time. California implemented its ZEV mandate in 1990 and leads the United States in ZEV deployment, with a market share of about three times the American average.

There are key advantages to ZEV sales regulations. Prior ICCT research found that they could increase the number of ZEV model choices available, as manufacturers would increase their offerings to attract consumers. In the United States in 2023, six of the top 10 states for passenger car electric vehicle (EV) sales (EVs are BEVs, FCEVs, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles) had deployed ZEV mandates, and these states were home to about 50% of the total EV sales in the country. 

Additionally, each of the six had more than 70 different EV models available on the market. A ZEV sales regulation would increase industry-wide manufacturing and lead to economies of scale that would ultimately bring down the purchase price of ZEVs. This would also be likely to expedite the achievement of cost parity with internal combustion engine vehicles. In practice, ZEV mandates are met by manufacturers either through ZEV sales or the purchase of surplus credits from other manufacturers that overachieved on their sales targets under the regulation. 

Manufacturers slow to embrace ZEVs could risk losing market competitiveness as they transition. A ZEV sales mandate also offers some certainty to ZEV refuelling infrastructure providers about the number of vehicles expected on the roads in the future, and this facilitates investment planning well in advance. 

In India, implementing ZEV sales regulations requires legal authority through legislation or judicial intervention. For instance, in 2015, the Supreme Court directed that all taxis running in the National Capital Region be run on compressed natural gas by early 2016. Additionally, a well-established supporting institutional framework and coordination among key stakeholders is needed for successful implementation. The buildout of adequate charging infrastructure is crucial for scaling up ZEV deployment, and that will need coordination among and action from the government, DISCOMs, industry, and standardisation organisations. 

The alignment and support of industry bodies, technology and policy research organisations, government funding agencies, and financial institutions will also be needed for successful implementation of these regulations. Thus far, purchase and manufacturing incentives have been the driving force behind Karnataka’s ZEV transition. 

As the state forges ahead with its goal of becoming a ZEV manufacturing leader, supplementing these incentives with well-designed ZEV sales regulations can serve as a potent policy lever to accelerate the transition and bring benefits to both consumers and manufacturers. 

Following my recent piece on Oslo’s Fornebu Line project—a pioneering effort in zero-emission metro construction that features a more than 75% machinery electrification rate—I’d like to turn to another groundbreaking construction project in Oslo, Sophies Minde. This project represents Oslo’s next frontier: achieving 100% zero-emission operations for heritage renovation.

Oslo’s public procurement policies for construction have propelled an industry-wide transition. By 2023, 77% of the machinery deployed in municipal construction sites was zero-emission, and starting in 2025, “emission-free” construction equipment becomes mandatory for all public projects. In September 2024, I visited Sophies Minde, where a former hospital is being revitalized into a community center with district offices, a kindergarten, health services, and public spaces. Spanning 13,000 square meters of indoor space and 7,100 square meters of outdoor upgrades, the initiative exemplifies Oslo’s commitment to embedding sustainability in urban redevelopment. It’s scheduled to be completed next year.

Fully zero-emission

As Oslo’s flagship initiative realizing its 2025 mandate for 100% zero-emission municipal construction, Sophies Minde operates an all-electric machinery fleet that includes excavators, wheel loaders, lifting platforms, cranes, drills, and pavers. These machines handle tasks ranging from delicate renovations in indoor spaces to extensive outdoor earthwork like excavation, grading, and site preparation.

The project has comprehensive charging infrastructure on-site. There are two permanent power stations and one temporary one, and each is equipped with high-capacity chargers. Additionally, 24 geothermal heat pumps handle the building’s heating and cooling needs.

An electric excavator working on earthmoving at Sophies Minde. Photo by Jinjian Li

Beyond electrification, the project emphasizes material reuse to minimize its carbon footprint. The original brickwork, a key element of the building’s history, has been carefully preserved, rigorously tested for compressive strength, and reintegrated into the renovation. This approach achieves a 62% reduction in carbon dioxide (CO₂) equivalent emissions compared with new construction with conventional cement.

The Bobcat E10e electric mini excavator works well in relatively small indoor spaces. Photo by Hongyang Cui

Environmental, social, and cost benefits

As of June 2024, Sophies Minde had reduced emissions by over 200 tons of CO₂ equivalent by replacing diesel-powered equipment with electric alternatives. According to Mathias Kolsaker, the project manager, the team encountered no operational challenges. Drawing on their past experiences with diesel machinery and around a year’s worth of operations using 100% zero-emission machines, Kolsaker estimated that electric machines typically require approximately 10%–15% more units on-site to match diesel capacity, due to downtime during charging. However, this is expected to drop closer to zero as battery technology advances in terms of both the time spent charging and how long the charge lasts. Additionally, tethered electric charging has further optimized the efficiency of equipment that operates with limited movement.

In Norway, electric construction machinery is predominantly leased, and at Sophies Minde, we were told that costs for most electric models are around 10% higher than diesel equivalents. For certain specialized equipment, such as drills, the lease costs tend to be higher than that. However, project experience shows that for most mainstream machinery, lower electricity expenses offset the up-front price difference, making the overall costs of electric machines similar to diesel ones. Additionally, reduced greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions, along with the quieter and vibration-free operations of electric machinery, improve operator comfort and minimize disruption to the surrounding neighborhood.

Lessons for others

Oslo’s procurement policies, which prioritize sustainability alongside cost and quality, have been instrumental in advancing zero-emission construction. These policies have enabled the use of electric models like mobile cranes and pilling machines for the first time in Oslo. At the same time, challenges remain. Securing adequate grid capacity and charging infrastructure is critical, as electric machinery currently requires more units on-site to compensate for charging downtime. For Sophies Minde, batteries typically allow for 6–8 hours of operation and lunchtime charging is used, but performance can be highly dependent on temperature. During one of Oslo’s coldest winters, when temperatures dropped to -25 °C, battery capacity decreased by 40%. Despite some delays to the project schedule under such extreme weather, electric machinery effectively met the demanding performance requirements across most operating conditions.

Market availability could also pose a hurdle. While commonly deployed electric machines are readily accessible through mainstream suppliers, sourcing electric versions of specialized equipment still proves more complex. This is particularly true for two categories: medium- and large-scale electric equipment such as large excavators and cranes and equipment with niche applications including road pavers and rollers. Increased demand from major buyers and large municipal projects could incentivize producers to scale up production of their electric models. Nonetheless, by integrating green technologies and reusing materials, Sophies Minde proves the feasibility of zero-emission construction machinery and charts a clear path for sustainable urban development.

Acknowledgement: The author extends sincere gratitude to the City of Oslo for coordinating the visit to Sophies Minde and for sharing valuable insights on the applications of zero-emission machinery.