In the realm of long-haul trucking, a technological crossroads has emerged: the divide between hydrogen-powered and battery-electric trucks. As the industry grapples with stringent emissions regulations, particularly in California, truckers are starting to embrace hydrogen for zero-emission technology.
Companies like Nikola and traditional manufacturers are investing in hydrogen technology, aiming to overcome infrastructure challenges and meet growing demand.
The Shift to Hydrogen-Powered Trucks
Many truckers are shifting focus towards electric technology adapted for 18-wheelers. But there’s a clear divide between those favouring battery-cell rigs commonly used in electric cars and those considering hydrogen as the best solution for zero-emission technology, particularly for long-haul trips.
Supporters of hydrogen believe it offers advantages for long trips and quicker refuelling compared to battery technology. Hydrogen trucks can carry heavier loads since they don’t require large batteries.
However, hydrogen fuel cell vehicle, also called FCEV, and infrastructure are not as developed as battery-electric trucks, and strict regulations are pressuring truck operators.
Starting January 1, California will mandate that trucks visiting the state’s seaports be zero-emission vehicles. The state also plans to increase the use of clean fuels, aiming to phase out diesel over the next decades.
These stringent rules on diesel trucks are among the toughest in the country, and other states might adopt similar regulations based on California’s lead.
The upcoming regulations have caused a surge in diesel truck purchases as carriers seek to expand their fleets before the restrictions come into effect. Truckers are also investing in zero-emission vehicles, although they come at a high cost, almost triple a diesel truck’s price.
These purchases are supported by grants from California and local agencies but hinge on the promise of future infrastructure development.
Battery-electric trucks are already in operation in California, with over a dozen companies transporting freight using these vehicles. However, hydrogen-powered trucks are just starting to enter the market in the state, and hydrogen-fueling stations are lagging behind battery-electric infrastructure.
Globally, China has the most hydrogen fuel network at around 250 while the U.S. only has a little over 50 stations, mostly in California.

Truckers find battery-electric trucks suitable for short trips between ports, rail yards, and warehouses. Yet, for longer journeys of 100 miles or more, they consider these trucks less practical due to limited battery range and lengthy recharging times.
Currently, battery-electric heavy-duty trucks can travel around 300 miles and take hours to recharge. Some truckers report getting just over 150 miles between charges.
In contrast, hydrogen trucks boast a range of up to 500 miles and refuel in about 30 minutes. They are also lighter than battery-electric rigs, enabling heavier loads.
While Nikola leads in hydrogen-truck technology, traditional manufacturers like Kenworth, Hyundai Motor, and Volvo Trucks are also working on developing hydrogen fuel-cell big rigs.
In July, Nikola received a $41.9 million grant under the Trade Corridor Enhancement Program (TCEP) to build 6 heavy-duty hydrogen refueling stations across Southern California through its HYLA brand.
Each hydrogen refueling station is designed to support and scale up the growth of heavy-duty commercial hydrogen refueling needs. Nikola also reached a milestone of sales orders for its hydrogen fuel cell electric trucks, reflecting a growing industry trend.
Hydrogen Holds The Promise of a Sustainable Energy
Napa-based trucking firm Biagi Bros recently trialed a hydrogen-powered Nikola truck for two months. Gregg Stumbaugh, their corporate equipment director, noted that due to the truck’s extended range and rapid refueling, their drivers accomplished twice the work compared to battery-electric trucks.
California’s regulations mandate that 10% of Biagi Bros’ 230-truck fleet must be emission-free by 2027. Stumbaugh expects most of their zero-emission trucks bought before then, including the upcoming 10 Nikola trucks to be run by hydrogen fuel.
He emphasized the quick refueling time as a significant advantage over battery-electric options.
Nikola’s CEO, Steve Girsky, aims to establish nine public fueling sites in California by mid-2024, a combination of the company’s HYLA brand and third-party providers.
They’re collaborating with Voltera to set up 50 Hyla hydrogen-fueling stations across key trucking routes in the next five years. Their goal is to “make sure there’s a supply of hydrogen everywhere there’s customers”, said Nikola’s CEO Steve Girsky.
While hydrogen refueling is faster, it remains expensive due to the limited fuel market.
Hyzon Motors‘ CEO, Parker Meeks, mentioned hydrogen’s cost being 2-4x higher per gallon than diesel. But as hydrogen becomes more prevalent, its price would decline in the next 3 years.
Meanwhile, McKinsey & Company estimated that the total hydrogen production capacity announced by companies by 2030 rose by 40% as shown below.

For Tennessee-based IMC, investing in hydrogen trucks is a necessity. The company operates regular round trips of about 300 miles between ports and warehouses. These are areas where battery-electric vehicles fall short due to range limitations.
The adoption of hydrogen-powered trucks in California is still in its initial stages. And hydrogen-fueling stations lag significantly behind those supporting battery-electric vehicles.
However, as the recent developments in the hydrogen market show, a revolution is unfolding where hydrogen seems to hold the promise of a sustainable energy transition.
The post Truck Companies Are Shifting to Hydrogen Fuel for Long-Haul Trips appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Carbon Footprint
Finding Nature Based Solutions in Your Supply Chain
Carbon Footprint
How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living
Americans are paying more for insurance, electricity, taxes, and home repairs every year. What many people may not realize is that climate change is already one of the drivers behind those rising costs.
For many households, climate change is no longer just an environmental issue. It is becoming a cost-of-living issue. While climate impacts like melting glaciers and shrinking polar ice can feel distant from everyday life, the financial effects are already showing up in monthly budgets across the country.
Today, a larger share of household income is consumed by fixed costs such as housing, insurance, utilities, and healthcare. (3) Climate change and climate inaction are adding pressure to many of those expenses through higher disaster recovery costs, rising energy demand, infrastructure repairs, and increased insurance risk.
The goal of this article is to help connect climate change to the everyday financial realities people already experience. Regardless of where someone stands on climate policy, it is important to recognize that climate change is already increasing costs for households, businesses, and taxpayers across the United States.
More conservative estimates indicate that the average household has experienced an increase of about $400 per year from observed climate change, while less conservative estimates suggest an increase of $900.(1) Those in more disaster-prone regions of the country face disproportionate costs, with some households experiencing climate-related costs averaging $1,300 per year.(1) Another study found that climate adaptation costs driven by climate change have already consumed over 3% of personal income in the U.S. since 2015.(9) By the end of the century, housing units could spend an additional $5,600 on adaptation costs.(1)
Whether we realize it or not, Americans are already paying for climate change through higher insurance premiums, energy costs, taxes, and infrastructure repairs. These growing expenses are often referred to as climate adaptation costs.
Without meaningful climate action, these costs are expected to continue rising. Choosing not to invest in climate action is also choosing to spend more on climate adaptation.
Here are a few ways climate change is already increasing the cost of living:
- Higher insurance costs from more frequent and severe storms
- Higher energy use during longer and hotter summers
- Higher electricity rates tied to storm recovery and grid upgrades
- Higher government spending and taxpayer-funded disaster recovery costs
The real debate is not whether climate change costs money. Americans are already paying for it. The question is where we want those costs to go. Should we invest more in climate action to help reduce future climate adaptation costs, or continue paying growing recovery and adaptation expenses in everyday life?
How Climate Change Is Increasing Insurance Costs
There is one industry that closely tracks the financial impact of natural disasters: insurance. Insurance companies are focused on assessing risk, estimating damages, and collecting enough revenue to cover losses and remain financially stable.
Comparing the 20-year periods 1980–1999 and 2000–2019, climate-related disasters increased 83% globally from 3,656 events to 6,681 events. The average time between billion-dollar disasters dropped from 82 days during the 1980s to 16 days during the last 10 years, and in 2025 the average time between disasters fell to just 10 days. (6)
According to the reinsurance firm Munich Re, total economic losses from natural disasters in 2024 exceeded $320 billion globally, nearly 40% higher than the decade-long annual average. Average annual inflation-adjusted costs more than quadrupled from $22.6 billion per year in the 1980s to $102 billion per year in the 2010s. Costs increased further to an average of $153.2 billion annually during 2020–2024, representing another 50% increase over the 2010s. (6)
In the United States, billion-dollar weather and climate disasters have also increased significantly. The average number of billion-dollar disasters per year has grown from roughly three annually during the 1980s to 19 annually over the last decade. In 2023 and 2024, the U.S. recorded 28 and 27 billion-dollar disasters respectively, both setting new records. (6)
The growing impact of climate change is one reason insurance costs continue to rise. “There are two things that drive insurance loss costs, which is the frequency of events and how much they cost,” said Robert Passmore, assistant vice president of personal lines at the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America. “So, as these events become more frequent, that’s definitely going to have an impact.” (8)
After adjusting for inflation, insurance costs have steadily increased over time. From 2000 to 2020, insurance costs consistently grew faster than the Consumer Price Index due to rising rebuilding costs and weather-related losses.(3) Between 2020 and 2023 alone, the average home insurance premium increased from $75 to $360 due to climate change impacts, with disaster-prone regions experiencing especially steep increases.(1) Since 2015, homeowners in some regions affected by more extreme weather have seen home insurance costs increased by nearly 57%.(1) Some insurers have also limited or stopped offering coverage in high-risk areas.(7)
For many families, rising insurance costs are no longer occasional financial burdens. They are becoming recurring monthly expenses tied directly to growing climate risk.
How Rising Temperatures Increase Household Energy Costs

The financial impacts of climate change extend beyond insurance. Rising temperatures are also changing how much energy Americans use and how utilities plan for future electricity demand.
Between 1950 and 2010, per capita electricity use increased 10-fold, though usage has flattened or slightly declined since 2012 due to more efficient appliances and LED lighting. (3) A significant share of increased energy demand comes from cooling needs associated with higher temperatures.
Over the last 20 years, the United States has experienced increasing Cooling Degree Days (CDD) and decreasing Heating Degree Days (HDD). Nearly all counties have become warmer over the past three decades, with some areas experiencing several hundred additional cooling degree days, equivalent to roughly one additional degree of warmth on most days. (1) This trend reflects a warming climate where air conditioning demand is increasing while heating demand generally declines. (4)
As temperatures continue rising, households are expected to spend more on cooling than they save on heating. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that by 2050, national Heating Degree Days will be 11% lower while Cooling Degree Days will be 28% higher than 2021 levels. Cooling demand is projected to rise 2.5 times faster than heating demand declines. (5)
These projections come from energy and infrastructure experts planning for future electricity demand and grid capacity needs. Utilities and grid operators are already preparing for higher peak summer electricity loads caused by rising temperatures. (5)
Longer and hotter summers also affect how homes and buildings are designed. Buildings constructed for past climate conditions may require upgrades such as larger air conditioning systems, stronger insulation, and improved ventilation to remain comfortable and energy efficient in the future. (10)
For many households, this means higher monthly utility bills and potentially higher long-term home improvement costs as temperatures continue to rise.
How Climate Change Affects Electricity Rates
On an inflation-adjusted basis, average U.S. residential electricity rates are slightly lower today than they were 50 years ago. (2) However, climate-related damage to utility infrastructure is creating new upward pressure on electricity costs.
Electric utilities rely heavily on above-ground poles, wires, transformers, and substations that can be damaged by hurricanes, storms, floods, and wildfires. Repairing and upgrading this infrastructure often requires substantial investment.
As a result, utilities are increasing electricity rates in response to wildfire and hurricane events to fund infrastructure repairs and future mitigation efforts. (1) The average cumulative increase in per-household electricity expenditures due to climate-related price changes is approximately $30. (1)
While this increase may appear modest today, utility costs are expected to rise further as climate-related infrastructure damage becomes more frequent and severe.
How Climate Disasters Increase Government Spending and Taxes
Extreme weather events also damage public infrastructure, including roads, schools, bridges, airports, water systems, and emergency services infrastructure. Recovery and rebuilding costs are often funded through taxpayer dollars at the federal, state, and local levels.
The average annual government cost tied to climate-related disaster recovery is estimated at nearly $142 per household. (1) States that frequently experience hurricanes, wildfires, tornadoes, or flooding can face even higher public recovery costs.
These expenses affect taxpayers whether they personally experience a disaster or not. Climate-related recovery spending can increase pressure on public budgets, emergency management systems, and infrastructure funding nationwide.
Reducing Climate Costs Through Climate Action
While this article focuses on the growing financial costs associated with climate change, the issue is not only about money for many people. It is also about recognizing our environmental impact and taking responsibility for reducing it in order to help preserve a healthy planet for future generations.
While individuals alone cannot solve climate change, collective action can help reduce future climate adaptation costs over time.
For those interested in taking action, there are three important steps:
- Estimate your carbon footprint to better understand the emissions connected to your lifestyle and activities.
- Create a plan to gradually reduce emissions through energy efficiency, cleaner technologies, and more sustainable choices.
- Address remaining emissions by supporting verified carbon reduction projects through carbon credits.
Carbon credits are one of the most cost-effective tools available for climate action because they help fund projects that generate verified emission reductions at scale. Supporting global emission reduction efforts can help reduce the long-term impacts and costs associated with climate change.
Visit Terrapass to learn more about carbon footprints, carbon credits, and climate action solutions.
The post How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living appeared first on Terrapass.
Carbon Footprint
Carbon credit project stewardship: what happens after credit issuance
A carbon credit purchase is not a transaction that closes at issuance. The credit may be retired, the certificate filed, and the reporting box ticked. But on the ground, in the forest, in the field, and in the community, the work continues. It endures for years. In many cases, for decades.
![]()
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy7 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
嘉宾来稿:探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测

