Most companies seeking outside logistics expertise hire a third-party service provider to give them a hand. But it appears that Supervalu Stores didn't want to bother with hiring a third party; it went out and bought one. Last month, the Milwaukee-based grocery chain announced that it was acquiring Total Logistics Control (TLC) in a deal valued at $233 million.
Workers at Total Logistics, also based in Milwaukee, have received assurances that the acquisition will not trigger large-scale layoffs. "We are most pleased that this transaction will provide continuity of employment for our management teams and associates, as well as a full commitment to continued high service and product quality for our customers," says Total Logistics Inc.'s president and CEO,William T. Donovan.
For his part, Jeff Noddle, chairman and CEO of Supervalu, says he sees the acquisition as a business opportunity. "The combination of Supervalu's scale and supply chain competence together with Total Logistics Inc. and its nationally recognized reputation in thirdparty logistics will unlock new growth opportunities."
Look around any distribution center and you’ll see dozens of devices powered by batteries. They range from large-scale cells in electric forklifts, to mid-size units in autonomous mobile robots (AMRs), to slim, palm-size batteries in barcode scanners and smartphones. Despite the ubiquity of these applications, there is more work to be done. That’s why a battery-industry group has launched an initiative it hopes will encourage the next generation of engineers to continue developing smaller, safer, more powerful industrial batteries.
The effort is funded by donations from BCI member companies, including the lead donors Entek and Daramic, as well as gifts from more than a dozen other companies, including such distribution center stalwarts as Crown Battery, East Penn, and EnerSys.
Logistics service providers looking to cut emissions from their transportation operations have largely focused on the switch from internal combustion engines to battery electric vehicles (BEVs). But some proponents say that hydrogen fuel cells are a better way to generate the electricity required to reach that goal. A new demonstration project now underway is designed to prove their point.
The FCEV began real-world testing on routes in the San Francisco Bay Area in August. Over the next few months, the truck will head down to the Los Angeles area before making its way to northern California and then to western Canada.
Those tests follow similar demos in Australia as well as a July trial of Hyzon’s Class 8 FCEV tractor-trailer with some of its North American fleet customers, which include waste haulers. According to Hyzon, those tests showed that hydrogen fuel-cell technology is a viable replacement for heavy-duty diesel engines and can overcome some of the inherent challenges associated with other zero-emission technologies, such as fluctuations in operating temperatures, payload limitations, and short ranges (the company says its hydrogen fuel cells provide the refuse-collection trucks with reliable power for up to 125 miles).
Global supply chains have long had to weather disruptions triggered by sudden spikes in demand. Holiday gift shopping, big price discounts, and stocking up before major storms are just a few reasons for jumps in consumption. Now there’s another variable to consider: Taylor Swift.
Devoted fans of the pop megastar often wear outfits reflecting Swift’s own costumes or references to her songs when they attend concerts. Her influence is so notable that, according to London-based Dalston Mill Fabrics, the singer’s lyrics appear to drive spikes in demand for certain styles and fabrics.
Songs on Swift’s most recent album, The Tortured Poets Department, mention several types of clothing and have boosted fans’ interest in similar items. For instance, as any Swiftie knows, miniskirts have always been a signature piece in Taylor’s wardrobe. But this summer, they jumped in importance thanks to a reference in her song “imgonnagetyouback,” which begins with the words “Lilac short skirt, the one that fits me like skin.” The singer wore a lilac skirt in a video for the song, increasing the hype. Since the video was released, worldwide internet searches for “lilac skirt” have skyrocketed by 992%, reaching a peak in July, Dalston Mill said, citing data from Google Trends. The fabric purveyor reports similar search trends for black dresses, lace tops, and dresses with buttons, all of which are mentioned on the album.
“The recent release of The Tortured Poets Department has solidified Taylor Swift’s reputation as a fashion icon,” a Dalston Mill spokesperson said in a release. “These search spikes also demonstrate Taylor Swift’s position as a global trendsetter. Her influence is indisputable, and it will be great to see Swifties debuting some of these outfit trends at the upcoming Eras Tour shows.”
Which prompts a burning question for supply chain professionals: Should demand planners in the apparel industry consider Taylor Swift albums as leading indicators in their forecasts?
The announcement from the electric vehicle (EV) charging company contained a really big number: 1 million. That’s the number of places in North America and Europe where drivers can go to charge up their cars, according to ChargePoint, a California company that provides a list of those charging stations on its smartphone app. And it’s important because the lack of a robust charging network has been one of the main obstacles to the mass transition from fossil fuel to battery power.
But the number also made me wonder, How does that stack up against the number of service stations where drivers can pump gas or diesel? And since charging an electric car takes longer than filling a tank, does the EV industry need more plugs than pumps anyway?
The rough answers to those questions were easy to find—the American Petroleum Institute says there are more than 145,000 traditional fueling stations across the U.S., and Statista puts the number in Europe at around 135,719—but those numbers only raised more questions for me. For example, each filling station typically has between four and eight pumps, so shouldn’t we multiply the number of stations by the number of hoses at each one? As it turns out, ChargePoint’s number is the total amount of ports—or plugs—not the number of locations. So I was trying to compare apples to oranges.
Don’t get me wrong—providing drivers with a list of a million charging stations is an awesome achievement—but the number also demonstrates the difficulty of comparing electric and fossil fuel infrastructures.
Here’s an example: We recently learned about a $3 billion EV battery factory being planned as a joint venture by the automotive giants Cummins, Daimler, and Paccar. Intended to ensure a U.S.-based supply of commercial and industrial batteries, the plant will be a 21-gigawatt hour (GWh) factory. I’m not an engineer, just a humble reporter, so that number meant precisely nothing to me. And when I tried to figure out how that would stack up by more conventional measures of production capacity, I ran up against the vagaries of “green math.”
First, a little background: In transportation terms, gigawatts are like horsepower—a measure of maximum potential output—and so, gigawatt hours are like horsepower multiplied by endurance. But of course, no one drives their car at top horsepower all the time—they’d quickly collect a stack of speeding tickets at the very least. Maybe that’s why legacy automotive plants don’t measure their vehicles’ output in “horsepower hours.”
Further complicating matters, an EV battery is like an internal combustion engine (ICE) and its fuel tank, all wrapped up in one box. Describing the “power” of that box with a single number requires that drivers think about energy in a new way. Here’s the best I could do: That new battery factory would be able to offer a single charge-up to about 48,000 electric Freightliner eCascadia trucks. But that math only works in the absurd scenario where those truckers somehow all come in for a charge on the same day and claim the plant’s entire annual battery output.
It was a similar story when I started looking into the driving ranges of EVs versus their gas-powered counterparts. That seems like a simple concept, but I stumbled over that one too when I learned that my friend’s Ford F-150 Lightning electric pickup truck has an EPA-estimated range of 300 miles. Pretty impressive: That’s more than my Toyota Rav4, which runs about 240 miles on a tank of gas. But wait a minute, that’s not a fair comparison because maybe the Rav4 has a smaller gas tank, so … but hold on, the Lightning doesn’t even have a gas tank! See, I lost my direct comparison again.
Fortunately, the next generation may have this thing figured out. We now have two teenage drivers in the house, and whenever I hand my son the keys to that Toyota, he sets the digital dashboard display to show the car’s estimated remaining mileage. Call me old-fashioned, but all these years, I’ve just been keeping an eye on the analog gas tank needle to see when I needed to fill up. If you change your mode of thinking to watch the number of miles the car can go, not the number of gallons left in the tank, it no longer matters whether you’re burning gasoline or electrons under the hood. Wait a minute, an EV doesn’t actually burn any electrons … oops, I did it again.
Earlier this year, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted new regulations that will eventually ban most forklifts with internal combustion engines from operating in the Golden State. With a few exceptions, companies will have to phase out their carbon-emitting trucks between 2028 and 2037. These regulations are designed to help clear the skies over California, even though lift trucks are responsible for a very small percentage of the state’s air pollution.
CARB has also begun to target drayage trucks that operate in California, with the goal of having only zero-emission models in use by 2035. It has offered incentives, such as grants and access to dedicated lanes at ports, to encourage the shift.
In both of these cases, the technology required for the transition to greener vehicles exists. Sadly, that is not the case with CARB’s proposal to transition the rail industry to clean locomotives. Essentially, CARB wants to do away with diesel engines in favor of electric-powered locomotives—and it wants this transition to happen by 2030.
While I support the overall goal of making transportation greener, there are some major problems with the proposed regulations for railroads. I believe they’re going too far too soon.
The main problem is that the shift will rely on electric technology that is not yet available for train operations. Trains can’t just pull over to a plug to recharge the way battery-operated cars and trucks can. We can’t expect a regulation to drive invention. It doesn’t work that way.
Unlike forklifts and drayage trucks, railroads also cross state lines in their daily operations. It is unreasonable to expect trains to switch locomotives when they enter California. So, in effect, California’s regulations will become the de facto standard for all states nationwide.
However, the biggest problem with these regulations is that they will actually defeat the goal of reducing pollution. Instead, more carbon will be released into the environment as freight is diverted from rail to less-fuel-efficient trucks. A single train can haul the equivalent of 200 truckloads while producing far fewer emissions. And trains don’t add to road congestion—no small consideration for a state notable for its endless traffic jams.
CARB’s regulations will result in more complexity, longer transit times, and higher costs for moving freight. If you agree, contact your senator or representative and lobby for federal intervention before it’s too late.