NW GreenFleet

Do you have 70 or more trucks and based in the USA ?
If so. We want to give you our fuel saving technology for free thru our
Pay Per Save Program which has an Infinite Return on Investment!
Call us now to find out how!

The Etorus FE technology is currently installed in nearly 10% of the PTS fleet, and results in fuel savings of over $2,000 per truck, per year, according to a third party monitoring company, National Energy Control Services, Inc. (NECS). In addition to the fuel savings is a corresponding reduction in emissions of soot and harmful greenhouse gases, including nitrogen oxide (NOx) and carbon dioxide (CO2) — two leading known contributors to global warming.

“We first installed the Etorus FE in 2006, and our fuel savings, which are monitored by an independent company, continue to be exceptional,” said Jeff Cornish, the chief executive officer of PTS. “We are particularly pleased with the Etorus Pay Per Save(TM) program, which allows us to immediately install the technology and realize fuel savings without any associated capital expenditure or risk, while reducing our emissions in the process.”

The unique Etorus Pay Per Save program is designed for companies to gain the benefits of the fuel reduction solutions offered by Etorus without any capital expenditure or risk, by simply sharing a portion of their fuel savings after they have occurred. The shared savings figures are based on data provided by a third-party service provider, National Energy Control Services, Inc. (NECS) of Indiana. NECS monitors, verifies and calculates the dollar value of the fuel savings achieved with the Etorus FE installed.

“Our cost-effective business solutions for energy and environmental issues provide us with great opportunities to help companies running diesel- and biodiesel-based fuel — in trucking, mining, marine and other industrial applications — to reduce fuel costs by as much as 10 percent, with no up-front capital risk or investment,” said Shraga Agam, the president and chief executive officer of Etorus, Inc. “The types of programs we offer can easily help reduce fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, such as those being experienced by the trucking and commercial harbor craft industries at the California Ports. Companies doing business at these Ports have historically been resistant to regulation because of the high costs associated with implementing changes to their equipment in order to be in compliance.

“With the Etorus FE installed using our Pay Per Save program, truckers and marine fleet owners can not only take action to help be in compliance with new emission reduction regulations, but can actually boost their bottom lines in the process by saving up to 10 percent on their fuel costs,” Agam said. “The companies involved can experience significant benefits financially, and we all would benefit environmentally. There is really no downside under the Pay Per Save program, and if for whatever reason a customer of ours decides to stop using the product, he can terminate the contract rather than being left with a ‘dead asset’.”

About PTS

Performance Transportation Services, Inc. (PTS), the second largest transporter of new automobiles, sport-utility vehicles and light trucks in North America, is comprised of three carriers with connecting geographic coverage: Hadley Auto Transport, E&L Transport and Leaseway Auto Carriers. Together as PTS, the carriers occupy thirty-one strategically located facilities throughout the U.S. and Canada with seventy-two different customer vehicle delivery centers and a fleet of more than eighteen hundred tractor/trailer combinations. PTS delivers nearly four million new and used vehicles annually, and by volume and revenues, is the second largest provider of vehicle deliveries in the United States.

Do you have 70 or more trucks and based in the USA ?
If so. We want to give you our fuel saving technology for free thru our
Pay Per Save Program which has an Infinite Return on Investment!
Call us now to find out how!

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/beyond-the-barrel/2008/3/26/truckers-back-a-national-65-mph-speed-limit.html

A highway slowdown has begun in response to high energy prices—and the big trucking companies are leading the way. Con-Way Freight, one of the nation’s largest trucking firms with 8,500 rigs, has announced it is turning back the electronic speed limiters in its entire fleet from 65 miles per hour to 62 mph.

The company estimates that by keeping its drivers below that speed, it will save 3.2 million gallons of diesel fuel a year, while eliminating 72 million pounds of carbon dioxide emissions—the equivalent of removing 7,300 automobiles from the nation’s highways. And with diesel fuel at the current price of about $4 per gallon, Con-Way will be saving $12.8 million per year, a significant figure for a company that saw its operating income drop 27 percent last year to $235 million.

Now that fuel for the first time has surpassed labor as the most significant cost for many trucking companies, it’s not surprising that they are taking steps to save. But here’s the tricky part. They want all of us to do the same.

The American Trucking Associations is calling for a nationwide 65-mph speed limit—not only to save fuel but as a matter of safety. “It would prevent a differential of speeds between trucks and cars, where you have cars weaving in and out to get by trucks,” says Clayton Boyce, spokesman for ATA. He says 77 percent of the ATA’s member companies have electronic speed limiters set at 68 mph—with many of them, like Con-Way, now opting for even lower speeds.

It probably would take an act of Congress to set a 65-mph national speed limit, because, as we reported here, it was Congress that repealed the much lower 55-mph national limit that was credited in part for the short-lived reduction in national fuel demand in the 1970s.

Last week, the trucking association also renewed its call for a federal regulation that would require that newly manufactured trucks have electronic speed limiters installed that can be set no higher than 68 mph. No problem for the big trucking companies, most of which already are slowing down. But expect resistance from smaller, independent trucking owner-operators. In the Canadian province of Ontario, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association is opposing a move for a 65-mph speed limit, disputing the greenhouse gas and safety impact. “OOIDA officials believe that speed-limited trucks will be stuck in the right lane, cause problems with merging traffic, and result in ‘elephant races’ when trucks cannot pass one another,” says the association’s magazine, Land Line.

When I asked Boyce of the ATA about the competitive issues at play, he said, “Some independent owner-operators want to drive faster so they can make more miles in a day and earn more money. The large companies understand that they’ll save money on insurance, engine wear, maintenance problems, and fuel that make up that difference in distance per day.”

I’m sure that many of the independent drivers understand those economics as well, but it is worth pointing out that if the big trucking companies are under financial pressure because of record-high diesel fuel prices—which they most assuredly are—the squeeze is even greater on small businesses without major capital resources behind them. Roughly 500,000, or about 16 percent, of the nation’s 3.1 million commercial drivers are independent owner-operators.

It’s a tough issue that requires strong leadership, but when every 1-mph reduction in truck speed yields a 0.1-mpg increase in fuel efficiency, it’s a problem that can’t be ignored. A spokeswoman for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says that the ATA’s petition on speed limiters—which was filed back in October 2006 when diesel was about $2.50 a gallon—is still under review.

Do you have 70 or more trucks and based in the USA ?
If so. We want to give you our fuel saving technology for free thru our
Pay Per Save Program which has an Infinite Return on Investment!
Call us now to find out how!

http://www.komotv.com/news/business/17264314.html

By JOSEPH COLEMAN, Associated Press Writer
BANGKOK, Thailand (AP) - With global markets in turmoil and the U.S. threatened by recession, negotiators at a climate change conference are asking: can nations afford to make rapid cuts in emissions to fight global warming without going into an economic tailspin?

The price of slashing the carbon dioxide emissions blamed for global warming is expected to be high, but proponents of firm action argue that delay will cost more in the long run.

“If you start having water supply problems in Peru, Chile and, a little further down the road, India and China, what are the global economic implications of that?” said Alden Meyer, of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

The argument for quick action is that a climate pact would actually spur economic growth through new industries such as clean technology.

U.N. climate chief Yvo de Boer said businesses are eager for clear environmental guidelines so they can plan their investments accordingly.

“The current economic uncertainly makes it all the more important for governments to provide clarity on where they intend to go on this issue,” he said.

The United Nations launched talks this week in Thailand aimed at forging a new global warming pact by the end of 2009. It is hoped a new pact will help control greenhouse gas emissions and prevent rising temperatures from triggering an environmental disaster.

Rising sea levels, droughts and crop damage - already linked to global warming - can severely strain entire economies.

But the costs of reducing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere will be great.

Japan, for instance, recently issued a report estimating it would cost $500 billion just to cut domestic emissions 11 percent from 2005 levels by 2020. A separate estimate says cutting greenhouse gases would cost about 1 percent of global GDP annually.

U.S. climate negotiator Harlan Watson said such costs need to be factored in when deciding how deep the world ought to require industrialized nations to reduce emissions.

“If you push the globe into recession, it certainly isn’t going to help the developing world either,” he said. “Exports go down, and many of the developing countries of course are heavily dependent on exports. So there’s a lot of issues which need to be fleshed out … so people understand the real world.”

World Growth, a pro-business group, argues that quick action on climate change would do more harm than good.

“Immediate and substantial cuts in emissions will rapidly translate into reduced access to energy, lower economic growth and a reduced capacity to roll back poverty,” the group said in a report in December.

The current economic turmoil could draw more attention to the costs of combatting global warming, potentially complicating negotiations to put in place an international agreement to take the place of the Kyoto Protocol when it expires in 2012.

The current round of talks coincides with dire financial times in the United States.

Orders to U.S. factories fell for a second straight month, the government reported this week, reinforcing the fears of economists that believe a prolonged housing slowdown and credit crisis have already pushed the country into recession.

Economic concerns have damaged global warming agreements in the past. The United States, the only industrialized country not to ratify Kyoto, argued in recent years that the greenhouse gas reductions required by the pact would hurt its economy.

The economy hasn’t yet become a major topic in the Bangkok discussions, but it could be a concern in affected countries down the road, said Andrej Kranjc, secretary of Slovenia’s Environment Ministry, speaking for the European Commission in Bangkok.

“It could divert policy makers’ attention from climate change to these problems, of course, and it would be a problem,” he said.

Do you have 70 or more trucks and based in the USA ?
If so. We want to give you our fuel saving technology for free thru our
Pay Per Save Program which has an Infinite Return on Investment!
Call us now to find out how!

Steve Hansen
Vice President, Hansen & Adkins Auto Transport

“I was skeptical at the beginning about the device and the program, but the numbers are really working out,” said Steve Hansen, vice president of Hansen & Adkins Auto Transport Inc., a Signal Hill, California trucking company with about 220 rigs in its fleet. He reported that the company’s rigs installed with the Fuel Catalyst have been saving between 3% and 4.5% on fuel costs since January 2007.

Do you have 70 or more trucks and based in the USA ?
If so. We want to give you our fuel saving technology for free thru our
Pay Per Save Program which has an Infinite Return on Investment!
Call us now to find out how!

Cameron Druyor
Equipment Manager, Rogers Group
http://www.rogersgroupinc.com

“I had an L330D Volvo wheel loader, which is already a pretty fuel-efficient machine, and I saw a 6% improvement. The greatest reduction, 32%, was on a Caterpillar 980C wheel loader. It’s pretty easy to do the math. There’s a 3309 Terex haul truck that went from 12.8 gallons per hour down to 10.”

“First and foremost, we are interested in the health of our employees. If we get a dollar savings, that’s great. We’re after trying to reduce our emissions as much as possible. They (the installed devices) really do seem to help.”

Do you have 70 or more trucks and based in the USA ?
If so. We want to give you our fuel saving technology for free thru our
Pay Per Save Program which has an Infinite Return on Investment!
Call us now to find out how!

Jeff Irvin
President, ITL
http://www.ifuel.net/

“Sure, I was skeptical when I first heard about reduced fuel consumptions systems. There are a lot of snake oil salespeople out there right now. In the past 25 years, I’ve probably met every one. I’ve even wasted some time and money trying their products. But the Fuel Catalyst really works. The proof is in the numbers.” ITL’s fuel savings through May 2007 were 10.81%.

Do you have 70 or more trucks and based in the USA ?
If so. We want to give you our fuel saving technology for free thru our
Pay Per Save Program which has an Infinite Return on Investment!
Call us now to find out how!

http://www.komotv.com/news/local/17226004.html

By Associated Press
BOSTON (AP) - A group of state attorneys general is taking the EPA back to court to try to force it to comply with a Supreme Court ruling that rebuked the Bush administration for inaction on global warming.

The high court decided a year ago that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act and ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to take action.

But 17 states and others said in a court filing Wednesday that the EPA has not issued a decision on regulation. Their court filing seeks to compel the EPA to act within 60 days.

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley said the EPA is failing to deal with the dangers of global warming.

An EPA spokesman did not immediately respond to a call seeking comment.

The plaintiffs in Wednesday’s court action include Coakley and attorneys general from Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia, plus the city of New York, and the mayor and city council of Baltimore.

Do you have 70 or more trucks and based in the USA ?
If so. We want to give you our fuel saving technology for free thru our
Pay Per Save Program which has an Infinite Return on Investment!
Call us now to find out how!

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=ind_focus.story&STORY=/www/story/03-27-2008/0004781492&EDATE=THU+Mar+27+2008,+01:39+PM

The American Trucking Association sent a letter to President Bush, the Department of Energy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and the Treasury requesting that immediate steps be taken to address this crisis situation. 

While a letter such as this is to be expected, the timing is interesting as talk continues about a possible truck shutdown scheduled to occur throughout April or early May.   

There were 12 specific demands, but among the most interesting were: 

Release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve; 

Suspend the collection of the 12 percent federal excise tax on motor carriers’ purchase of auxiliary power units , which cut the consumption of fuels in idling truck engines; (clink link for some government savings info and financing program) 

Require states to grant a weight exemption for APUs;  

Continue to fund EPA’s SmartWay Transport Partnership Program, which encourages fuel-saving strategies; 

Do you have 70 or more trucks and based in the USA ?
If so. We want to give you our fuel saving technology for free thru our
Pay Per Save Program which has an Infinite Return on Investment!
Call us now to find out how!

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/328714_greenhouse23.html

Washington wants to cut greenhouse gas levels to 1990 rate by 2020