DEEPER DIVES: How Much Does That Investment Into EVs Help Your Brand?

Good Morning,

First, as always, thank you for joining.

Happy Easter (if you celebrate).

Today’s edition is meaty. A couple of interesting (shorter) topics bookend a deep dive into EVs and their value proposition.

The information in here is for brands and service providers who are looking to find every opportunity to maintain their margins in a world with a shifting cost base and silent competitors sneaking up to the gate.

Here’s what this issue brings:

• Walmart keeps putting more money into logistics. Their new DC in Jacksonville will serve stores, but the real value is imports.
  

• Everyone is talking about EVs. And while you want to do the right thing for the planet, you need to make sure that you understand the FULL picture - because not all EVs and providers are equal. This article is your 101 to electric vehicles in eCommerce.
  

• If you are only going to use R for one thing - here’s what it should be

Walmart Keeps Spending More On Logistics

Imagine having a network of DCs that already span the Eastern United states and spending another $30M to open up another purpose build DC in the area.

That’s exactly what Walmart did.

They’ve just opened a new facility in Jacksonville, FL.

The goal of this facility is to do two things.

1. Service 18 Sam’s Club locations in 3 states (FL, SC and GA)

2. Be a strategic sortation center for goods coming in from outside of the US into the port of Jacksonville.

There’s no doubt that the facility will help boost efficiency through their network and further drive performance at the support Sam’s Club locations.

In my opinion though, the more important play (and much bigger strategic move) is the facility’s ability to handle imports.

Walmart’s marketplace has been absolutely crushing it.

They know that to keep the momentum going in that space, they need to be able to offer more services and reduced costs to merchants.

With their expanding focus on logistics services, having a strategic facility to inbound overseas product into their value chain helps keep them a step ahead of any ‘service only’ providers.

See, AXPORT has recorded an average of 28.5% annual growth in Asian container volumes over the past five years. Jacksonville's location on the Atlantic coast, with direct access to Asia through both the Panama and Suez canals, makes it an attractive hub for Asian imports.

Japan, China, and South Korea are among the countries with the most connections to the port.

In a world that’s being up-ended by changes to global trade, the people who can provide the most efficient and economical options to a sea of smaller merchants will become partners of choice.

What’s even more important when thinking of WFS offer, is that Walmart knows (and so does Amazon) that small to medium sized brands will be increasingly looking for opportunities to mitigate cost impacts and uncertainty. Being able to offer end-to-end solutions (you’ll recall it wasn’t that long ago that WM was promoting their container import options) means that you have a better chance to capture more of the critical density and volume that everyone needs in order to maximize their efficiency.

Walmat is the giant stalking in the woods that traditional service providers aren’t paying enough attention to.

And the most the position themselves as a whole service offer, the more of the market that’s going to get diverted away from national carriers, but to retail networks - not small regional carriers.

Real Costs And Carbon Savings. Are EVs Worth The Hyper?

The boom in eCommerce means more delivery trucks on the road every day.

This surge in activity has the market questioning the environmental impact ICE vehicles that have been the backbone of traditional last mile.

A primary focus for the biggest retailers has been shifting more of their deliveries to EVs.

This has been frequently presented as the solution for cutting carbon emissions and improving urban air quality.

Operational strategies focusing on consolidating shipments to ramp up delivery density is also a key requirement to reduce carbon emissions.

The goal of this article is to cut through the noise.

I’ll examine the trade-offs between electric and ICE vehicles specifically for last-mile delivery in eCommerce.

We'll compare carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions (both at the tailpipe and across the full lifecycle), look at how the electricity source impacts EV performance, weigh the benefits of operational changes like higher delivery density, and look at the total cost of ownership.

This will help you to better understand when paying the 'premium' for electric trucks delivers real environmental and cost benefits for logistics providers and retailers, and when operational shifts might offer a more immediate impact.

Beyond the Tailpipe

The most obvious difference between ICE and EV trucks is at the exhaust pipe.

EVs produce zero tailpipe emissions during operation.

ICE vehicles (diesel or gasoline) emit CO₂, nitrogen oxides, and other particulate matter with every mile (or kilometer) they drive.

A typical diesel engine could release 300–400 grams of CO₂ per kilometer; an EV releases zero in use.

This immediately improves local air quality in urban areas.

However, you have t o go past the tailpipe to understand the whole picture.

Manufacturing (including batteries for EVs), fuel production (oil extraction/refining vs. electricity generation), vehicle operation, and end-of-life disposal are all also critical factors to consider.

Lifecycle Reality

Studies confirm that for conventional vehicles, the use phase (burning fuel over thousands of kilometers) dominates the lifecycle carbon footprint.

This means the higher initial "carbon debt" from manufacturing an EV, primarily due to the battery, can often be offset by cleaner operation over the vehicle's life.

EV Advantage

A European analysis found heavy-duty battery-electric trucks had lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at least 63% lower than diesel counterparts on the current EU grid mix.

When the vehicles were Charged with 100% renewable energy, this advantage jumped to 84–92%.

For lighter delivery trucks, the benefit exists but varies.

One study comparing a Ford Transit diesel to its electric version found the EV offered roughly a 22% reduction in lifecycle CO₂-equivalent emissions, assuming a typical grid mix.

Cleaner power sources (always) amplify this benefit.

Manufacturing Matters

EV manufacturing, especially battery production, is energy-intensive and currently results in higher upfront emissions than ICE vehicle production.

Where the battery is made and the energy source used are major factors that impact the overall benefits of a particular EV.

Batteries produced using coal-heavy energy grids (like China's) carry a significantly larger carbon footprint than those made with cleaner energy in Europe or the U.S.

Despite this, the operational efficiency of EVs typically ensures they emit less GHG over their full lifespan in most scenarios.

The manufacturing emissions penalty is usually paid back after a certain mileage, and improvements in manufacturing processes (like using renewable energy in factories) are continuously reducing this initial burden.

In short, EVs eliminate tailpipe pollution and generally offer lower lifecycle GHG emissions.

The exact savings will depend on the electricity source used and the manufacturing emissions.

On a moderate grid (like the current U.S. average), expect lifecycle GHG reductions in the tens of percent compared to diesel.

With renewables, this can reach 80–90%.

Even in unfavorable scenarios (EV made and charged with coal power), EVs tend to be roughly on par or slightly better than efficient ICE vans.

The Grid's Influence on EV Emissions

The carbon intensity of the electricity charging an EV is extremely important to understand.

Zero tailpipe emissions are great, but upstream emissions matter.

United States

The U.S. electricity grid is mixed (natural gas, coal, nuclear, hydro, renewables).

In 2023, about 60% of utility-scale electricity came from fossil fuels, averaging around 370 grams CO₂ per kWh.

An EV van using 0.2–0.3 kWh/km charged on this grid would generate roughly 74–110 g CO₂/km upstream.

This is far less than a diesel truck’s potential 300+ g/km tailpipe emissions, but definitely not zero.

Regional differences also exist (cleaner grids in CA, NY, Pacific NW; dirtier in coal-heavy states).

The U.S. grid is gradually getting cleaner, improving EV performance over time (but this assumes that there won’t be a regression and shift back towards more FF burning activity)

Canada

Canada has one of the world's cleanest electricity grids.

Around 82% of its electricity is from non-emitting sources (mostly hydro), with a low average carbon intensity (approx. 120 g CO₂/kWh).

In provinces like Quebec or British Columbia (which benefit tremendously from hydro), grid intensity is extremely low (<10 g/kWh).

An EV charged here has minimal operating emissions (e.g., 24–36 g/km on the national average), potentially offering over 85% lower operational CO₂ than an ICE equivalent.

Europe & Elsewhere

Grid intensity varies widely from country to country.

The EU average hovers around 200-300 g CO₂/kWh.

France (nuclear) is very low (~50-60 g/kWh), while others historically reliant on coal (like Poland) are higher.

In low-carbon European countries, EV emissions are minimal. Even in coal-heavy regions like China, studies showed EVs still offered lifecycle benefits (e.g., ~18% lower CO₂ for cars vs. gasoline).

As global electricity grids shift more towards renewable sources, the EV advantage grows everywhere.

The takeaway is clear, cleaner electricity maximizes the benefits of EVs.

Pairing fleet electrification with renewable energy sources is key.

Even on dirty grids, EVs provide local air quality advantages.

Another important idea to think about is that grids are trending cleaner year over year, meaning an EV bought today can get greener over its life, unlike an ICE vehicle whose emissions per kilometer remain fixed (or even get worse with age).

The Operational Lever - DENSITY

Vehicle technology is important, but it isn't the only path to lower emissions.

Operational strategies, particularly increasing delivery density (more packages per trip/route), can significantly cut emissions per package.

Reducing delivery frequency (e.g., offering customers a single weekly delivery day like Amazon Day) is another massive opportunity that is wildly underleveraged.

It allows for fuller delivery trucks using fewer trips.

Fewer vehicle kilometers traveled directly reduces fuel consumption and emissions, regardless of vehicle type.

One study suggested halving trip frequency could cut related GHG emissions by 44%.

Higher delivery density (more stops per route) means the emissions associated with driving the route are spread across more packages, lowering the per-package footprint.

Ultra-fast and gigwork shipping models often leads to under-utilized vehicles and inefficient routing (another strike against why prioritizing these models is a mistake).

Consolidating orders restores efficiency.

The main challenge of course is customer expectation.

Fast delivery is common, so shifting your offer to promote better density requires managing your customer’s willingness to wait longer.

Transparency about environmental impact and incentives can encourage adoption but the biggest key if you want to be able to “slow down” your fulfillment is to focus on CERTAINTY and not speed.

Most of the time what a customer really wants is to know exactly when a package will arrive. Speed is (and always has been) a cheap substitute for this need. The faster you promise your delivery, the higher the customer certainty (since it’s hard to mess up when they will get it when you promise it within 30 minutes).

Using urban consolidation hubs, parcel lockers, or even smaller vehicles like cargo e-bikes in dense areas can further boosts efficiency.

Optimizing your logistics by increasing delivery density is highly effective.

It can yield substantial emission reductions right away… even with an existing ICE fleet.

Combining operational efficiency with EV adoption provides even more compounding benefits (fewer trips, and lower emissions per trip).

Total Cost of Ownership (TCO): The Financial Equation

No matter how good anything is, the reality is, economics matter.

TCO compares upfront costs with ongoing expenses over the vehicle's life.

1. Purchase Price
   EVs have a higher sticker price, mainly due to battery costs. An electric delivery truck could cost almost double to its ICE equivalent (e.g., CAD $130k vs. $68k in one Toronto study). This premium is often a major hurdle for service providers.
   

2. Infrastructure
   EV fleets need depot/warehouse charging (typically Level 2). Costs run a few thousand dollars per charger plus potential electrical upgrades. The required infrastructure to support large delivery fleets (which are often the backbone of highly efficient operations) is the second biggest barrier to entry. This is an upfront cost ICE vehicles don't have. The math can balance out over the years, but that doesn’t negate the high CAPEX costs which are challenging for a traditionally low margin industry.
   

3. Fuel/Energy
   EVs dominate here.
   Electricity per kilometer is generally much cheaper than diesel. A Canadian study estimated annual electricity costs at $820–$1,480 versus $5,370 for gasoline for comparable trucks. Savings of $4,000+ per vehicle per year are typical (depending on local energy prices).
   

4. R&M
   EVs have fewer moving parts, leading to dramatically lower maintenance costs. No oil changes, fewer brake replacements, no exhaust systems. While exact savings vary based on your operations type, EVs consistently require less maintenance and experience less downtime than ICE counterparts.
   

5. Payback & Lifetime Savings
   The higher upfront cost is typically offset by annual savings in fuel and maintenance. An important note however is that the payback period (how long it takes for savings to recoup the premium) is estimated around 7–8 years.
   
   For most retailers / brands, this means that EVs need to be a long term play and be part of your strategic goals. It’s also important to note that most small delivery trucks in the eCommerce space are seeing a 4-5 year lifespan before they are retired for new vehicles. For EVs to become a dominant force, they will have to prove that they can support extended lifecycles and get service providers further towards a 10 year cycle.

While the upfront cost is higher, the lower operating expenses often result in a favorable TCO for EVs over their lifetime (understanding it’s not a short term ‘win’).

Incentives, potential carbon pricing, and avoided fees in low-emission zones can further strengthen the economic case.

Making the Right Choice

Electric vehicles offer a pathway to decarbonize last-mile delivery, but their effectiveness depends on context.

EVs deliver the most significant benefits when:

• Charged with clean electricity (renewables, hydro, nuclear)

• Used in high intensity delivery zones

• Serve urban, stop-and-go routes

• Return to a “home base” for predictable overnight charging

• Operate in areas with high fuel costs, strong incentives, or carbon pricing

• Part of a long-term fleet strategy (8-10+ years) aligned with sustainability goals

On the flip side, EV benefits can drop off when:

• Charged primarily with carbon-intensive electricity (e.g., coal-heavy grids)

• Used infrequently (low mileage), extending the TCO payback period beyond useful limits

• Facing significant grid capacity or charging infrastructure constraints

• Manufacturing emissions aren't offset

The Strategic Approach

For logistics providers, retailers and D2C brands, the decision on investing in EV execution involves weighing the upfront premiums against long-term environmental and economic gains.

Analyze route mileage/ density, operating region, and the capital you availability. High-use urban fleets in clean-grid areas are prime candidates for electrification.

Factor in purchase price (net of incentives), infrastructure, fuel/energy savings, and maintenance reductions over the planned vehicle life.

Regardless of how your math goes on the costs, ALWAYS chase logistics optimization.

Increasing delivery density through route planning and consolidation (or right from your shopping cart!) can yield siginificant emission cuts which then you can “take with you” should you switch service providers or change your go-to-market strategies.

Grid decarbonization and falling battery costs are making the case for EVs easier. Even if benefits are marginal today, electrification can align with future trends and regulations.

Paying the premium for EVs can be justified when conditions align to deliver substantial lifecycle CO₂ reductions and favorable long-term TCO.

However, simply swapping vehicles isn't enough.

A holistic strategy combining electrification where appropriate with deep operational efficiency offers the most best path toward sustainable and cost-effective last-mile delivery.

The trend is undeniable, electric vehicles, paired with smart logistics, are becoming central to the future of e-commerce fulfillment.

One Of The Coolest (And Easiest) Features Of R

Here’s another short technical gem for everyone out there.

Missing data sucks.

Especially when you are working with large data sets.

Whenever you are working on new analysis, a key element to that initial data review needs to be getting an understanding of missing data in your files.

Enter “naniar” and ““visdat”

This R package gives you bunch of great options when it comes to dealing with missing data.

But there are two that I think are ESSENTIAL for ANYONE doing ANY type of data work.

vis_miss()

and

vis_dat().

These two functions are fantastic to help you decide quickly what needs to be done and doesn’t.

Here’s an output from a simple Amazon sales file using the vis_miss() function:

Super straight forward.

Each heading across the top is a column in my dataset.

Down the left are the number of rows (you can see this is a pretty small sample, only 1,500 rows).

The grey means that there is data in that row, the black means it’s missing.

At the bottom you see a summary percentage of how much is there and how much is missing.

From here, you know what columns you can use, what you might need to re-pull or which elements are only related to certain types of data (it’s common that not all products for example would have all of the attributes you might track).

Once you know what’s missing, the next thing to understand is what type of data you are working with.

Modern database systems are great for managing data types. But once you export them, all kinds of things can get messy.

And when you are working on cleaning and preparing data for analysis, nothing is more frustrating than having to fix data types because they didn’t import correctly and you didn’t notice it at the start.

Check out this output from the vis_dat() on the same data:

Here you can see that each colour represents a different data type.

You’ll also notice that you get the gray values again for the NA values (so you can use both functions to help get an understanding of that missing data).

In this example, you can see that the majority of this file is a “character” type (which in R means text/strings).

Then you see the column for the date data in green.

And “numeric” (real numbers) in blue.

By looking at your heading names you can get a sense if some of that data needs to be converted to another data type in order to conduct your analysis.

While this isn’t always the biggest issue on smaller data sets, it certain becomes frustrating with larger ones.

When you move from thousands of rows to millions, it’s absolutely needed to have a strategy and plan to perform you analytics!

That’s it for this week. Thanks for being here.