What the evidence shows
High-use Chinese fleets can save on total cost with battery-electric trucks, whether they charge or swap. Yet battery-inclusive purchase prices are high, battery leasing shifts expense into monthly fees, and costs depend on route, utilization, payload, weather, and infrastructure. A port case and a long-haul case show both the savings and the limits.
Older vehicles or current generations?
Tianjin uses 2023 operator inputs to model five-year costs; the Yangtze case observes a separate eight-truck fleet in 2025. These are not matched old/new model-year cohorts.
We separate vehicles from before 2023 and 2023 onward. A report’s publication date does not establish a vehicle’s model year or a battery’s manufacturing date.
Model or system evidenceTianjin port drayage TCO model based on operator interviews
- What was measured
- CATARC collected operating and cost inputs from Nanjiang Port operators in 2023, then modeled diesel, charging-based BEV and two swap-capable BEV ownership cases. The 9–10% five-year TCO advantage is a high-utilization scenario (400 km/day, 330 workdays/year, 660,000 km in five years), not a measured five-year outcome from named trucks.
- Vehicle years
- The study uses representative truck categories and 2023 cost inputs; makes, exact variants and model years are not reported.
- Battery chemistry
- Not reported for the representative plug-in or swap-capable packs.
- Battery capacity
- Not reported. The model specifies a battery-included BEV purchase price and separate swap-pack cost, but does not provide kWh capacity in the study's model table.
- Battery manufacture
- No manufactured pack or pack production date is identified; purchase and lease battery prices are model inputs.
- Observation period
- Operator interviews/site visits: 2023. Ownership costs: modeled for five years, using the stated annual mileage and workdays.
Vehicle years not establishedYangtze River Delta long-haul fleet interviews and site visits
- Vehicles / sample
- The observed fleet consisted of eight charging-based 18-tonne straight trucks carrying auto parts on routes up to 450 km one way. It recorded about 32,000 km/year, 2–3 round trips/month, a 2.2-tonne payload deficit and 30–40% winter range loss. The 19% lower tonne-km TCO is an idealized model case at 140,000 km/year and 240 kW charging; actual fleet use did not achieve those inputs.
- Vehicle years
- Operating evidence collected in 2025; manufacturer/model and individual model years are not reported.
- Battery chemistry
- Not reported for the observed fleet.
- Battery capacity
- 330 kWh per electric truck; the report does not specify nominal versus usable capacity.
- Battery manufacture
- No battery or vehicle production dates are reported. The larger 450 kWh pack appears only as a modeled cold-weather sensitivity, not the observed fleet pack.
- Observation period
- Fleet interviews and site visits in 2025; working paper dated December 2025 and public ICCT page January 2026.
“Not reported” means the source does not disclose it. Model year, first registration, vehicle assembly and battery manufacture are different dates. Unmatched studies cannot establish how much newer batteries improved.
Which brands do these results describe?
The Tianjin and Yangtze Delta analyses model representative truck classes from operator inputs; the observed trucks are not assigned to named OEMs. CATL is cited as a battery-system supplier, not an evaluated truck brand. No manufacturer-specific cost or practicality result is reported.
All manufacturers are OEMs. These groups describe brand focus, not a quality ranking or country of origin. EV-focused brands can also sell plug-in hybrids. Results apply to the identified models, batteries and conditions.
Lower operating costs can offset the purchase premium
A detailed Tianjin port comparison shows why purchase price alone gives an incomplete answer. The CATARC/ICCT study used operator interviews and site visits, with a five-year, 660,000-kilometre operating assumption. Its modeled plug-in battery-electric tractor cost ¥720,000 including its battery, compared with ¥360,000 for a diesel tractor, before the diesel model’s ¥36,000 purchase tax. The battery-swapping tractor without its battery was priced at ¥360,000; the study priced a purchased battery separately at ¥366,000. [1]
A fleet using battery-as-a-service could instead pay the same ¥360,000 vehicle price and a modeled ¥5,000 monthly battery lease. This lowers the cash needed at purchase but moves battery cost into operating expense. In this case, both plug-in trucks and swap-capable trucks, with either owned or leased batteries, produced lower five-year total cost than diesel: 9% lower for plug-in and 10% lower for swapping. The result assumes intensive port use, three work shifts, and the same mileage for all powertrains. [1]
Energy and maintenance assumptions matter
The Tianjin model used ¥1.4 per kWh for electricity and 150 kWh/100km for electric trucks. Multiplying those inputs gives about ¥2.10 of electricity per kilometre. Its diesel input was ¥7.5 per litre at 0.4 litres per kilometre, or about ¥3.00 per kilometre before diesel exhaust fluid. The study also assumed annual maintenance of ¥10,000 for diesel, ¥6,000 for plug-in electric, and ¥5,000 for swap-capable trucks. These are local model inputs drawn from field work in 2023, not current tariffs or guaranteed repair bills. [1]
The IEA’s separate 2025-based national analysis likewise finds a cost case for high-use electric trucks: electric heavy-freight trucks had a similar total cost to LNG trucks, and both were more than 10% below diesel in its modeled China comparison. Their upfront price remains higher, though, and the IEA estimates scrappage support can cover roughly 20–50% of the average electric-truck price premium. A subsidy or low energy bill helps, but neither erases financing, resale-value, or utilization risk for every owner. [2]
Plug-in charging works when routes and dwell time fit
Plug-in trucks can rely on depot, destination, or corridor chargers without requiring a standardized swap battery. For longer routes, charging power and location determine whether the vehicle can keep the same schedule as a diesel truck. In a 2025 Yangtze River Delta field case for auto-parts freight travelling more than 400 km one way, the endpoint had only 60 kW chargers. Trucks charged overnight, generally returned the next day, and lost about half a day against the diesel round trip. The study’s idealized scenario used 240 kW charging and enabled a 900 km daily round trip. [3]
The ideal case produced 19% lower tonne-kilometre TCO, but annual use in the observed case was just 32,000 km. The study estimated 38,000 annual kilometres as the break-even utilization threshold. The 330 kWh battery also cut maximum payload by 2.2 tonnes, and winter range fell 30–40%. Replacing it with a 450 kWh battery improved cold-weather range but raised purchase cost and added payload loss. [3]
Swapping saves stop time where a network exists
A battery swap can restore work quickly, but only on a compatible vehicle and where a suitable station is available. CATL reports that its Yantian port station, opened in November 2024, reduces the battery replacement stop from about an hour of charging to five minutes and supports trucks with 342 kWh batteries. This is a specific port installation and a company-reported result, not a national average. [5] IEA estimates swap-capable vehicles accounted for about 15% of electric truck sales in China in 2025. [2]
The network is growing but remains a planning constraint. China’s Ministry of Transport announced plans for more than 3,000 truck charging and swapping stations focused on busy freight corridors, metropolitan areas, ports, mines, factories and logistics parks. IEA estimated roughly 70,000 public truck-capable charging points at end-2025, while noting that current station estimates vary. In the Tianjin case, modeled payback was 4.8 years for charging infrastructure and 5.8 years for swapping infrastructure. [1][4][6]
The evidence is strong for niches, conditional for the rest
Ports, mines, steel sites, construction operations, and industrial hubs can have fixed routes, repeated cycles, and predictable dwell time. Those conditions can support overnight charging or a high-throughput swapping point. Long-haul operations can also work where fast chargers are placed at route endpoints or regular stops and annual mileage is high enough to repay the extra capital. [2][3]
The available studies do not establish a universal winner for all fleets. Battery ownership raises initial capital; leasing reduces it but creates recurring fees. Plug-in charging can add downtime if power is low or facilities are poorly placed. Swap stations need standardized equipment and enough nearby compatible trucks to justify investment. Heavy batteries reduce payload, cold weather can cut range, and lower utilization weakens the savings. The practical decision is route-specific: compare vehicle, battery contract, energy prices, maintenance, payload revenue and infrastructure together.
Data period: Tianjin port cost inputs drawn from 2023 operator interviews and a five-year modeled ownership period, published January 2025; IEA cost and infrastructure estimates based on 2025; Yangtze River Delta long-haul field interviews and site visits in 2025, published 2026; official infrastructure plan announced July 2026.
What this does—and doesn’t—tell us
- The Tianjin price, tariff, maintenance, and route inputs are a modeled 2023 port case published in 2025; they are not October 2026 retail quotes or representative costs for every truck and region.
- The long-haul evidence is one operator case and its ideal scenario is conditional. Payload, utilization, charger power, climate and route access can reverse its TCO result.
- CATL’s five-minute swap timing and truck-range description are manufacturer claims about a specific Yantian port installation; service availability depends on compatible trucks, station placement and charged battery inventory.
High-utilization fleets can beat diesel on total cost, and swapping can shorten energy stops to minutes. Battery ownership terms, payload, climate, annual kilometres, and access to suitable charging or swapping determine whether those advantages hold.
Found something that needs checking?
Identify the statement, explain your concern, and share original sources for our review.
Keep the conversation curious.
Questions and corrections are welcome. Link your sources, challenge ideas, and be kind to people.
Discussion actions are unavailable until sign-in is configured.
You can still read published comments and their sources.
Loading discussion…