Select the transport assignment before selecting the truck
The International Energy Agency (IEA), in Global EV Outlook 2026, reports that electric trucks have achieved competitive total ownership costs in certain applications in China. It also identifies significant deployment on short, predictable routes. These findings provide a useful reference, but they do not establish the economics of a Vietnamese fleet. Local operating conditions and the actual vehicle and infrastructure offer still need to be assessed.
Operators should group routes by distance, payload, waiting time and the opportunity to return to a depot. A fixed movement between a warehouse and a factory may provide predictable charging opportunities. A frequently changing assignment requires closer assessment of charging access and scheduling reserves. The objective is to identify where electrification can fit the transport service, rather than assume that every current diesel duty can be transferred without operational changes.
A manufacturer’s advertised range is not sufficient for dispatch planning. Trials should reflect the intended payload, terrain and operating conditions, with an appropriate energy reserve established for the assignment. Operators also need to verify the permitted payload and practical carrying capacity of the specific configuration offered. A comparison based on unequal freight capacity can make a vehicle look economical while overlooking the additional resources needed to move the customer’s goods.
The comparison unit should reflect the service being sold. Cost per kilometre is useful for tracking a vehicle, while cost per trip or tonne delivered can reveal changes in productive capacity. If additional trucks are required to complete the same work, their costs belong in the proposal. The decision is about serving a transport requirement, and a one-for-one vehicle comparison is only valid when equivalent service capability has been established.
Calculate ownership costs on a consistent basis
Total cost of ownership covers investment and operating expenditure over an analysis period, taking account of residual value. Both options should use the same period, workload and tax treatment. If present values are used, cash flows need consistent discounting. The full purchase price and depreciation should not both be counted as additional costs in the same calculation. A clearly stated method makes the result easier for finance and operations teams to review.
Investment should include vehicles, charging equipment, installation and the share of supporting infrastructure allocated to the fleet. Where a vehicle or charging service is leased, the corresponding contract payments should be used without duplicating the underlying asset expenditure. Financing costs, maintenance, insurance and downtime also require comparable treatment. Shared costs need an explicit allocation basis so that a lightly used charger is not mistakenly treated as a cost-free facility.
For illustration, suppose energy costs are VND 1,800 per kilometre for an electric truck and VND 3,000 for a diesel truck. The difference is VND 1,200 per kilometre, giving annual energy savings of VND 72 million at 60,000 kilometres. These are hypothetical inputs, not market quotations. The result is neither profit nor total savings after vehicle capital, charging infrastructure and other operating costs have been included in the comparison.
Electricity should be measured at the billing point so that relevant charging losses are reflected in expenditure. Warranty conditions, capacity degradation and out-of-warranty repair exposure should be checked against supplier documentation. Battery replacement belongs in a scenario when supported by suitable evidence; it should not automatically be assumed for every truck within the analysis period. Residual value assumptions also need to be visible rather than used implicitly to make one option appear preferable.
Compare electric and diesel options against the same transport assignment and ownership period. Include vehicles, charging, energy, maintenance, downtime and residual value, then examine financing cash flow separately. Validate the proposed service with representative payloads on the target route. Attractive energy savings become an economic advantage only when the fleet can still complete the required work and maintain delivery quality. Assumptions should remain visible so that the decision can be revisited when conditions change.
Coordinate charging and validate the case through operation
IEA’s charging analysis stresses an integrated approach linking route profiles, battery size, charging strategy and charger numbers. Depot charging can suit vehicles with appropriate stationary periods, while longer assignments may need supplementary opportunities. Vehicle delivery and power availability should therefore be planned together. A truck arriving before its intended charging arrangement is ready cannot generate the operating benefits assumed in an investment appraisal simply because the purchase has been completed.
On 17 September 2026, Vietnam’s Government News reported that a Ministry of Construction consultation identified transition costs and charging infrastructure as continuing constraints. The discussion also highlighted electricity demand at major transport facilities. For fleet operators, this supports checking power availability at the actual depot. A national count of charging locations does not establish that a suitable truck charging service exists where a particular fleet needs it.
As a management proposal, a pilot could assign a small vehicle group to routes with an established diesel baseline. Purchased electricity, payload, completed trips, charging time and late deliveries should be recorded consistently for comparison. The observation period should cover enough demand variation to reveal limitations. One favourable journey provides useful information, but it should not stand in for evidence that the fleet can sustain the proposed operating pattern under ordinary conditions.
The investment case should also be tested against higher electricity prices, lower annual distance and weaker resale proceeds. These scenarios reveal which assumptions determine the cost advantage. Debt-service cash flow needs separate attention: a lower total cost over several years does not necessarily mean the operator can meet payments in the early period. Any expected financial support should be verified before it is included as an available benefit in the appraisal.
Expansion is justified when vehicles complete the required work, maintain service quality and produce economic results that can be explained through records. Longer customer commitments, a dependable charging schedule and reliable technical support can strengthen the case. Emissions benefits should be assessed separately, with a clear boundary. An absence of tailpipe exhaust does not establish zero lifecycle emissions, and environmental claims should not obscure an unresolved operational or financial constraint.
An electric truck is part of a transport operating system that includes vehicles, charging and dispatch. Choosing suitable routes, calculating costs consistently and validating the result through real operation gives Vietnamese fleets a stronger investment basis. It also helps identify the scale and pace of conversion that the business can sustain, rather than letting the appeal of a new vehicle determine commitments that its infrastructure or cash flow cannot yet support.
