As we previously discussed, BETs with a 600-mile range suffer from high payload penalty factors and worse fuel consumption, both of which have significant impacts on TCO. These challenges can be addressed with technological improvements in battery energy density, or changes in operational strategies. An alternative to overnight charging is to use shorterrange batteries which can be charged en route (intermediate charging) or replaced with a fully charged one (battery swapping). Our analysis for present-day BETs with LFP batteries shows that labor costs account for 30% of the TCO. Therefore, additional driver wait times during battery charging will considerably increase the TCO and reduce overall fleet productivity. Particularly for long-haul trucks operating on flexible routes or continuously, for example, through slip seating (multiple drivers sharing a truck), the current charging infrastructure is inadequate. This can be circumvented with ultra-high-power charging infrastructure (1 MW chargers), which is currently under development. However, as previously discussed, the unit price of electricity will be high for such powerful chargers owing to greater demand charges. For example, a single truck stop with ten 1 MW chargers would need a high-voltage power line sufficient to support a U.S. town with 20,000 inhabitants. Additionally, there are concerns with accelerated battery degradation at these fast charging rates which may require additional expensive battery replacements. Given these considerations, intermediate charging is difficult to implement for long-haul trucking. The other option of battery swapping requires minimal changes to truck operations, as it sustains vehicle utilization and has comparable downtime to the diesel fill-up. Considering a single battery switch to support the daily real-world driving range of 600 miles (onboard battery sized for 300 miles or 483 km), BETs become roughly a one-to-one replacement with diesel with negligible payload losses. Because of the weight reduction, fuel consumption reduces to 3 kWh/mi (1.86 kWh/km) with a saving of 0.53 USD/mile (0.33 USD/km) for the present-day scenario (see Supplementary Information for details) compared to using a 600-mile (966-km) battery. Although we have not conducted a detailed study on the battery swapping scenario, it appears to be much more attractive than using a single very heavy battery. Battery swapping also has great potential because it allows slower charging of the batteries with minimal downtime for trucks. However, the additional capital cost associated with maintaining a battery stock at the charging station can be a significant deterrent to wide-scale build-out. We estimate a truck stop designed to serve 30 trucks per day would require a battery inventory worth $3 million, which is not amenable to the business model employed by today's truck stops. Additionally, the inhomogeneity of battery packs across manufacturers adds complexity and cost to battery swapping. However, the large financial incentives to implement battery swapping for long-haul trucks might be sufficient to overcome these challenges. Therefore, it is conceivable that battery swapping could become a competitive option for long-haul trucking, and we encourage further studies on the same. Other operational strategies for cost reductions in BETs include optimizing charging stations locations, which, in conjunction with route planning and charging schedules, can optimize energy usage, minimize downtime due to charging, and enhance overall operational efficiency. Additionally, we can implement efficient dispatching strategies based on cargo capacities, which allows us to use BETs on routes where payload penalties are minimal. We did not explore these options in detail because they are beyond the scope of this work, but ongoing research has been conducted in this area, including studies such as those by Wu et al. .