Prices for the most part have remained steady, but that probably won't last. With demand growth expected to outstrip modest growth in supply, higher retail prices seem likely.
Although diesel fuel markets in the United States experienced some short-term volatility in the last 12 months, for the most part prices have behaved as expected. This is in line with the outlook we offered in our article last year, when we predicted that diesel fuel prices would stay in roughly the same place as they had been throughout 2012. And that is indeed what happened: As we write this, the U.S. average retail price is within 5 cents per gallon of where it was a year ago, which amounts to less than a 2-percent change.
The reason for this steady diesel market over the medium term is the steady crude market. While crude prices are slightly higher than they were a year ago, the year-over-year difference is around 5 percent. In the longer term, crude oil futures still indicate that crude prices are projected to fall by nearly 10 percent from current levels (see Figure 1). This has remained true even as turmoil has begun to spread in the Middle East. Unfortunately, for diesel buyers this longer-term easing in crude prices may not translate into lower diesel prices in the near future.
Article Figures
[Figure 1] Light sweet crude oil prices (historical and futures)Enlarge this image
[Figure 2] U.S. diesel price vs. underlying crude price: 1994-presentEnlarge this image
Behind the volatility
While overall retail diesel prices are largely unchanged (see Figure 2), some parts of the United States have experienced more volatility than usual. For example, diesel prices increased by more than 10 percent during February and March in New England and the Mid-Atlantic states. While it is not uncommon to see a seasonal rise in diesel prices in those regions, the magnitude of that increase was greater than normal.
Two main factors contributed to that increase in price volatility. The first was the weather. The extreme cold brought by the "polar vortex" significantly increased the demand for heating oil in New England, one of the few parts of the country where heating oil and propane are still major fuel sources for residential heating. The composition of heating oil is very similar to diesel, and it is becoming even more similar as more states phase in low-sulfur specifications for home heating oil. So when it is cold outside, demand for heating oil goes up, putting stress on the available supply of diesel.
The second contributor to this price volatility was probably the so-called "unconventional revolution" in oil production and its impact on diesel supplies. U.S. domestic crude production is increasing, and most of that increase is coming from Light Tight Oil (LTO), sometimes referred to as shale oil, in places like the Bakken field in the Dakotas and the Eagle Ford field in Texas. At the same time, heavy Canadian oil-sands crude continues to be an important crude source for U.S. refiners. These crudes have a different assay, or profile, than that of the historical mix of crudes processed in U.S. refineries.
The combination of these factors created a "dumbelling" of U.S crudes. This term alludes to the relatively large amount of light and heavy "ends," or extremes, of the crude spectrum, that ultimately result in lower diesel production. This situation reduces production of diesel because it is a middle distillate most easily produced from the center of the crude spectrum. While refiners can make capital investments to handle a new crude slate, for example cracking the longer-chain molecules in the heavy ends, it takes time to bring new equipment on stream. It is likely, therefore, that any capital investment plans would have to be supported by an expectation of continued strength in diesel prices. This may well be the case, given the lower diesel production due to the "dumbelling" effect described above.
One way diesel purchasers can prepare for this expected increase in price volatility is to implement a hedging program, whether by buying financial instruments such as futures contracts, call options, and collars, or simply by negotiating a hedged supply contract. This may work in the short term, and it may have been sufficient to avoid paying a premium in the U.S. Northeast and Mid-Atlantic this past winter. However, a hedging strategy alone is not likely to be effective in more extreme scenarios or in the face of longer-term, unpredictable price changes.
Global rise in demand
Growth in demand for diesel, both domestically and abroad, is another factor that will put pressure on diesel prices to decouple—or at least stretch—the historical relationship with crude. Globally, diesel is now in greater demand than gasoline, and that is unlikely to change given the preference for diesel in Europe and many emerging markets. Meanwhile diesel's market share in the United States is growing, and that trend is expected to continue. The Diesel Technology Forum predicts diesel's share of the light vehicle fleet could double or triple from its current level of around 3 percent by the end of the decade. In fact, more than 40 new diesel-powered vehicle models will be introduced in the next three years in anticipation of increasing U.S. consumer demand for "clean diesel."
But another large and potentially global demand driver also looms. Segments of the marine transportation market may begin switching from heavy bunker fuel to diesel when changes to marine-fuel sulfur specifications are announced. These changes will likely occur within the next decade. For these reasons, demand growth will ultimately outpace supply growth, leading to higher prices.
Regardless of the future scenario that materializes for diesel prices, the best way to prepare is still a risk management strategy that considers these and other risk scenarios in a wider context. A risk management strategy that combines different elements gives diesel users the best chance to weather price volatility or inflation. Hedging, different types of supply sources, diverse contracting terms, demand management strategies, and appropriate governance should be part of a robust diesel management strategy.
ReposiTrak, a global food traceability network operator, will partner with Upshop, a provider of store operations technology for food retailers, to create an end-to-end grocery traceability solution that reaches from the supply chain to the retail store, the firms said today.
The partnership creates a data connection between suppliers and the retail store. It works by integrating Salt Lake City-based ReposiTrak’s network of thousands of suppliers and their traceability shipment data with Austin, Texas-based Upshop’s network of more than 450 retailers and their retail stores.
That accomplishment is important because it will allow food sector trading partners to meet the U.S. FDA’s Food Safety Modernization Act Section 204d (FSMA 204) requirements that they must create and store complete traceability records for certain foods.
And according to ReposiTrak and Upshop, the traceability solution may also unlock potential business benefits. It could do that by creating margin and growth opportunities in stores by connecting supply chain data with store data, thus allowing users to optimize inventory, labor, and customer experience management automation.
"Traceability requires data from the supply chain and – importantly – confirmation at the retail store that the proper and accurate lot code data from each shipment has been captured when the product is received. The missing piece for us has been the supply chain data. ReposiTrak is the leader in capturing and managing supply chain data, starting at the suppliers. Together, we can deliver a single, comprehensive traceability solution," Mark Hawthorne, chief innovation and strategy officer at Upshop, said in a release.
"Once the data is flowing the benefits are compounding. Traceability data can be used to improve food safety, reduce invoice discrepancies, and identify ways to reduce waste and improve efficiencies throughout the store,” Hawthorne said.
Under FSMA 204, retailers are required by law to track Key Data Elements (KDEs) to the store-level for every shipment containing high-risk food items from the Food Traceability List (FTL). ReposiTrak and Upshop say that major industry retailers have made public commitments to traceability, announcing programs that require more traceability data for all food product on a faster timeline. The efforts of those retailers have activated the industry, motivating others to institute traceability programs now, ahead of the FDA’s enforcement deadline of January 20, 2026.
Inclusive procurement practices can fuel economic growth and create jobs worldwide through increased partnerships with small and diverse suppliers, according to a study from the Illinois firm Supplier.io.
The firm’s “2024 Supplier Diversity Economic Impact Report” found that $168 billion spent directly with those suppliers generated a total economic impact of $303 billion. That analysis can help supplier diversity managers and chief procurement officers implement programs that grow diversity spend, improve supply chain competitiveness, and increase brand value, the firm said.
The companies featured in Supplier.io’s report collectively supported more than 710,000 direct jobs and contributed $60 billion in direct wages through their investments in small and diverse suppliers. According to the analysis, those purchases created a ripple effect, supporting over 1.4 million jobs and driving $105 billion in total income when factoring in direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts.
“At Supplier.io, we believe that empowering businesses with advanced supplier intelligence not only enhances their operational resilience but also significantly mitigates risks,” Aylin Basom, CEO of Supplier.io, said in a release. “Our platform provides critical insights that drive efficiency and innovation, enabling companies to find and invest in small and diverse suppliers. This approach helps build stronger, more reliable supply chains.”
Logistics industry growth slowed in December due to a seasonal wind-down of inventory and following one of the busiest holiday shopping seasons on record, according to the latest Logistics Managers’ Index (LMI) report, released this week.
The monthly LMI was 57.3 in December, down more than a percentage point from November’s reading of 58.4. Despite the slowdown, economic activity across the industry continued to expand, as an LMI reading above 50 indicates growth and a reading below 50 indicates contraction.
The LMI researchers said the monthly conditions were largely due to seasonal drawdowns in inventory levels—and the associated costs of holding them—at the retail level. The LMI’s Inventory Levels index registered 50, falling from 56.1 in November. That reduction also affected warehousing capacity, which slowed but remained in expansion mode: The LMI’s warehousing capacity index fell 7 points to a reading of 61.6.
December’s results reflect a continued trend toward more typical industry growth patterns following recent years of volatility—and they point to a successful peak holiday season as well.
“Retailers were clearly correct in their bet to stock [up] on goods ahead of the holiday season,” the LMI researchers wrote in their monthly report. “Holiday sales from November until Christmas Eve were up 3.8% year-over-year according to Mastercard. This was largely driven by a 6.7% increase in e-commerce sales, although in-person spending was up 2.9% as well.”
And those results came during a compressed peak shopping cycle.
“The increase in spending came despite the shorter holiday season due to the late Thanksgiving,” the researchers also wrote, citing National Retail Federation (NRF) estimates that U.S. shoppers spent just short of a trillion dollars in November and December, making it the busiest holiday season of all time.
The LMI is a monthly survey of logistics managers from across the country. It tracks industry growth overall and across eight areas: inventory levels and costs; warehousing capacity, utilization, and prices; and transportation capacity, utilization, and prices. The report is released monthly by researchers from Arizona State University, Colorado State University, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rutgers University, and the University of Nevada, Reno, in conjunction with the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP).
As U.S. small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) face an uncertain business landscape in 2025, a substantial majority (67%) expect positive growth in the new year compared to 2024, according to a survey from DHL.
However, the survey also showed that businesses could face a rocky road to reach that goal, as they navigate a complex environment of regulatory/policy shifts and global market volatility. Both those issues were cited as top challenges by 36% of respondents, followed by staffing/talent retention (11%) and digital threats and cyber attacks (2%).
Against that backdrop, SMEs said that the biggest opportunity for growth in 2025 lies in expanding into new markets (40%), followed by economic improvements (31%) and implementing new technologies (14%).
As the U.S. prepares for a broad shift in political leadership in Washington after a contentious election, the SMEs in DHL’s survey were likely split evenly on their opinion about the impact of regulatory and policy changes. A plurality of 40% were on the fence (uncertain, still evaluating), followed by 24% who believe regulatory changes could negatively impact growth, 20% who see these changes as having a positive impact, and 16% predicting no impact on growth at all.
That uncertainty also triggered a split when respondents were asked how they planned to adjust their strategy in 2025 in response to changes in the policy or regulatory landscape. The largest portion (38%) of SMEs said they remained uncertain or still evaluating, followed by 30% who will make minor adjustments, 19% will maintain their current approach, and 13% who were willing to significantly adjust their approach.
Specifically, the two sides remain at odds over provisions related to the deployment of semi-automated technologies like rail-mounted gantry cranes, according to an analysis by the Kansas-based 3PL Noatum Logistics. The ILA has strongly opposed further automation, arguing it threatens dockworker protections, while the USMX contends that automation enhances productivity and can create long-term opportunities for labor.
In fact, U.S. importers are already taking action to prevent the impact of such a strike, “pulling forward” their container shipments by rushing imports to earlier dates on the calendar, according to analysis by supply chain visibility provider Project44. That strategy can help companies to build enough safety stock to dampen the damage of events like the strike and like the steep tariffs being threatened by the incoming Trump administration.
Likewise, some ocean carriers have already instituted January surcharges in pre-emption of possible labor action, which could support inbound ocean rates if a strike occurs, according to freight market analysts with TD Cowen. In the meantime, the outcome of the new negotiations are seen with “significant uncertainty,” due to the contentious history of the discussion and to the timing of the talks that overlap with a transition between two White House regimes, analysts said.