SR-9-A (47)CM . EtL : AFRPT : WP
Czty Council Meeting: Oct. 26, 1993
T0: Mayor and Ci~y Councilmembers
FRQM: City Staff
~~~
~~~~ ~~s~'
Santa Monica, California
SUBJECT: Recommendation Regarding t~xe Adoption of a Reduced-
Emissions Fuels Policy for Vehicle Purchases
INTRODiTCT10N
This repart px~esents a proposed policy for the purchase of reduced
emissions vehicles for the City of Santa Monica. Once adopted,
staff will use the poJ.icy in evaluating b~ds for the purchas~ of
vehicles.
EXE CUT I VE SUMNiARY
The City of Santa Monica has a Iong and distinguished histary of
supporting our commun~ty's environmental well-being. As part of
that etfort, the City Counc~l established the Task F'orce on the
Environment in 1991. The Task ForcE has crafted and proposed the
Santa Monica Sustainable City Program. The City Council
unanimously endorsed this program which advocates creation of a
city in which residents can meet their curren~ needs withaut
carnpromising the ability of future generations to do the same. As
part of the overall program, a policy was praposed that the City
reduce the use of non-renewable resaurces and improve air quality.
Tied to this policy is the implementation goal that the City
convert a significant percentage of its fleet ~o reduced-ernission
fuels .
~~~ ' 2 1~
ocT ~ s ~gs~
~- ~
The City af Santa Monzca has had reduced-erniSSion vehicles in its
~leet for more than 15 years. Currently, rnore than 11 percent af
the existing fleet of about 600 vehicles is powered by alternative
fu~ls. The alternatively fueled vehicles ~nclude a variety of
equipment, everything from sedans to passenger and cargo vans ta
heavy duty trucks. Until recently, al~ of the City`s reduced-
emission vehicles were powered by propane The choic~ of propan~
as the al~ernative fuel vehicle was based on technical revzews by
stat~ and input by th~ Council.
In recen~ years, staf~ has periodically evaluated the City's use of
reduced-emiss2on vehicles and evaluated the technology available.
It has rec~ntly been determined that as a vehicle fuel propane
lacks significant emission reductions. As a result of this
determinatior~, staff initiated a comprehensive re-evaluation of the
use of alternative fuels by the City.
Staff conducted a thorough evaluatio~ of tour currently available
reduced-emissian fuel types (reformulated gasoline, methanol,
electric and Compr~ssed Natural Gas) including the3r em~ssion and
environm~ntal characteristics, availability of the fuels and
vehicles and the f~nancial impacts of p~rchasing alternative fuel
vehicles. In addition, many operating departments conducted an
operat~onal review which evaluated the applicability of reduced-
emission vehicles to particular City functians. This operational
rev~ew involved a vehicle by vehicle ana~ysis to
2
de~ermine thos~ veh~cles that would be suitable for a reduced-
emission fuel as well as the appropriate reduced-emission fuel.
This analysis concluded that the primary "preferred ~uel type°
should n~w be CNG. The F1eet Manager, Purchasisng Agent and the
operational departments will use the results of the operational
review to make purchasing decisions. Once the results of the
operational review are fully implemEnted the City's fleet will
include almost 30 percent reduced-emission vehicles af wh~ch more
than 60 percent will be CNG vehicles. The creation of a reduced-
emission vehicle purchase polzcy has been endorsed by the Task
Force on the Environrnent. This specific policy proposal was
presented to and discussed by ~he Task Force on the Environment.
As technology progresses, the City ~~ committed to conduct an
annual aperational analys~s to ensure that the City is using the
cleanest and most technologically advanced reduced emission
veh~cles.
BACKGROUND
The City of Santa Monica has a rolling fleet of approximately 735
vehicles including 600 light/medium/heavy duty veh~cles as well as
135 transit buses. wi,thin the fleet there is a var~ety of
equiprnen~, every~hing from lawn mowers to passenger sedans to
80,oaa Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) tractors. The exis~ing fleet of
vehicles is camprised of the following fuel types•
3
City of Santa Monica Vehicle
Fuel Types
67a Gasolzne
21% Diesel
12o Reduced-Ernission Fuels
It shouZd be noted that the City is purchasing the cleanest burning
fuel available when it buys gasoline or diesel. All City vehicles
that use gasoline are receiving Phase I reformulated gasoline.
This is the cleaner burni.ng gasoline that the oil companies were
required to tormulate for tes~ purposes. For diesel fue3 the City
is only purchasing Diesel I, which is the cleanest burning diesel
fuel available.
Of the 11.s of the Ci~y's ~leet that is powered by reduced-emission
fuels (currently propane~ me~hanal, campressed natural gas and
electric), the distribution is as follows:
Propane 62
Methanal 4
Compressed Natural Gas 5
Electric 3
~f these vehicles, four are methanol powered sedans, two are
propane powered police cruisers, one is an electric station wagan
and four are CNG trucks. The four rr-ethanol sedans are performing
4
satisfactorily even ~hough they burn more fuel than their gasol~ne
counterpart. This has been an inconvenience to ~he vehicle
operators because they have to fi~l the vehicles more often. Yet,
research indicates that it is 2 1 cents per mile less expensive to
opezate a methanol vehicle than a gasoline powered vehicle. The
major drawback to these vehicles has been the availability of fuel.
There is a fueling site at a gasoline s'~ation in the City but this
loca~ion has had problems with its pumping sys~em. Thes~ problems
have been reported to the California Energy Commission (CEC) which
regula~.~s methanol stations state-wide. The CEC assurad the City
that this situation will be closely monitored and problems
rectified as soon as possible.
The propane police cruisers are performing in an acceptable fashion
although not optirna~~y. Analysis indica~es t~a~ these vehicles are
receiv~ng 1~ss mzles to the equzvalent gallon at fuel than a
gasolin.e powered version. For the test period. the average miles
per gallon of propane was 5.5 compared ~0 10 m11es per gallon for
the gasoline burning units. Overall, the feedback from the
of£icers was mixed. Complaints inc~uded slow accelera~ion at low
speeds; difficulty in determining when to start and stop fueling;
l~w males per gallon which requires mare re-fueling stops; and
limited access to re-fueling sites at Beach Maantenance Yard north
of the Pier and at the City Yards.
In evaluating the propane vehicles, it was deterrnined that the
primary drawback ta be insufficient ernission reductions. Although
5
past analyses appeared to show that propane-powered v~hicles wer~
significantly less palluting, recent studies have praven that the
emiss3on benefits of propane are insignificant. This finding is
affirmed by the recent decision of the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD} to phase out clean air credzts for the
use of prapane vehicles. In essence, the SCAQMD has determined
that the use of a propane v~hicle does not produce sufficiEnt
emission benefits to warrant a c~ean air cred~t. The complaints
frarn the police officers taken together with the ~nsuff~c~ent
emission benefits led ta the conclusion that no addit~ona~ propane
police vehicles will be purchased.
The electric station wagon is be~ng used by the Environmental
Progxams Division which is fully satisfied with operation of the
v~h~cle.
In addition ~o ~he vehicles mentioned above, two ~lectric parking
enforcement vehicles were delivered to the City in January 1993.
From an operatiflnal perspective, these e~ectric vehicles did no~
meet the City's sp~cifications. The Citiy`s bid specifica~ion
required a range of 45 to 55 miles per battery charge. The
manufacturer specifications claimed the vehicles wauld aperate up
ta 78 miles per battery charge. On numerous occasions and in
different sit~ations, parking enforcement officers drove the
vehicles with unsatisfactory results. In the field, the mileage
range was from 2 miles ta ~5 miles on a s~ngle battery charge. The
batt~ry charg~ lasted from one hour ta five hours. The City made
6
numerous service calls to no avail The manufacturer agreed that
the vehicle did n.ot satisfy the City's speci~ications and has taken
~he v~hicles back and refunded the purchase price of the vehicles.
Since that experience the City has conducted extensive testing on
oth~r manufacturer`s electric vehacles that are sua.tabl~ far
parking enforcement duties. As a result af ~hese tests the City
has identified a model that can meet the City`s specifacation.
Staff is proceeding with this procurement pracess in order to
purchase two el~ctric parking enforcement vehicles.
DISCUSSION
For more than 15 years the City has had reduc~d-ernission fuel
vehicles in its fleet. The City has invested in reduCed-emission
fuel vehicles and will continue to invest in this technology for a
number of reasons. ~n Los Angeles air pollution levels exceed
Federal clean a~r standards. While the exact cantribution that ~he
City's fleet makes to the pollution in the Las Angeles area is
indeterminable, it is clear that the City's vehicles send carbon
monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides and other pollutan~s into
the air Any shift to a reduced-emission fuel w~ll help to reduce
air pollution.
Add~tionally, investment in reduced-emission vehicles will assist
in the attainment of regulatory requirements establa.shed in the
1990 California Clean F'uels Regulations. These emission standards
are more stringent than Federal standards, with a schedule far the
phase-in of low emission vehicles (LEV), ultra-low emission
7
vehicles (ULEV) and zero emission vehicles (ZEV). An investment in
reduced-emission vehicles can help to address these regulatory
requirements while work~ng to reduce air pollution resulting from
vehicle ~massions.
By investin~ in reduced-emission vehicles the City also ~s
attempting ~o deerease its dependence on non-renewable foreign fuel
sourc~s (i.e. petroleum produc~s). Vehicles account for ane-
quarter of all energy use in this country, relying on oi1 for 97%
of this requirement. The United States imports approximately half
of zts oil Based on these facts, it is clear that concern over
energy security ~s tied to the automabile and ~hat diversifica~ion
to reduce reliance on petroleum products is an apprapriate palicy
gaal
Until recent=y all of the City`s reduced-emission fuel vehiCles
were powered by propane which was the best opt~on available at the
time. The facus on prapane was adopted ta ensur~ consistency
with~n the fleet. By limiting the d~fferent types of r~duced-
emission vehicles in the fleet the City has limited the costs
associated wi~h the transition ta a different type of fuel. Th~
City has accornplished ~his by limiting ~he parts inventory that
must be maintained, facusing the training necessary for the
mechanics and restricting facility mod~ficat~on.
Based on the changing technolagy and the goal of reduc~ng aur
dependence on a non-renewable energy saurce, Staff conducted a
8
comprehensive re-evaluatian of its us~ of reduced-emission vehicles
(including buses). Departments conducted operational reviews which
evalua~ed the applicability of reduced-emission fuel vehic~es ta
specific City functions. The operational rev~ews were based on an
analysis of faur reduced-em~ssion fuel types includ~ng th~ir
emission and environmental characteristics, the availabi~ity of the
fuels and vehicles and the financial impacts of purchasing
alternative fue~ veh~cles. The fuels that were evaluated are
xeformu~ated gasoline, mEthanol, electric and compressed natural
gas. Attachment 1 contains a matr~x that outlines the
characteristics for each type of reduced-emission fuel. Staff also
compiled information on progra~s regarding reduced-emission
vehicles in other cities which is discussed later in this report.
Operational Reviews
Tn order to facilitate the operational review, a"preferred fuel
type" was identified by vehicle type. Compara~ive information on
the current fuel type and the proposed reduced-emission fuel was
provided to the departments to ass~st them in completing their
analysis.
For each of ~he vehicles to be evaluated, the following information
was provided tQ the departments:
9
~ehi~~e li! __
M%~.eage pe: ~ ~yr,.~ _ - a• •-
Cargo ~veig-= - .. -
~`~e~ tank ~ . ~ ~ ~ .~ ;,
S~~rage ~pa-•r r r - . .
Fu~i ~ua~.l~a:. 1 • ~-•
Dependab~.~ _ : - _ i_ ,- _
Othe~ imPa '-:=
If, ~n their analysis, the department de~erm3ned that the proposed
fuel type was not warkable considaring the operational needs of the
departrnent then the departmen~ was required to provide
~us~ification for replacing the preferred fuel type.
The pr~rnary "preferred fuel type" was CNG. This decision was based
on the emission characteristics, environmental impacts, fuel
availability and vehic~e availability.
Several classes of vehicles, primarily specialty and emergency
response vehicles, were excluded from this analysis. Specialty
vehicles are those vehicles ihat are configured for the task they
are assigned such as traffic striping vehicles, ~urf trucks and
sewer maintenance vehicles. ~mergency responee jreha.cles are almast
exclusively police and fire equipment. Staff recammends that
specialty and emergency response vehicl~s be evaluated on a case by
case basis . This recornmendation is based an two concerns . One
concern is that these vehicles wauld require recanfiguration or
reconstruction to accept a reduced-emission fuel and/flr have
10
insufficient room or carrying capacity to facilitate a reduced-
emission fuel. In many cases these structural or weight problems
can not be overcam~.
The s~cand concern, which primarily relates to emergency response
vehicles, is the potentia~ for s~gnificant reduction ~n
acceleration performance. The Env~ronmental Protection Agency
recently canducted a study that shawed that CNG veh~cles'
accelera~ian performance can be degraded by an averag~ of 29
percent relative to a gasoline powered vehicle. This loss in
acceleration in emergency respanse vehicles could impact ~perat~ons
tao significantly to be accep~able.
This is not to say that aIl vehicles for the Police and ~are
Departments were excluded from consideration. All non-emergency
response vehicles were included in this analysis. The operational
review indicates that 32 vehicles were identified as having
po~ential as reduced-emission veh~cles Of these, it was
de~ermined that 27 meet the criteria far use of a reduced-emisszon
fuel. These 27 vehicles are included in the results of the
operational ana~ysis. In addition to these vehicles that were
included in the operational review, staff is currently evaluat~ng
a CNG police patrol car that has a computerized fuel sens~ng sys~em
that is supposed to perform as well as a gasoline pawered model.
This vehicle also has bi-fuel capability such that ~he vehicle has
a range af 110 miles on CNG but also retains the ar~ginal gasol~.ne
tank which adds additional range. If the performance
11
characteristics are confirmed then staff ~ntend to purchase one of
these vehacles as a test ~odel Additionally, staff is currently
in discussion with tre Long Beach Police Department which operates
five CNG police vehicles. These vehicles have a non-computerized
fueling system. Depending on the outcome of this evaluatian the
Police Department wi11 invest in a second police patrol car similar
to the type used by the Long Beach Pol~ce Department.
After eliminat~ng the specialty and emergency response vehicles
from conside~ation, 205 vehicles needed to be evaluated. Of ~hose
vehicles, 46 could not use reduced-emission fuel and 159 vehicles
could use a reduced-emission fuel The reasons for eZiminating the
reduced-emiss~on alternative for the 46 vehicles zncluded reduced
range, lack of fuel availability because the vehicle trave~s
outsid~ the city, ne~d for ~ntire carrying capaci~y and lack of a
cornparable reduced-emission vehicle. The vehicles that can use
reduced-emission fuel will be converted ta the reduced-emission
fuel when the vehicle is replac~d. Of the ~59, 115 will be CNG
powez~ed, 1 will be e3.ectric and 4~ wi~~ be methano~ powered. This
is in add~tzon to the 4 methanol sedans, 3 electric vehicles and 5
CNG trucks currently in the City's fleet. When the Ci~y completes
the transi~ion ~o ~he reduced-emission vehic~es, the City's fleet
will ha~cre more than 27 percent of its vehicles fueled by reduced-
emission sources. This is the minimum number of vehicles tha~ will
be canverted to reduced-emission vehicles Staff intends ta
evaluate thase vehicles that are not proposed to be converted to
determine if new technology or changes to the bid specifications
12
would allow the purchase of a reduced-emission vehicle.
It ~s anticipated tha~ the Fleet Manager, Purchasing Agent and the
operating departments will use the results of the operational
review as a guide for future vehicle purchases.
In addition t4 the operational review conducted by the departments
that operate cars and trucks as part of the City's fleet, the
Transportation Department canducted an analysis of the potential
use of reduced-emission fuels zn the bus fleet. The Transportation
Department curren~ly operates 135 buses. All of the buses are
diesel powered. State and Federal regulatory agencies have
significantly modified the emission standards for diesel fuel In
order to rneet these strict standards, the Transportation Department
is using the cleanest diesel fuel (Diesel #1). The Transportation
Department also bought 10 clean diesel buses which contain a
particu~ate trap system. The nitx'ous oxide (N~x) and the
particulate matter produced by these clean diesEl buses is
significantly reduced. The engines have been modified to reduce
the production of NOx. Additionally, the particulate trap system
eliminates about 90 percent of the particulate matte~.
Whzle the bus fleet is reliant on d~esel at this t~me, staff has
mor~.itored and analyzed reduced emission fuel experimen~s for over
fou~ years including Methanol, CNG and Liqu~d Natural Gas {LNG}.
Fuel ce11. battery bus~s and flther technologzes for large transit
vehicles are not developed to the stage that buses have been
13
deliv~red ta transit properties and were therefore not analyzed.
Each fuel that has been placed into experimental service in buses
has significant drawbacks including increased initial cost,
increased operating Cost, significant modification needs for
facilities, equipment reliab~lity, employee safety and
environmental impacts. Of the faur technologies, the particulate
trap system is the least expenszve in terms of capital and
operating cos~s while it significantly exceeds the 1994 California
bus emission mandates. The particulate trap sys~em also provides
suff~cient equipmen~ reliability and does not create ~.he safety and
environmental concex~ns some of the reduced emission fuels create.
However, if the LNG techno~ogy develops i.n the way some are
predzc~ing then i~ has the potential to be equal to diesel ~n many
of these areas while not requiring refining
Based on ~he analysis conducted by ~he staff, LNG technology has
the best potential far ~se as a reduced-emission fuel in the buses .
Because reduced-emission technology changes constantly and
inves~ment in a fueling facility alone could easily exceed $2
million for an operation the size of the Municipal Bus Line, the
Department will continue to purchase clean diesel buses for the
present. However, staff will monitor the results of experiments
involv~~n.g reduced-emission fuels to determine th~ appropriate
imp~ementation plan for reduced-emission buses.
Tn addition to evaluating ~he potential for use of reduced-emission
14
fuels in the buses, the Transportation Department will be working
with the Westchester/LAX Employers Association, the Southern
California Gas Campany and Maguire Thomas Partners ta initiate a
carnmuter shutt~e from Santa Monica to ~he El Segundo employment
area, using 25-passenger, CNG vehicles The vehic~es will be
purchased by the Gas Company and fueled at the Gas Company'~
Stewart Street faczl~ty. This pro~ect will allow the Municipal
Bus Lines to gain experienc~ in working with CNG engines without
making a long-term financ~al commitment.
Evaluation of Fuel Types
In order ~o facilitate ~he s~lection of tha preterred fuel ~ype and
to conduct the aperational review, staff evaluated four reduced-
er~ission fuel tyges . The fuel types are refoxmulated gasoline,
methanol, electric and compressed natural gas. The following
surnmarizes the data collected by staff.
Reformulated Gasoline: Reformulated gasaline is a complex liqu~d
fuel that has higher oxygen content and fewer aromatics and benzene
than gasoline. Wi~h a higher oxygen concentration, reformulated
gasoline burns more thoroughly thereby reducing both carbon and
hydrocarbon emission. Just as with gasoline, reformulated gasoline
is a non-renewable resource, can be toxic if ingested and contains
carc~.nogens
The Clean Air Act amendments implicitly provide the oil industry
with the oppor~unity to meet the new strict emissions standards
15
through the development of retorrnulated gasoline. Moreover, the
amendments manda~e the transition to reformulated gasol3ne, but
contain no specific requirements for reduced-emission vehicles.
Th~ actual fuel cost per mi~e driven of the reformulated gasoline
p~wered vehicle is approximately 4 cents. This is the same as for
gasaline and methanol and two times as ~uch as for CNG and
electricity. The cost per mile to operate a vehicle using
re~ormulated gasoline is about 42 cents. Thzs ~s 4.4 cents less
than to aperate a CNG vehicle, and 9.1 cents less than to ope~ate
an electric vehicle, and 2.2 cents less ~han a methanol vehicle.
It is impartant ta note that the per mile cast to Qperate a
reduced-emission veh~c~e is based on the costs of the vehzcle,
license/registration fees, insurance, maintenance, fuel costs and
storage/dispensing equipment. This is somewhat ~napplicable to the
City of Santa Mon~ca because the City will not initially incur any
casts associate with storage/dispensing equipment for any type of
reduced-emission fuel. Moreover, because the cos~s associated wzth
a CNG fueling station are so signif~cant this will have a tendency
to skew the costs associated with operating a CNG vehicle. An
analysis af the cost data did nat reveal a way to extract the
refueling c~sts from the total operating cost. The topic of costs
associated with the use of CNG is discussed further in the section
dedicated to CNG.
Methanol. Methanol is a cl~ar, liquid alcohol that th~ chemical
16
industry has typically used to produce resins, plastzcs, solvents
and other products. Its attractiveness as a vehicle fuel stems
from the fact that it burns cleaner than gasoline and unlike CNG is
in a liquid form. Methanol is renewabl~ if it is made from
renewabie organic material.
Methanol as a vehicle fuel comes in two forms: M85 and M100. M85
is a rnixture of 85 percent methanol and 15 percent gasoline. M10~
(neat me~hanol) is 100 percent rnethanol and is the cleaner of the
two fuels but has significant operational problems Mz00 l~urns
with an in~isible flame which creates potantial problems for
fi~-efighters, vehicle passengers and raaintenance crews. Moreover,
this fuel type is highly toxic if ingested ax absorbed through the
skin and is highly carrosive. Methanol fueling statzons as well as
me~hanal burning vehicles must be specially fit with non-corrosive
piping and pipe sealant to avoid leaking methanol Underground
methanol storage tanks must be double walled and have extra leak
sensors to protect the surrounding soil frarn possible
contaminatior. Additionally, methanol is water soluble. Some
contend that thzs ~.s a very serious drawback because in the event
of a spill or leak, clean-up is potentially much mare difficult.
In addition to the environmental drawbacks, the City has
experienced significant difficulty in securing a reliab~e fuel
source. According to the California Energy Comm~ssion, in October
1992 there were 30 methanol fuel distribution stations in
geagraphically disbursed locations thrau.ghout the state, with 20
17
more scheduled to come on-line by the end of the year. One of the
stations with the methanol capability, which opened in 1992, is
located in Santa Monica. Knowing there would be close-by tueling
supply, the City purchased four sedans that are flexible fuel
vehicles. They operate on M-85, traditional gasolzne or a rnixture
af the twa. Experience has shown that the fueling station ~s
frequently znoperative in which case these veh~cles must be run on
gasaline.
Methanol's corrosiveness and toxic~ty must be weighed against its
potential to reduce air pollut~on. Methanol cambustzon produces np
particulates and may produce fewer nitrogen oxides (NOx) than
gasoline. Methanal vehicles produce about 85 percent as much
carbon diaxide as gasoline. Studies regarding the reduct~on of
hydrocarbons due to the use of inethanol have been inconclusive
except to determine that the use of inethanol does reduce
hydrocarbons
One consistent problem with methanol combustion is the presence of
formaldehyde in ~he emissions. Farmaldehyde is toxic, probably
carcinogenic and may cantribute to ozone formatio~. Yet, new
technology in the form of catalytic canverters rnay reduc~ the
formaldehyde production pxoblern.
The fuel cost per mile driven of the methanol powered vehicle is
approximately ~ cents. Th~s is the same as for gasoline and two
times as much tor as CNG. It costs 40.1 cen~s per mile to operate
18
a rnethanol vehicle which is about 2.2 cents less expensive ~han a
comparable gasoline vehicle and 6.5 cents less expensive than CNG
vehicle. Currently, only small and mid-sized passenger vehicles
are availab~e methanol-powered.
Electric: Electric vehicles emit no air pollutants but electric
generating plants do. Thus, the amount of pol~ution sent into the
aix depends on the fuel mix of the generating plant used ~o praduce
the electricity. When a generating plant is fueled by natural gas
and hydro power then the increase in air pollution is minimal. On
the other hand, a g~nerating plant using coal to produce the
electricity would emit pollutants such as carbon monoxide, carbon
dioxide and ather emissions. The overall impact of elec~rzc
vehicles and the associated electricity demand on air quality is
deterrnined by the additional load the vehicle places on the utility
during th~ charging phase and how the e~ectricity is generated.
In addition to em~ssion ~mprovements that are poss~ble ~sing
electrlc vehicles, a substantial benefit from electric vehicles is
the limited maintenance needed for the vehicle to operate. gecause
there is no engine {just an electric motor), maintenance
requirements are significantly reduced Other than tires and
brakes, the pr~mary mainten.ance requirement is battery replacement.
Depending on the arnoun~ of use and the durability af the batteries,
they may need to be replaced every three to five years.
The State of California via the California Energy Commiss~on, has
19
promulgated regulations that dictate that 2 percent of each
automakers' fleet sold within the state must be zero-emission
vehicles starting in 1998. By 2003 ~his mandate rises to 10
percent. Electric vehicles are currently the only vehicle that
qualify as zero emission vehicles.
Most major vehicle manufacturers have built prototype electrie
vehicles, but none has produced electric vehicles on a large scale.
Genera~ Motors announced an electric vehicle in early 199Q but i~
is still not cornmercially available. Other manufacturers are
experimenting with electric vehicles but there has been ~i~tle
progress tawards mass productzon. There are compact sized sedans,
compact pick-up trucks and scaoter type vehicles curren~ly
available as retrofi~ vehicles.
Despite the improvements in electric vehicle technology and the
State rnandated regulations regarding their use, the range af
electric vehicles remains limited and their function is thereby
narrowed. Their range, approximately 50 miles per charge,
precludes them from being used for long d~stance travel. In
addition to range limitation there are some environmental risks
associated with recycling of old lead-acid batteries The
California Department of Health Services has established guidelines
for the Iead-acid battery dispasal. Batteries must be collected by
retailers and who~esalers, then sent far reclamation. One other
drawback to the current electric veh~cle technology is the ~ime it
takes to recharge the batteries. It can take upwards of eight
2D
hours to recharge a set of batteries on an electric vehicle. From
an operational perspective, this potentially ~imits the usefulness
of the vehicle because it is tak~n out of service for an entire
eight houx' shift,
The fuel cost per mile driven of an electric powered vehicle is
approximately 2 cents This is the same as for CNG and half the
cost of gasoline and methanol. I~. costs about 51.4 cents per mile
to operate an electric vehicle. This is about 9.2 cents per mile
more expensive than a comparable gasoline vehicle; 11.3 cents rnore
expensive than. a rne~hanol power~d vehicle; and 4.8 cen~s more than
a CNG powered vehicle
Natural Gas: Natural gas is a gaseous fuel that frequently appears
in con~unction with oi1 d~posits Natural gas is a non-renewable
resource that is composed primarily o~ methane obtained from oil
wells. Gene=ally, natural gas is produced domestically Comrnon
uses for natural gas have been household heating and cooking. While
the natural gas distribution system is in place for these uses, a
very limited dispensing system exists for the use af natural gas in
veh~c~es. In the past, much of the natural gas has been burned off
during the oil drilling process It should be noted that unlike
methanol and gasoline, natural gas does not have ~a be refined
between the wellhead and the end-usEr.
There are two farms natural gas fuel can take. One is Liquid
Natural Gas (LNG) which is natural gas cooled to 259 degrees belaw
21
zero in order to liquify the gas. Currently, only transzt
praperties a~e experimenting with LNG No cars or trucks are
available powered by LNG. The second option using natural gas as
a vehicle fuel is to pump ~t in its cornpr~ssed form into vehicles.
This is ca~led Compressed Natural Gas (CNG). Because of the
availability of fuel and vehicles, CNG is the primary focus of this
section.
There are two types of CNG fueling stat~ons -- a slow fill ar~d a
fast fill. Slow fill stations pump the CNG into the vehicle over
several hours, usually overnight. The slow fill fueling site
consists of an unclerground pipe, a compressor and multiple
dispensing locations. The cost o~ canstructing this type of
fueling station is about one-half the cast to construct a fast fil3.
sta~ion. A slow fill fueling station is only useful for fleets
that can sit idle for extended periods of time such as overnight.
Fast fill stations pump the CNG ir_to passenger cars almost as
quickly as gasoline stations. A 1Q to 15 equiva].ent gallon tank
can be filled in as J.i.ttle as ~our minutes. A fast fa.ll fue~ing
station consis~s of a compressor, a storage cascade, piping and
dispensers. The storage cascade stores the CNG until it is ne~ded
and provides a buffer for the compressor. I~ is es~irrtated ~ha~ a
CNG fast fill fueling statian for vehicles other than buses could
cast more than $200,000.
22
Regarding the availability of CNG as a vehicle fuel, it should be
noted that The Gas Company has recently opened a fast fill fueling
station at its Stewart Street fac~lzty. The City is us~ng the Gas
Company CNG fueling facility for all CNG vehicles in our fleet
Current~y, both light and heavy duty CNG vehicles are generally
available. Na OEM sedans are currently available with CNG as the
fuel type. In additian ta the expense associated w~th the tueling
station, the CNG vehicles are as much as $5,000 more expensive than
gasoline or mEthanol pow~red vehicles. Howev~r, these addit~onal
costs are partially off-set by a vehicle purchase incentive program
~nitiated by The Gas Company. Rebates are based an ~he weight of
the vehicle p~rchase and range ~rom $1,75a to $7,50fl.
The reduction of emissions associated with CNG veh~c~es is
significant. According to a study conducted by researchers at the
University of Californ~a at Berkeley, carbon dioxide emissions can
be rEduced by as much as 33 percent by using natural gas vehicles
The vehicle also significant~y reduces carbon monoxide. Compared
ta gaso~ine powered vehzeles, natural gas powered vehicles reduce
carbon monoxide by 50 pe~cent ta 90 percent.
Natural gas vehicles emit increased levels of inethane. Me~hane
contributes to the greenhouse effect. It has been estimated that
if all gasol~ne pawered vehicles are replaced wit~ CNG powered
vehicles the increased amount of inethane would be significant with
23
an associa~ed impac~ on global warming However, it is unlikely
that this such a replacement would come to pass. Additianally,
other researchers argue that the decrease in the car~on dioxide
emissions would more than offset the effects of m~thane emissians
an global warming. Research indicates that the net result of the
reduction~ in carbon dioxide and ~he increase in methane is a
decrease in ~otal greenhouse gas emissions of 16 percent.
~rom an operational perspective CNG provides sorne challenges.
First, CNG fuel tanks are genera~~y heavier than gasoline fuel
tanks. This can create problems regarding decreased carrying
capacity in the vehicle. Another issue is range and the associated
aperational impact. In order to obtain the necessary range or to
accommodate dual fuel capability additional fuel tanks are
sametimes installed in space normaily used for cargo. The last
operational challenge with CNG vehicles is that there is an
approximate 10 percent loss in pawer It should also be noted that
retrofitted vehic~es can have negligihle emissions benef~ts if not
properly maintained. All of these challenges mean that fleet
managers must b~ careful in selecting the apprapriate vehicles tfl
canvert to CI~G .
The actual fuel cost per mile for a CNG powered vehic~e is
approximately 2 cents. 'This is half the cost as far gasoline and
rnethanol and the same as for electric veh~.c~es. It costs
approximately 46.5 cents per mile to operate a CNG veh~c~e. This
24
is 4.4 cents more expensive ~han a comparable gasoline vehzcle; 6.5
c~nts more expensive than methanol powered vehicle; and 4.8 cents
less than an electric powered vehicle.
Earlier, it was discussed that these cost figures may be mis~eading
because the operating costs include the cost of a refueling
station. Staff attempted ~o elimanate the aperating cos~ data
assaclated with the refueling station but could nat. However, the
City of Long Beach conducted an analysis of annual cost savir~gs for
fuel and maintenance associated with a CNG vehicle conversion
prograrn. Their analys~s estimated a$243 per vehicle annual
savings for fuel and maintenance. If this cast savings es~imate
held true for thE 5anta Monica fleet and the City ultimately had
150 CNG pawered vehzcles, the annual savings waul.d equal $36,45a.
Other Cities
Staff conducted research into the appx'aach used by other ci~.ies in
evaluating ~he use and implementation of reduced-emission veh~cles.
Staff contacted a number of organizations a.ncluding the Califarnia,
Colorado, Arizona, Nevada Innovation Group (CCAN); National Leaguc~
of Cities; League af California Citzes, Public Technology, Inc.;
the Urban Consortium Energy Task Force; and officials from athe~-
cities. As a result o~ this r~search, staff identified several
citaes with investments in reduced-~mission vehzcles. The most
active Ca].i.foznia city is Long Beach.
25
Long B~ach has significantly invested in CNG. Long Beach has
approximately 15~0 pieces of equipment in its fleet with about 1300
vehicles that have the poten.tial ~o ~se a reduced-emission fuel..
The City of Long Beach (including the Long Beach Gas Department~
has 15~ CNG vehicles (11.~ percent of the f1e~t).
The City of Long Beach is satisfied with the performance of the CNG
vehicles they have in the f].eet. They anticipate and have
experienced reduced maintenance and fuel casts, extended the la.fe
of vehicles by up to 1 year, capital investment payback and
enhanced expertise of the maintenance staff and operational
departments. However, Long Beach staff said these benefits ar~
somewhati offset by a number of challenges they faced in
implementing their pragram. The vehicles experienced a 5 to 10
percent power loss. The vehic~es also experienced a 10 perc~nt
reduction in miles per gallon. Long Beach staff sugges~ed tha~
additional ~anks cou~d be added or the vehicle could be configured
with CNG and gaso~ine to compensate for the range issue.
Long Beach Staff also indicated that careful planning on bid
specifications and fueJ.ing station capacity is crit~cal ~a a
successful program. Caution in revising the bid specifications was
advised to ensure tank size and location are appropriate to meet
ope~ational needs. Care with the bid specifications is also
irnportant in order to ensure the ci~y receives a canversion that is
California Air Resources Board approved. Planning far fueling
26
station capacity is also critical to ensure that all vehicles can
be fueled in a timely manner Additionally, investment payback,
fueling station s~ze and associat~d energy use by the fue~ing
station must be planned.
Regardless of the challenges, Long Beach has made a firm commitm~nt
ta enhance its use of CNG vehic~es. The current plan is ~o expand
the number of CNG vehzcles over the next two years so that by FY
1994/95 the City will have 586 CNG vehicles. These vehicles wil~
include sedans, ligh~ duty vehicles, aerial trucks, street sweepers
and refuse trucks. The City is also investing in addi~ional
fueling stations such that ~hey plan ~o have three in service by
the end af 1993 The gaals af this program are to decrease
maintenance costs by 1~ percent, decrease fuel costs (excluding
taxes) by 20 percent and increase vehicle ~ife expectancy by 1
year.
The City of Denver has also addressed the issue af reduced
emissions by mandating the use of reduced-emiss~on vehicles. City
of Denver Ordinance 330, Council Bill 283, signed May 29, 1990,
requires 10 percent of vehicles in fleets of 30 or more ~vehicles to
be fueled by clean burn~ng alternative fuel. Vehicles which
rout~nely traveJ. 50 miles outside the rnetro area, emergency
vehicles, vehicles of the Public Utilities Commission and rental
veh~cles are exempt.
27
The City of Denver has a limited reduced-emission vehicles purchase
program. Denver has about 20 vehic~es which operate on CNG. The
Regional Transportation District {RTD) has 5 buses fueled by neat
methanol which have proven ta be expensive to aperate. The RTD
also operates 6 small electric buses along 16th Street which
bisects the downtown business district. The batteries hold enough
charge to operate the buses 3 or 4 hours between charges so they
ar~ only used during rush hours.
BUDGET AND FINANCIAL IMPACT
Staff estimates that th~ long-terrn incremental vehicle purchase
costs of implementing the recommenda~ions of this report range from
$345,000 ~o $575,OD0. However, these incremental cos~s will be, at
lea~t, partially otfset by lower ma~ntenance and fuel costs
assaciated with reduced-emission fuels and, in the case of CNG
vehicles, the incentive offered by the Gas Company.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staf~ recommends ~hat the City Council adopt the policy that the
City purchase reduced-emission vehicles whenever possib~e in
accordance with the opera~ional review conducted by S~aff.
Additionally, it is recommended that staff be directed to conduct
an annual operatianal analysis to ensure tha~ the recomrnended fuel
~ypes are consistent with then-current technology.
28
Prepared by: Ka~ie E. Lichtig Sr. Management Analyst
Alternative Fuels Working Group:
Lynn~ Barrette, City Manager's Office; Stan Scholl,
General Services; Manuel Rodriguez, General
Services, Joan Akins, General Services; Craig
Perkins, Environmental Programs; Susan McCarthy,
Cultural and Recreatian Services, John Aguila,
Cultural and Recrea~ion Services; Jim T. Butts,
Police Department, Mike Murphy, Police Department;
Bob Thomas, Police Department; John Montenero, Fire
Department; Ettore Bezard~nelli, Fire nepartment;
Jack Hu~chison, Transportation Department; Bob
Ayer, Transportation Department; Roy Neva,
Transportation Department; Mike Denn~s, Financ~
Department, Pam Wortham, Finance Departrnent
Attachments:
Attachment ~: Envzronmental and Emission
Emiss~on Fuels
Impacts of Reduced-
29
Environmental and Emission Impacts of Alternati~e Fuels
Heal1A Hazards
Gesoline
Octane boosters such as
1,3 butyadiene and
benzene hiphly
carc~noper~ic Toxic if
~nqested. Hiphly
flammable.
Relormulated 11
Oa=oline (Arca"~ ~C-x]~
HRphly toxic if inpested
Hiphly (lammable
Renewablel Domestlc vs
Nonrenewable Imported
Nonrenewahle Soth
Nanrenewable I
Both
Emisslons
Ch8r8Ct8riS11C81
Toxic air Cot~taminants
such as benzene,
acetaldehyde,
formaldehyde, and l,3
butadiene
Cal~tomia Air Resources
Board (CARB) standaNs
ior Phase II reformulated
gasoline requare 5596
reductEOn m Voaable
4rqanicComounds (VOC)
and at ieast a 15°~
reduction af rntrous
oxides (f~Ox). It also
requfres mobde sources
ta ach~eve the maximum
feas~ble reducbans in
emissions of part~culate
matter, carbon
monoxide, and tox~c air
contam~nants. Estimated
40°6 lower smog-
farming patentiaf
Other Enrironmentel
Impacia
Hydrocarbon tuel,
therefare contnbutes io
qlabal warminq Pases
sig~~ficant environmentai
nsks dunnq production,
transpor3, re~ininq, and
storape
HydroCa-bon fuel,
therefpn oantributes ko
alabal warmin~ Poses
significa~t environmental
risks dunnq productian,
transport, feflnir~p, and
StOf'~~8.
Enrlranmenlal
Impac~ Score2
1Q
' In 1990, the Califomia Air Resources Board establ~shed tour vehicle classes ~ transRtional fow-emission vehicles (TLEVS), 2 LEVs, 3 ultra-~EVs, and 4 zero-LEVs, and
required vehicle manutacturers to prov~de more (L~Vs) Each class was deiined by the emiss~on poter~tial ot canventional 4asol~ne and manufacturers cauld meet the
standard throuph 6ette~ exhaust controls, reformulated ~as, or adapting veh~cles to run on cleaner fueks RAFs ware designed to reco~rnze that altamabve fuefs are not as
reactive as qas and car~ therefore em~t more hydrocarbons and stdl have less ~mpact than gasahne
~
~
2 This columr~ represents ttie reiatwe desireability ot alternat~ve tuels trom the siaridpoant af overall env~ronmental ~mpacts w~th a'10' be~n~ worst and a'0' beinq best
En~iranmental and Emission Impacts af AI#ernati~e Fuels
Fieeith Haz~rds Renewadlel Qome~tlc va Emisslona ~Iher Envlronmentei Enrlronmental
Nonrenewable Imparied Gharacterl=tlcs Impacb lmpacl Scare
Dlesell Carcinoqenic panc~ulate Nonrenewable Both Reduced sulphur cantent Hydrocarbon fuel, 8
5moke, from repular diesel Hiph tharefore contr~butes to
NOx emissions ~lohai warm~nq Poses
siarnflcar~ environmental
nsks dunnq prod~ction,
transpo~, re~inir~p, and
storape
3 EQX is the only rafarmulated fuel currently available and wlil not necessanry
specl(ications. ARCO claims ECX reduces 26°b hydrocarbnn tailp~pe emissions
compound tai~p#pe Bmiss~pns. Also iow sulphur and olefin cor~er~, hiph oxeqe
be the Phase I I pas used by other o~l comparnes ECX complies w~th CARB Phase I!
, 3B°~ evaporative emissions, 269~o NOx em~ss~ons, 2596 ~R carbon snonox~de, 4796 ir~ tax~c
n content
~
~
2
En~ironmental and Emission Impacts of Alternati~e Fuels
Health Nazards Renewablel Dames~lc vs ~miss~ons Oiher Emlronmenlal Enrlronmenlal
Nonrenewap~e Imported Cha~acteristlcs Impacts Impacl Score
Llque~led pelraleum pas
(LPG or propaney
LP6 is heavier than air
and ~nll always'pool' in
flaraQes if lhere is a leak.
It is eas~er to ~qn~ta than
other fuels LRG gas
vapors are non-tax~c, 6ut
they can cause o~cygen
depletion if m a vapar
cloud a enclosed space
DI rect cont~ct with LP-
qas I~q~id produces rapid
freezinQ of skm tissue
simd8r to frostbite.
Nor~-renewa~le,
by-product of
oil and natural
pas prod~ctior~
Both
The ~rob~em w~th
propane is puniy Its tuel
pur~iy ranges
dramatically s~nce it can
De refined from gasoline,
kero5ene, diesel tue~ and
other petroleum
praducts which result ~n
an inconsistent ranqe of
emissians. To date, anly
retroftted to prnpana
vehicles have been
avadable These vehicles
have t~ad~tionally had
qasoline-eqwvalent
8mtssions and aver ~me
tend to increase thsir
emissians The rncrease
is attnbuted to a vanety
of facrors, the la~pest
be~nq equipment tadure
Propane ~s expected to
have a lower reactivity,
but na RAF has yet been
devaloped
Hydroqrbon fuel, 8 ~
therefore contnbutes to
g~obal warminp Poses
s~pnifipnt enrrironmental
risks during re~irnnp,
process
~
~
3
En~lronmen#al and Emisslon Impacts of Alternat~~e Fuels
Haalth Haxerdt Renewa61e1
Nonrenewable oamesilC vs
Imported Emisslons
Cherac~erls~ics Other Enrfrpnmenlal
Impacfa Enrlronmental
Impscl Sco~e
Compressed Natural ~ighter than air and wili Nonrenewable, Mostly Composit~on of reactive Hydrocarbon fuel, 5
~ia= (CM~~ vent inta atmosphere !f a composed domestic orqanic pas (ROG) more therefore cantnbutes to
leak occurs. Nat toxic or pnmanly of bemgn than other fuels qlobal warminq
carcinoQen~c metl~ane re cantnDution to smoq
obtained trom fnrmat~on But, results in
wells mcrease of inethane
emissions. Potential
ULEV capabihty with
appropriate emission
cantrol technololgy
Retrof~tted vehicEes can
have neqiible emissfons
be~efits it improperly
ma~nta9ned.
Retrofitted CNG vehicles
have hipher NOx
emissions than a
comparable ~as vehicle,
but much lower in C02
ana ca~cinopens Las
AnpeEes peopraphy
makes ~IOx a smoq-
forminp problem
~
~
4
En~ironmental and Emisston Impacts of Alternati~e Fuels
Met~~noi
~
Healih llar~rds
Hiqhly toxic if mqested or
ahso~#ed th~ouph skin
~~, Renewa~lel Doma~tic rs
I Nonrenerrable Imported
Can be Mostiy
renewable if domest~c
made from
biomass
fmissions
Characleriatics
1993 model year vehicles
are at TLEVi cerGFication
levels and as such are
50~ lower in NMHC and
at least 50°~ lowar ir~ ~
overail toxic emissians
camoared to pas +rehicle. ,
Emissians estimated at
rouphly 50°6 lower in
smop-formmp potentiai
React~iry Ad~~stment
Faator {RAF) of .41
(relative to gasoline at
~.0) adapted by CARB.
May have poter~tlal to
meot UL~V sta~tdards
with advanced elec~rically
heated catalysts (EHCsy
. ----._ . ..
Olher EnrlrorimeMai I
impact:
, ---- ~
hydrocarbon fuel,
thorefore contributes to
piobal warminq. Poses
sipnificant environmental
risks dunnq refminp,
transport, and storape
E~vlranmenla~
Impad S~ore
7
~
~
5
En~ironmentaf and Emissian Impacts of AI#ernati~e Fuels
Herlth F~i~rda Reeewablel
Nanraeaw~bla Domet~lc -r=
Impo~ted Emltslons
Chiraclerlttics fllher Enrironmenbl
Imp~c~s Emlrnnmental
Impacl Score
Elect~le Potential for shock nr fire Depends on nepends on Estimated to be 9796 li power piant 3
if charginp system is which fuef is which t~el is cleaner takinp ~nta cortstruction required,
m~shandled or used at t~e local used at the local account emission5 EVs would impose
malfur~ctions udlity ihat u~lity that produced at the uiility. enviro~menial costs.
provides the pro~des the Lead aad battenes can
elec#riciry electricity contam~r~ate the
enviranmem it not
praperry handled.
Califomra Department ot
FlBaith S8(vi09S h~S
estab~ished puidelines for
' iead battery dispasal.
, Batteries are Cofiected by
' reta~lers a~d wholesa~ers,
then ser~t in lar~e
puantities for
rec~amadon.
Sol~r Very few. Yes. Demesdc No emissior~s from h-~I It is not projected that 1
sdar-powered vehicles within the next 2Q years
vehicles wi11 be power~d
by only snlar enerQy
Solar cells are used ro
enhance a ~attery-
powered el8ctnc
vehlcte's ranpe and
perfarmance
~
~
En~ironmental and Emission Impacts of Alterna#i~e Fuels
liealtl~ Ha~a-~ Renewablel Domeatic rs ~misslon~ Other ~nvlronmenia~ Enrlronmental
Nanrenewahle Imported Characterisllcs Impacts Impa~t Score
~Iquld Natural Gas Direct conhact pr^~~~^~~ Nonrenewabie Mos~y Data nnt ava~lab~e It is Hydrocar~on fuel, 5
(LNG~~ raRid freezm4 of skin domestic assumed that LNG therefore r.antnbutes to
tissue sfmdar to frostb~te. emissions characteristics nlabai warmi~q
wlll be as pood ar better
than CNG
~
~
4 It is probahle that na ti~ht-duty vehales wiEl be ppwerad by L~IG ia the ~ear f~shsre ~ecaUSe oS ampunt oi equ~pment im+olved Some possibd~ty for heavy-dury vehicle
applicafions, but no emissfons o~ perlormanoe data has been developed