SR-9-A (48)
~
g~A
0r f~ - .; 1~S3
jo,..f'!-. _
CM:KL:ckl:c:\wpwin\afstaff2.1cb Santa Monlca, Callfornla
Clty Counc~l Meeting' Dec. 7, 1993
TO:
Mayor and Clty Councllmembers
FROM:
City Staff
SUBJECT
Recommendatlon Regardlng the Adoptlon of a Reduced-
Emiss~ons Fuels Policy for Veh~cle Purchases
INTRODUCTION:
This report presents a proposed policy for the purchase of
reduced emlSSlons vehlcles for the Clty of Santa Monlca. Once
adopted, staff w~ll use the policy in evaluating bids for the
purchase of vehlcles.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City of Santa Monica has a long and distlngulshed hlstory of
supportlng our communlty's env~ronmental well-belng. As part of
that effort, the Clty Council established the Task Force on the
Environment in 1991. As one of its tasks, the Task Force has
crafted and proposed the Santa Monica Sustainable Clty Program.
The City Councll unanimously endorsed thlS program which
advocates creatlon of a city in which resldents can meet their
current needs wlthout compromising the ablllty of future
generatlons to do the same.
As part of the overall program, a
POllCY was proposed that the City reduce the use of non-renewable
resources and improve alr quality. Tled to this policy 18 the
implementation goal that the City convert a significant
percentage of ltS fleet to reduced-emission fuels
t-~~~.l ..
( ~9c~
Iii' __ .
Q-A
The City of Santa Monica has had reduced-em~ssion vehicles in ~ts
fleet for more than 15 years. Currently, more than 11 percent of
the existing fleet of about 600 vehicles ~s powered by
alternative fuels. The alternatively fueled vehlcles include a
variety of equipment, everything from sedans to passenger and
cargo vans to heavy duty trucks. Until recently, all of the
City'S reduced-emission vehlcles were powered by propane. The
cholce of propane as the alternative fuel vehicle was based on
techn~cal reviews by staff and lnput by the Counc~l
In recent years, staff has period~cally evaluated the C~ty's use
of reduced-emiss~on vehicles and evaluated the technology
available. It has recently been determined that as a vehlcle
fuel propane lacks signlficant emission reductions. As a result
of this determination, staff initiated a comprehensive re-
evaluat~on of the use of alternatlve fuels by the Clty.
Staff conducted a thorough evaluation of four currently available
reduced-emisslon fuel types (reformulated gasol~ne, methanol,
electric and Compressed Natural Gas) including thelr emission and
env~ronmental characteristics, avallabillty of the fuels and
vehicles and the financlal lmpacts of purchaslng alternative fuel
vehicles. In addition, many operating departments conducted an
operational review which evaluated the appllcability of reduced-
emlSSlon vehicles to particular Clty functlons. ThlS
operatlonal reVlew lnvolved a vehlcle by vehicle analysis to
2
determine those vehicles that would be suitable for a reduced-
emission fuel as well as the appropriate reduced-emlssion fuel.
ThlS analysls concluded that the primary "preferred fuel type"
should now be CNG The Fleet Manager, Purchaslsng Agent and the
operational departments wlll use the results of the operatlonal
reVlew to make purchasing decisions. Once the results of the
operational reVlew are fully implemented the City's fleet will
include almost 30 percent reduced-emlssion vehlcles of whlch more
than 60 percent will be CNG vehicles The creatlon of a reduced-
emission vehicle purchase policy has been endorsed by the Task
Force on the Environment. This speclfic POllCY proposal was
presented to and discussed by the Task Force on the Environment.
As technology progresses, the City is committed to conduct an
annual operational analysis to ensure that the Clty is using the
cleanest and most technologically advanced reduced emlSSlon
vehicles.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Santa Monlca has a rolllng fleet of approximately 735
vehlcles lncluding 600 llght/medium/heavy duty vehicles as well
as 135 translt buses. Within the fleet there is a variety of
equlpment, everything from lawn mowers to passenger sedans to
80,000 Gross Vehlcle Weight (GVW) tractors. The eXlstlng fleet
of vehicles is comprlsed of the following fuel types:
3
City of Santa Monica Vehicle
Fuel Types
67% Gasol1ne
21% Diesel
12% Reduced-Emission Fuels
It should be noted that the C1ty 1S purchasing the cleanest
burning fuel available when it buys gasollne or diesel. All City
veh1cles that use gasoline are receiving Phase I reformulated
gasoline. This is the cleaner burning gasoline that the oil
companies were required to formulate for test purposes. For
diesel fuel the City lS only purchasing D1esel I, which is the
cleanest burnlng diesel fuel available.
Of the 11% of the City's fleet that is powered by reduced-
emiss10n fuels (currently propane, methanol, compressed natural
gas and electric), the distribution is as follows:
Propane 62
Methanol 4
Compressed Natural Gas 5
Electric 3
Of these veh1cles, four are methanol powered sedans, two are
propane powered police cruisers, one 1S an electric stat10n wagon
4
and four are CNG trucks. The four methanol sedans are performing
satisfactorlly even though they burn more fuel than their
gasoline counterpart This has been an inconvenience to the
vehicle operators because they have to flll the vehlcles more
often. Yet, research lndlcates that it lS 2.1 cents per mile
less expenSlve to operate a methanol vehlcle than a gasollne
powered vehlcle. The maJor drawback to these vehlcles has been
the availability of fuel. There lS a fueling slte at a gasoline
statlon In the Clty but thls locatlon has had problems wlth ltS
pumplng system These problems have been reported to the
California Energy Commission (CEC) which regulates methanol
stations state-wide. The CEC assured the Clty that thls
situatlon wlll be closely monitored and problems rectified as
soon as posslble.
The propane police cruisers are performing in an acceptable
fashlon although not optimally. Analysis indlcates that these
vehlcles are recelvlng less mlles to the equivalent gallon of
fuel than a gasoline powered verSlon. For the test period, the
average ffilles per gallon of propane was 5.5 compared to 10 miles
per gallon for the gasoline burnlng units. Overall, the feedback
from the officers was mlxed. Complaints lncluded slow
acceleratlon at low speeds; dlfflculty in determining when to
start and stop fuellngi low mlles per gallon which requires more
re-fuellng stopSj and llmited access to re-fueling sites at Beach
Maintenance Yard north of the Pier and at the City Yards.
5
In evaluating the propane veh1cles, we found the primary drawback
to be insufficient emission reductions. Although past analyses
appeared to show that propane-powered vehicles were significantly
less pollutlng, recent studies have proven that the emission
beneflts of propane are insignificant. This f1ndlng lS afflrmed
by the recent decision of the South Coast A1r Quallty Management
Dlstrlct (SCAQMD) to phase out clean air cred1ts for the use of
propane vehicles. In essence, the SCAQMD has determined that the
use of a propane vehicle does not produce sufflcient emlssion
beneflts to warrant a clean alr credit. The complalnts from the
police officers taken together w1th the insufficient emission
benefits led to the conclUSlon that no additional propane pollce
vehlcles wlll be purchased.
The electric statlon wagon is belng used by the Envlronmental
Programs Dlvision which is fully satisfied with operation of the
vehicle.
In addition to the vehicles mentloned above, two electric parklng
enforcement vehicles were delivered to the City in January 1993
From an operational perspective, these electr1c veh1cles dld not
meet the City's speclflcatlons. The Clty'S bid specification
requlred a range of 45 to 55 miles per battery charge. The
manufacturer spec1fications cla1med the vehicles would operate up
to 78 miles per battery charge. On numerous occasions and in
different sltuatlons, parklng enforcement officers drove the
vehlcles with unsatlsfactory results. In the fleld, the m11eage
6
range was from 2 miles to 25 miles on a slngle battery charge.
The battery charge lasted from one hour to flve hours. The City
made numerous service calls to no avail. The manufacturer agreed
that the vehicle dld not satisfy the City's speciflcatlons and
has taken the vehicles back and refunded the purchase prlce of
the vehicles. Slnce that experience the Clty has conducted
extensive testing on other manufacturer's electrlc vehlcles that
are suitable for parking enforcement dutles. As a result of
these tests the City has ldentlfled a model that can meet the
City's specificatlon. Staff is proceeding with this procurement
process In order to purchase two electrlc parking enforcement
vehicles.
DISCUSSION
For more than 15 years the City has had reduced-emission fuel
vehicles in its fleet. The Clty has invested ln reduced-emission
fuel vehicles and will contlnue to invest in thlS technology for
a number of reasons. In Los Angeles air pollution levels exceed
Federal clean alr standards. While the exact contributlon that
the City's fleet makes to the pollution in the Los Angeles area
is indeterminable, lt lS clear that the City's vehlcles send
carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons! nltrogen oxides and other
pollutants into the air. Any shift to a reduced-emission fuel
will help to reduce the amounts of these substances released lnto
the atmosphere.
Addltlonally, lnvestment in reduced-emission vehlcles will aSslst
7
In the attainment of regulatory requirements established in the
1990 California Clean Fuels Regulations. These emission
standards are more strlngent than Federal standards, with a
schedule for the phase-ln of low emission vehicles (LEV), ultra-
low emlSSlon vehicles (ULEV) and zero emission vehicles (ZEV). An
lnvestment ln reduced-emlsslon vehlcles can help to address these
regulatory requirements while working to reduce air pollutlon
resultlng from vehlcle emlSSlons.
By investlng in reduced-emission vehicles the Clty also lS
attemptlng to decrease its dependence on non-renewable foreign
fuel sources (i.e. petroleum products). Vehicles account for
one-quarter of all energy use in this country, relYlng on 011 for
97% of this requirement. The United States imports approximately
half of ltS oil. Based on these facts, it lS clear that concern
over energy security is tied to the automobile and that
diversification to reduce reliance on petroleum products is an
approprlate polley goal.
Untll recently all of the Clty'S reduced-emission fuel vehicles
were powered by propane which was the best optlon available at
the time. This approach was adopted to ensure consistency within
the fleet. By limiting the different types of reduced-emlsslon
vehicles ln the fleet the City has limited the costs associated
wlth the transition to a different type of fuel. The City has
accompllshed thlS by llmltlng the parts inventory that must be
maintained, focuslng the training necessary for the mechanics and
8
restrlctlng faclllty modlflcation.
Based on the changlng technology and the goal of reducing our
dependence on a non-renewable energy source, Staff conducted a
comprehenslve re-evaluatlon of its use of reduced-emlsslon
vehlcles (lncludlng buses). Departments conducted operatlonal
reviews WhlCh evaluated the appllcability of reduced-emission
fuel vehicles to speclflc Clty functions The operatlonal
reviews were based on an analysis of four reduced-emlsslon fuel
types including their emlssion and envlronmental characterlstics,
the avallablllty of the fuels and vehicles and the flnancial
lmpacts of purchaslng alternative fuel vehicles. The fuels that
were evaluated are reformulated gasollne, methanol, electric and
compressed natural gas. Attachment 1 contains a matrix that
outllnes the characteristics for each type of reduced-emlsslon
fuel. Staff also complIed lnformation on programs regarding
reduced-emlssion vehicles in other cities WhlCh lS dlscussed
later ln thlS report.
Operational ReVlews
In order to facilitate the operational review, a "preferred fuel
type" was ldentified by vehicle type. Comparatlve information on
the current fuel type and the proposed reduced-emlsslon fuel was
provided to the departments to assist departments In completlng
thelr analysis.
For each of the vehlcles to be evaluated, the following
9
informat~on was provlded to the departments:
Vehic. __l-:- .-.. ..1,....1
Milea{:!;. r r <___k _~ _ 1 1....:..
Cargo ...:.;~. - - :~''::''.
Fuel u.:~ _ -;"::.1.:. (:J
storac"': .'::1'a:..~ , Ip":I"l
Fuel ..~_13L' l-V
DepeTIo111 ~':'.L:_:-' 1----' t..
Other -.~..( ..:
If, In the~r analysis, the department determined that the
proposed fuel type was not workable consider~ng the operational
needs of the department then the department was requlred to
provlde Justification for replacing the preferred fuel type.
The primary "preferred fuel typert was CNG. This decision was
based on the em~ssion characteristics, environmental impacts,
fuel availabll~ty and vehicle availab~l~ty.
Several classes of vehlcles, primarlly specialty and emergency
response vehicles, were excluded from this analys~s. Specialty
vehlcles are those veh~cles that are configured for the task they
are assigned such as traffic striping veh~cles, turf trucks and
sewer maintenance vehicles. Emergency response vehicles are
almost excluslvely police and fire equlpment.
Staff recommends
that specialty and emergency response vehicles be evaluated on a
10
case by case basis. This recommendat1on 1S based on two
concerns. One concern is that these vehicles would requ1re
reconfiguration or reconstructlon to accept a reduced-emission
fuel and/or have 1nsuff1c1ent room or carrying capacity to
facilltate a reduced-emiss1on fuel. In many cases these
structural or weight problems can not be overcome.
The second concern, Wh1Ch primarily relates to publlC safety
vehicles, is the potential for sign1ficant reduction in
acceleration performance. The Environmental Protection Agency
recently conducted a study that showed that CNG vehicles'
acceleratlon performance can be degraded by an average of 29
percent relative to a gasollne powered veh1cle. This loss 1n
acceleration in emergency response vehicles could 1mpact
operations too significantly to be acceptable.
This 16 not to say that all vehicles for the Police and Fire
Departments were excluded from consideration. All non-emergency
response veh1cles were 1ncluded in th1S analysis. The
operatlonal reV1ew indicates that 32 vehicles were identified as
having potential as reduced-emission vehicles. Of these, 1t was
determ1ned that 27 meet the cr1terla for use of a reduced-
emlSS10n fuel. These 27 veh1cles are 1ncluded in the results of
the operat1onal analysis. In add1t1on to these vehicles that
were included in the operat1onal reVlew, staff is currently
evaluating a CNG police patrol car that has a computerlzed fuel
sensing system that 1S supposed to perform as well as a gasoline
11
powered model. This vehicle also has bl-fuel capabllity such
that the vehlcle has a range of 110 miles on CNG but also retains
the original gasollne tank which adds additional range. If the
performance characterlstics are confirmed then staff intend to
purchase one of these vehicles as a test model. Additionally,
staff is currently in discussion w1th the Long Beach Police
Department which operates five CNG police veh1cles These
vehicles have a non-computerized fueling system. Depending on
the outcome of th1s evaluat~on the Pol~ce Department will invest
in a second po11ce patrol car slmllar to the type used by the
Long Beach Pollce Department.
After ellmlnatlng the speclalty and emergency response vehicles
from conslderatlon, 205 vehlcles needed to be evaluated. Of
those vehicles, 46 could not use reduced-emission fuel and 159
vehicles could use a reduced-emission fuel. The reasons for
eliminatlng the reduced-emission alternative for the 46 vehicles
included reduced range, lack of fuel ava1lability because the
vehlcle travels outslde the city, need for entire carrYlng
capacity and lack of a comparable reduced-emlsslon vehlcle The
vehicles that can use reduced-emisslon fuel will be converted to
the reduced-em1ss1on fuel when the veh~cle is replaced. Of the
159, 115 w111 be CNG powered, 1 wlll be electric and 41 will be
methanol powered. This is in addition to the 4 methanol sedans,
3 electric vehicles and 5 CNG trucks currently in the Clty'S
fleet. When the City completes the transition to the reduced-
em1ssion vehicles, the City's fleet w11l have more than 27
12
percent of ~ts vehicles fueled by reduced-emiss~on sources. Th~s
is the minimum number of vehicles that will be converted to
reduced-emission vehlcles. Staff intends to evaluate those
vehlcles that are not proposed to be converted to determ~ne ~f
new technology or changes to the bid spec~f~cat~ons would allow
the purchase of a reduced-em~sslon vehicle.
It is anticipated that the Fleet Manager, Purchaslng Agent and
the operating departments wlll use the results of the operational
review as a guide for future vehicle purchases.
In add~t~on to the operational reVlew conducted by the
departments that operate cars and trucks as part of the City's
fleet, the Transportation Department conducted an analysls of the
potential use of reduced-emission fuels ~n the bus fleet The
Transportation Department currently operates 135 buses. All of
the buses are diesel powered. State and Federal regulatory
agenc1es have significantly mod~f1ed the emisslon standards for
diesel fuel. In order to meet these strict standards, the
Transportation Department is using the cleanest d~esel fuel
(Diesel #1). The Transportation Department also bought 10 clean
diesel buses which conta~n a particulate trap system The
nitrous oXlde (NOx) and the partlculate matter produced by these
clean dlesel buses ~s signif~cantly reduced. The engines have
been modlf~ed to reduce the product~on of NOx. Additionally, the
partlculate trap system ellffilnates about 90 percent of the
particulate matter
13
Wh~le the bus fleet ~s rel~ant on diesel at th~s t~me, staff has
monitored and analyzed reduced emission fuel experiments for over
four years including Methanol, CNG and Liquid Natural Gas {LNG)
Fuel cell, battery buses and other technologies for large
tranSlt vehicles are not developed to the stage that buses have
been delivered to transit properties and were therefore not
analyzed.
Each fuel that have been placed lnto experimental service has
significant drawbacks ~ncluding increased initial cost, increased
operating cost, significant modification needs for facilities,
equ~pment rellablllty, employee safety and env~ronmental impacts.
Of the four technologies, the particulate trap system is the
least expensive ln terms of capltal and operating costs while ~t
significantly exceeds the 1994 Californ~a bus emission mandates.
The part~culate trap system also provides sufficient equlpment
rel~ab~l~ty and does not create the safety and env~ronmental
concerns some of the reduced emlss~on fuels create. However, lf
the LNG technology develops in the way some are predlcting then
~t has the potentlal to be equal to d~esel in many of these areas
wh~le not requiring refining.
Based on the analysis conducted by the staff, LNG technology has
the best potential for use as a reduced-em~ss~on fuel ln the
buses. Because reduced-emission technology changes constantly
and investment in a fueling facll~ty alone could easily exceed $2
m~llion for an operation the size of the Municipal Bus Line, the
14
Department wlll contlnue to purchase clean dlesel buses for the
present. However, staff wlll monltor the results of experiments
involving reduced-emlssion fuels to determine the approprlate
implementation plan for reduced-emlssion buses.
In addltlon to evaluating the potentlal for use of reduced-
emission fuels ln the buses, the Transportation Department will
be worklng wlth the Westchester/LAX Employers Association, the
Southern Callfornla Gas Company and Magulre Thomas Partners to
lnltiate a commuter shuttle from Santa Monica to the EI Segundo
employment area, uSlng 25-passenger, CNG vehicles. The vehicles
will be purchased by the Gas Company and fueled at the Gas
Company's Stewart Street faclllty. This proJect will allow the
Munlclpal Bus Lines to galn experlence in working with CNG
engines while not making a long-term commitment.
Evaluation of Fuel Types
In order to facilitate the selection of the preferred fuel type
and to conduct the operational review, staff evaluated four
reduced-emlssion fuel types. The fuel types are reformulated
gasoline, methanol, electric and compressed natural gas. The
following summarlzes the data collected by staff.
Reformulated Gasoline: Reformulated gasoline is a complex liquid
fuel that has hlgher oxygen content and fewer aromatics and
benzene than gasoline. With a higher oxygen concentration,
reformulated gasoline burns more thoroughly thereby reduclng both
15
carbon and hydrocarbon emisslon.
Just as wlth gasollne,
reformulated gasol1ne is a non-renewable resource, can be toxic
if ingested and conta1ns carclnogens.
The Clean A1r Act amendments lmpl1c1tly provlde the oil 1ndustry
with the opportunity to meet the new strict emissions standards
through the development of reformulated gasoline. Moreover, the
amendments mandate the transltlon to reformulated gasoline, but
conta1n no specific requirements for reduced-emission vehicles.
The actual fuel cost per mile driven of the reformulated gasoline
powered vehicle 1S approxlmately 4 cents. ThlS 1S the same as
for gasol1ne and methanol and two times as much as for CNG and
electrlclty. The cost per mile to operate a vehicle using
reformulated gasoline is about 42 cents. This is 4.4 cents less
than to operate a CNG vehicle, and 9.1 cents less than to operate
an electr1c vehicle, and 2.2 cents less than a methanol vehicle.
It 1S 1mportant to note that the per mile cost to operate a
reduced-emlsslon vehicle is based on the costs of the vehicle,
llcensejregistrat10n fees, 1nsurance, maintenance, fuel costs and
storagejdlspens1ng equipment. ThlS is somewhat 1nappllcable to
the C~ty of Santa Monica because the City wlll not ~nlt1ally
incur any costs associate with storagejdlspensing equ1pment for
any type of reduced-emission fuel Moreover, because the costs
associated wlth a CNG fueling stat10n are so significant this
will have a tendency to skew the costs associated with operating
16
a CNG vehicle. An analysis of the cost data dld not reveal a way
to extract the refueling costs from the total operating cost.
The topic of costs assoclated with the use of CNG 1S dlscussed
further in the section ded1cated to CNG.
Methanol: Methanol lS a clear, 11qUld alcohol that the chemical
1ndustry has typically used to produce reSlns, plast1cs, solvents
and other products. Its attract1veness as a vehicle fuel stems
from the fact that it burns cleaner than gasoline and unlike CNG
1S ln a liquid form. Methanol is renewable 1f lt 1S made from
renewable organic material.
Methanol as a vehicle fuel comes in two forms. M8S and M100. M85
is a mixture of 85 percent methanol and 15 percent gasoline.
MIOO (neat methanol) is 100 percent methanol and is the cleaner
of the two fuels but has signlflcant operatlonal problems. MIOO
burns with an invislble flame Wh1Ch creates significant potentlal
problems for firefighters, vehicle passengers and ma1ntenance
crews. Moreover, this fuel type is highly toxic if 1ngested or
absorbed through the skln and is highly corrosive. Methanol
fuel1ng stat10ns as well as methanol burning veh1cles must be
speclally f1t with non-corrosive piping and p~pe sealant to avoid
leaking methanol Underground methanol storage tanks must be
double walled and have extra leak sensors to protect the
surrounding soil from possible contaminatlon. Addltlonally,
methanol is water soluble. Some contend that thlS lS a very
serlOUS drawback because in the event of a splll or leak, clean-
17
up 1S potentially much more difflcult.
In add1t1on to the env1ronmental drawbacks, the City has
exper1enced signif1cant difficulty ln securing a rellable fuel
source. According to the Callfornia Energy Commlssion, in
October 1992 there were 30 methanol fuel d~strlbut~on stations 1n
geographically d1sbursed locations throughout the state, with 20
more scheduled to come on-llne 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
fueling supply, the City purchased four sedans that are flexlble
fuel veh1cles. They operate on M-85, tradlt10nal gasol1ne or a
m1xture of the two. Experience has shown that the fueling
station is frequently inoperative in which case these vehicles
must be run on gasollne.
Methanol's corrosiveness and tOX1Clty must be weighed aga1nst ltS
potentlal to reduce air pollution. Methanol combustlon produces
no partlculates and may produce fewer nltrogen oXldes (NOx) than
gasoline. Methanol vehicles produce about 85 percent as much
carbon dioxide as gasoline. Studles regarding the reduct10n of
hydrocarbons due to the use of methanol have been 1nconcluS1ve
except to determlne that the use of methanol does reduce
hydrocarbons.
One consistent problem with methanol combust1on 1S the presence
of formaldehyde in the em1SSlons. Formaldehyde is toxic,
18
probably carclnogen1c and may contr1bute to ozone formation.
Yet, new technology in the form of catalyt1c converters may
reduce the formaldehyde production problem.
The fuel cost per mile driven of the methanol powered veh1cle is
approximately 4 cents. This 1S the same as for gasollne and two
times as much for as CNG It costs 40.1 cents per m1le to
operate a methanol vehicle which lS about 2.2 cents less
expenS1ve than a comparable gasoline vehicle and 6.5 cents less
expenS1ve than CNG veh1cle. Currently, only small and mld-s1zed
passenger veh1cles are available methanol-powered.
Electr1c Electric vehicles emit no a1r pollutants but electr1c
generating plants do Thus, the amount of pollution sent into
the air depends on the fuel mlX of the generatlng plant used to
produce the electricity. When a generatlng plant is fueled by
natural gas and hydro power then the increase ln a1r pollution is
minimal. On the other hand, a generat1ng plant using coal to
produce the electricity would emit pollutants such as carbon
monoxide, carbon diox1de and other em1ssions. The overall lmpact
of electric veh1cles and the associated electricity demand on alr
qual~ty ~s determined by the additional load the vehicle places
on the utll1ty during the charging phase and how the electricity
1S generated
In addition to emission improvements that are possible using
electr1c veh1cles, a substant1al benefit from electrlc vehicles
19
lS the 1~m1ted maintenance needed for the vehlcle to operate.
Because there lS no englne (Just an electric motor), maintenance
requirements are slgn1flcantly reduced. Other than tires and
brakes, the primary maintenance requirement is battery
replacement. Depending on the amount of use and the durability
of the batteries, they may need to be replaced every three to
five years.
The State of California via the Californla Energy Commission, has
promulgated regulatlons that d1ctate that 2 percent of each
automakers' fleet sold wlth1n the state must be zero-emission
vehlcles starting in 1998 By 2003 this mandate r1ses to 10
percent. Electric vehicles are currently the only vehicle that
qualify as zero emisslon vehlcles.
Most maJor vehicle manufacturers have built prototype electric
veh1cles, but none has produced electric vehlcles on a large
scale. General Motors announced an electric veh1cle In early
1990 but lt lS still not commercially avallable. Other
manufacturers are exper1mentlng with electric vehlcles but there
has been little progress towards mass productlon. There are
compact slzed sedans, compact pick-up trucks and scooter type
vehicles currently ava1lable as retrofit vehlcles.
Desp~te the lmprovements In electric veh1cle technology and the
State mandated regulatlons regarding the1r use, the range of
electric vehicles remalns llmited and the~r function is thereby
20
narrowed. Thelr range, approximately 50 miles per charge,
precludes them from being used for long distance travel. In
addition to range limitation there are some environmental risks
assoclated wlth recycling of old lead-acld batteries. The
Callfornia Department of Health Services has establlshed
guidellnes for the lead-acid battery dlsposal Batteries must be
collected by retailers and wholesalers, then sent for
reclamatlon. One other drawback to the current electric vehicle
technology is the tlme It takes to recharge the batteries. It
can take upwards of eight hours to recharge a set of batterles on
an electric vehicle. From an operational perspective, this
potentially limits the usefulness of the vehicle because it is
taken out of service for an entire elght hour shift.
The fuel cost per mile driven of an electric powered vehlcle lS
approximately 2 cents. This is the same as for CNG and half the
cost of gasoline and methanol It costs about 51.4 cents per
mile to operate an electric vehicle. ThlS is about 9.2 cents per
mile more expensive than a comparable gasollne veh~cle; 11.3
cents more expensive than a methanol powered vehicle; and 4.8
cents more than a CNG powered vehicle.
Natural Gas: Natural gas lS a gaseous fuel that frequently
appears in con]Unctlon wlth all deposlts. Natural gas is a non-
renewable resource that is composed primarily of methane obtalned
from oil wells. Generally, natural gas lS produced domestically.
Common uses for natural gas have been household heatlng and
21
cooking. While the natural gas dlstrlbution system is in place
for these uses, a very limited dispenslng system exists for the
use of natural gas in vehicles. In the past, much of the natural
gas has been burned off during the oil drllling process. It
should be noted that unllke methanol and gasoline, natural gas
does not have to be reflned between the wellhead and the end-
user.
There are two forms natural gas fuel can take One lS LlqUld
Natural Gas (LNG) which is natural gas cooled to 259 degrees
below zero in order to llqUlfy the gas. Currently, only tranSlt
properties are experlmentlng wlth LNG. No cars or trucks are
avallable powered by LNG. The second optlon using natural gas as
a vehicle fuel lS to pump it in its compressed form into
vehlcles. Th1S 1S called 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 fuellng stations -- a slow f~ll and a
fast fill. Slow fill statlons pump the CNG into the vehicle over
several hours, usually overnlght. The slow fill fuellng slte
consists of an underground pipe, a compressor and multlple
dispensing locatlons. The cost of constructing this type of
fueling station is about one-half the cost to construct a fast
fill statlon. A slow fill fueling station lS only useful for
fleets that can sit idle for extended periods of tlme such as
overnlght.
22
Fast flll statlons pump the CNG into passenger cars almost as
quickly as gasoline stations. A 10 to 15 equivalent gallon tank
can be filled ln as little as four minutes. A fast flll fueling
station consists of a compressor, a storage cascade, piping and
dlspensers The storage cascade stores the CNG until it lS
needed and provldes a buffer for the compressor. It is estimated
that a CNG fast flll fueling statlon for vehicles other than
buses could cost more than $200,000
Regardlng the availability of CNG as a vehlcle fuel, lt should be
noted that The Gas Company has recently opened a fast fill
fuellng statlon at its Stewart Street faclllty. The Clty has
made arrangements with the Gas Company to have access to this
facility for any CNG vehlcles ln our fleet. GTE is currently
construct1ng a CNG fueling station at lts Stewart Street
facility. The City plans to begln using these sites when the
recently purchased CNG trucks arrive.
Currently, both light and heavy duty CNG vehicles are generally
avallable No OEM sedans are currently avallable wlth CNG as the
fuel type. In addltlon to the expense associated with the
fueling station, the CNG vehlcles are as much as $5,000 more
expensive than gasollne or methanol powered vehicles. However,
these addltlonal costs are partlally off-set by a vehlcle
purchase lncentlve program lnltlated by The Gas Company. Rebates
are based an the weight of the vehicle purchase and range from
23
$1,750 to $7,500.
The reductlon of emlSSlons associated with CNG vehicles lS
signiflcant. Accordlng to a study conducted by researchers at
the university of California at Berkeley, carbon dlOXlde
emissions can be reduced by as much as 33 percent by using
natural gas vehlcles. The vehlcle also slgnlflcantly reduces
carbon monoxide. Compared to gasoline powered vehicles, natural
gas powered vehicles reduce carbon monoxide by 50 percent to 90
percent.
Natural gas vehicles emit increased levels of methane. Methane
contrlbutes to the greenhouse effect It has been estimated that
if all gasollne powered vehicles are replaced with CNG powered
vehlcles the lncreased amount of methane would be significant
with an assoclated lmpact on global warmlng. However, lt lS
unlikely that this such a replacement would come to pass.
Addltlonally, other researchers argue that the decrease ln the
carbon dioxide emissions would more than offset the effects of
methane emlss~ons on global warmlng Research indicates that the
net result of the reductions in carbon dioxide and the increase
in methane lS a decrease In total greenhouse gas emissions of 16
percent.
From an operational perspective CNG provides some challenges.
Flrst, CNG fuel tanks are generally heavier than gasoline fuel
24
tanks. ThlS can create problems regardlng decreased carrying
capacity in the vehicle. Another issue is range and the
assoclated operatlonal impact. In order to obtain the necessary
range or to accommodate dual fuel capability addltlonal fuel
tanks are sometlmes installed ln space normally used for cargo.
The last operational challenge with CNG vehicles lS that there lS
an approximate 10 percent loss ln power. It should also be noted
that retrofitted vehlcles can have negllglble emissions benefits
if not properly maintained All of these challenges mean that
fleet managers must be careful ln selecting the appropriate
vehicles to convert to CNG.
The actual fuel cost per mlle for a CNG powered vehicle is
approxlmately 2 cents. This lS half the cost as for gasoline and
methanol and the same as for electrlc vehicles. It costs
approximately 46.6 cents per mile to operate a CNG vehicle.
ThlS
lS 4 4 cents more expensive than a comparable gasollne vehlclei
6.5 cents more expensive than methanol powered vehlcle; and 4.8
cents less than an electrlc powered vehlcle.
Earlier, it was discussed that these cost flgures may be
misleading because the operating costs include the cost of a
refueling station. Staff attempted to elimlnate the operatlng
cost data associated with the refueling statlon but could not.
However, the City of Long Beach conducted an analysis of annual
cost savings for fuel and maintenance associated with a CNG
25
vehlcle conversion program. Thelr analysls estimated a $243 per
vehicle annual savings for fuel and maintenance. If this cost
savings estimate held true for the Santa Monica fleet and the
Clty ultimately had 150 CNG powered vehlcles, the annual savlngs
would equal $36,450.
Other Cities
Staff conducted research lnto the approach used by other cities
in evaluatlng the use and implementation of reduced-emlsslon
vehicles. Staff contacted a number of organizations including
the California, Colorado, Arizona, Nevada Innovation Group
(CCAN); National League of Cities; League of California Cities,
Public Technology, Inc.; the Urban Consortium Energy Task Force;
and officials from other cltles. As a result of this research,
staff identified several cities with ~nvestments in reduced-
emission vehicles. The most active Callfornia city is Long
Beach.
Long Beach has significantly invested in CNG. Long Beach has
approxlmately 1500 pieces of equipment in its fleet wlth about
1300 veh1cles that have the potential to use a reduced-emlSSlon
fuel The Clty of Long Beach (lncluding the Long Beach Gas
Department) has 150 CNG vehicles (11.5 percent of the fleet)
The City of Long Beach lS satisfied with the performance of the
26
CNG vehicles they have in the fleet. They antlcipate and have
experienced reduced maintenance and fuel costs, extended the llfe
of vehicles by up to 1 year, realized capltal investment payback
and enhanced expertise of the malntenance staff and operational
departments However, Long Beach staff said these benefits are
somewhat offset by a number of challenges they faced ln
impleIDentlng thelr program. The vehlcles experienced a 5 to 10
percent power loss The vehlcles also experlenced a 10 percent
reduction in miles per gallon. Long Beach staff suggested that
additional tanks could be added or the vehicle could be
conflgured with CNG and gasoline to compensate for the range
issue.
Long Beach Staff also indicated that careful plannlng on bld
speclfications and fuellng station capaclty is critical to a
successful program. Caution in revising the bld speclflcatlons
was advlsed to ensure tank Slze and locatlon are appropriate to
meet operat~onal needs. Care wlth the bid specifications is also
lmportant in order to ensure the city recelves a conversion that
lS California Air Resources Board approved. Plannlng for fueling
station capacity is also critical to ensure that all vehicles can
be fueled in a timely manner. Additionally, lnvestment payback,
fueling station size and associated energy use by the fuel~ng
statlon must be planned.
Regardless of the challenges, Long Beach has made a flrm
27
commitment to enhance its use of CNG vehicles. The current plan
~s to expand the number of CNG veh1cles over the next two years
so that by FY 1994/95 the City wlll have 586 CNG veh~cles. These
vehlcles wlll lnclude sedans, Ilght duty vehlcles, aerial trucks,
street sweepers and refuse trucks. The City is also investing in
additional fuellng stations such that they plan to have three in
serVlce by the end of 1993. The goals of thlS program are to
decrease malntenance costs by 10 percent, decrease fuel costs
(excludlng taxes) by 20 percent and increase vehicle Ilfe
expectancy by 1 year
The Clty of Denver has also addressed the issue of reduced
emlssions by mandatlng the use of reduced-emission vehicles.
City of Denver Ordinance 330, Council Bill 283, signed May 29,
1990, requlres 10 percent of vehicles ln fleets of 30 or more
vehicles to be fueled by clean burnlng alternative fuel.
Vehlcles WhlCh routinely travel 50 miles outslde the metro area,
emergency vehicles, vehlcles of the PubllC Utilities Commission
and rental vehlcles are exempt.
The City of Denver has a limited reduced-emlssion vehicles
purchase program. Denver has about 20 vehlcles whlch operate on
CNG The Regional Transportation Dlstrlct (RTD) has 5 buses
fueled by neat methanol which have proven to be expensive to
operate. The RTD also operates 6 small electrlc buses along 16th
Street which bisects the downtown bus~ness district. The
28
batteries hold enough charge to operate the buses 3 or 4 hours
between charges so they are only used during rush hours.
BUDGET AND FINANCIAL IMPACT
Staff estimates that the long-term incremental vehlcle purchase
costs of implementing the recommendations of this report range
from $345,000 to $575,000. However, these lncremental costs wlll
be, at least, partially offset by lower maintenance and fuel
costs associated with reduced-emission fuels and, ln the case of
CNG vehlcles, the incentive offered by the Gas Company.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the Clty Councll adopt the policy that the
City purchase reduced-emlsslon vehicles whenever possible in
accordance wlth the operational review conducted by Staff.
Addltlonally, lt lS recommended that staff be dlrected to conduct
an annual operatlonal analysls to ensure that the recommended
fuel types are conslstent wlth then-current technology.
Prepared by:
Katle E. Llchtlg. Sr. Management Analyst
Alternatlve Fuels Work~ng Group'
Lynne Barrette, Clty Manager's Offlce, Stan
Scholl, General Services; Manuel Rodrlguez,
General Services; Joan Akins, General Servlces;
Cralg Perklns, Environmental Programs; Susan
McCarthy, Cultural and Recreatlon Servlces; John
29
Attachments:
Attachment 1:
Aguila, Cultural and Recreatlon Servicesj Jim T.
Butts, Police Department; Mlke Murphy, Police
Department; Bob Thomas, Pollce Department; John
Montenero, Flre Department; Ettore Berardinelli,
Fire Department; Jack Hutchlson, Transportation
Department; Bob Ayer, Transportation Department;
Roy Neva, Transportatlon Departmentj Mike Dennis,
Finance Department; Pam Wortham, Finance
Department
EnVlronmental and Emission Impacts of Reduced-
Emission Fuels
30
"Cl
c: en
fa fill
-tcO -
""
UoI=~ ..
~-- &J
-N OCDm 0,
-.
:8 _CDe/) c::
=eE'iD m
.!:!.2 &J
Ec.o 0 .... ~
:;t:i ~ "O5~
..... C:U<I:I fill
- A ~~2 "C
=e II'c- c::
u.I - >-c fill
~::I= ~
-l'II
jj. E - ,u_
e.:! .. 0
.. gCl)c:15~ Scnc:C::~ ill:
'& CCD CeDO =:::. e= 0
! ~ e~ ~ :~e~" ::1_..
~.11 C")e~ c:
cro-E~ a~ ~ ":;~C:::I~ m
CIa cs~ Cl~ --c sa .c
:l-cca- - ="C: ClI-s c: ""c:
.. OU - ~ ..s: ~ Q..a b
..... - c.5. c: Q.IC >-
-- sSECDcae 58e-oe WCCD -
~ =e ~c:'" .
€ --c: -e ...c~. ca
~ 11I- _;c:-c,: "- 0
- go- !=Oai geilt't::lScD NO- S
CD . .e-~'CQ.O .s! - e:::"C Q. 0 ~="i i
= ......!crltfltE! iSe.!-e~~e ... 0 c:
> CI "C.!OCl.KCS ~~Sg!!!I!S > Qt fit
- >. __fit!! ~ !'u; t5
- ~_ Qtflt1:__ _ 0_ ___... en
CD ~OCD ...
--'0 Q.
C "C - "C fit c: CD ~
.. =ES g :E s -==s CDeI).....
CI) ~ u>CI>
CD - E e..!!! > f::?=c:.!!.... -c::l: J9
- - fa ~1:I:l~"- !lo~e-B SE i;orn c::
c: It) - rn CI) K -
CC ...!! 1:: -c ",,~E~~-c~o_CI)A~~ O~gm >u~ CJ
-=1ii E~ c: CO~ e
l'II CDCI)O~oC:~=-CDE~m -~ = C
- ~~ J!i _.; a:: -- a~--- G.15'C "eC 0_ 0
II.!! _mes> .c~~~g_ eflt CD - _
0 c::~CD'C cn_ -
OC'C>o <~=~EE~o~O "OO€~i~o CI) - rn .~
- U - c:-
G') e- :: ~ ~-; CD caCm-c::8mczE.efltl'll~c::.Q. ECDCD c
....;; - ::I CD
- -CI)CD-ci -UCl)CDO CDo__> c:u -:1:0 CDo-
U ~ C'lJI'D~"ii- E-mc:=U-= e~~S~.eo !i:Q.;;! '!
y ~..c:J!Ej o~~~uCmui_~DMCDO~-.5.
as ~-~",,::Ia~:I ::I~0!!!=C:g~E Oec_ CD
-0..-
Q, ~gB5::l 8~5.~o ~~~o:EE~ 0 --CDO >
_ CI) _ cn 0
E to- CI) COlI _ ~ ~ _O~ _~Q ~~. U~~ eenu.
.2ec:O '0
- =coe C
e: C'C Me-C- 15
C'c:sS
0 &,Ie- [!I-"'13 c.
-<t: - >'0 'C
- 1iitCl _-COlI c
CD COlI
IDA ~ "" Co -
.! Ee ...~.!!E ""
CI_ ~ ~ mcU- m
E CI 0 0 en--rn S
en -,c cn
W c:c = ..!!~~.!! E
u V> t::. S ,g
~ -~ m-e>
G:> CD 'U:I:=-
C III ., :0 :is - ca. ,c en
-. ~en__ Gi
as :. ... ; ~=1i~ 2-
~
- .e- II> ~ .... (.J ..
as IDe c: 5~ 6~ >
e:~ e c =-
- me: ..... -~vi". ...
c: c:: e
a: e 0 0 'CYoIIGcn C
Ql z CD DC '-
Z Z ,c_ 0 .!!
E enU)'g.&J Ii
=;:>CD_
"" iJ~c;5 -0
c ftI '0 ift ::!.. ~ e.
0 J:: - CD ~
- lDeE'O
.. (.J U cn
~ 'C ~"C X .. 'Eo.s.~ :s
'> - enc:: ea.!!
. f!ft1 ~~ ~e~~ .
... !!
c: . -~
= G> CI ~ J:: -- =11I -0
W '^ ii SE g -e en'Cene en
III
= 8'6:Eli:Z::.!! ~E B-g~= '0
.. e~ ID
.c ~ CI gOO.&J 5"'cE >
III CD C 1IIft11 oQ.gm
= c:::l.. ;:;;e >. >- --
=S...~ ca
!!!.c~e-E :21: ~
ut'1.. m 0.., 00 a:f?~.E
O-DU..E; 3:~ ~cD-e ~
<~ii-
.,.,. ~ u -= 12
JIC EJ!q;e c::
.EE=~ ..
U ""
w =-.z'O e
- _eo l3E~e Q.
CD 0'" e
iJ e--~M c:
,c~o_
....._~ ~ Q E
.- i!!:== :I
.. ~= ~
e: E- 't:J"ec (.J
'0 ....- ~e-> ....
aa C:-l!- ~
.. - .. -:I "G
. .. .,. J! nI
CJ EO _ eflt1! N .-
'-'
)(
0
-
.E
=;1!.
!e ID_
~..
ICC .s= -
_u Q..~
e- m ~~
c:t:;
o. oCC
.:i:CL 00
~e 6E
u,I- "tIS
J!I . cn'€
.. 's=sCS'! ~~
~ ....cne=.. Cl.c
Clo u. g-
.. ~'S~ g~ 2'
EJ! uff!
CD !~o"- c x~
C:u - - c: 10: Q,/C
- e. c - c: u _
G - IlL 58ElDOl! w....
::s =e €ID~C-Et ."a
w- e-
"" 110.5-60. -....
- c::....
. . e'51i!e &-~ <<J -
5: 'D....aellcS ~E
> C) E-
- ~.s ~~~ oS en Ok
- '-'0
CD -z:::. =2
C Co ~ae
... .. - CD CD
I) 'E~ .s=N
- I! 8~ 0.-)
- -=
< ... "" ~~
1::'- ~..!! eon
CJ~ z:::.~c: '1:10
- -lD
0 1I't1 s:....5i! CD""
~"'In en -
-. :::IE
E... ....:;11)
ClO "". '1:1 0- cnCD
- .c lIPIDE co ID
U U 0...... a~
:::IEJIC --
ca ~eO -I!
Q. "0
a:_Z :Q.
E .c!:c:
- ~CD..
C ='1:1 CD fie. -
0 u., :5U)8
-t ID CO)
- .e .c -c:
CD IDa. ~.... co
CO Ee ~ .C 5 ~
- c_ --k
E CI 0 ....=0
cc V>_J;;
W ; lig
"D so e.,c
-- .. o.9-l!
ID_ :c
C -. c.!30..
~. "'
as 3\: =iil:
_CD .. ~c:8
- .,1:: c:;
CD c::e ~ '1:IOc
- IDC c: c€;
c: lCo 0 -DC'
IS) :z: 2 ~e~
E il'1:l~
CI =:>..
C ca !:.c: ...
0 .- '3 CO;1. :::I
... 'E '-' ~m'i.
- . 'E eN:;
> ... .. e~""
c . Q.
W : 0 ~g~
.I:: c: (,)"0_
.. .e:;:
- 8"..
ID .2X:if
= .E.- 'D(.)
Uo CD UooI en
;;e -4ft!:
(.) '" 6e.2
e-0
......
cUE
-OCD
!!!: (,) CD
>00:: Q.
~<-a
oui=
.~j!
=_'D
CftcoC:
- -u8
>C /C Q.
i ouS
u,,& C\I
. CO) ..
S
10
'ii
:::I
&L.
4D
>
-
-
as
c
~
CD
-
C
'5
CO
..
g
CD
a.
E
-
c
o
"i
GI
E
w
"D
C
ca
-
ca
-
C
CD
E
c
o
..
-;
c
w
I ~e
CeI
SlY
e- m
c:u
e.
- ..
=.i
...,
E
.. 'senc
- =::SI~
C
~! _oE
...:=a..gc
G>.Q 11::
e. ~~ ~-s 2!
-- I c'C-c
:e oBe=g'
11I- I €.ftlC~
- ga.rt=";
. -c'gen
= ~el!c:J2g
Q ~2!2.Pm-
_ c:a en "C Q.
I IS
-=
I =-
co;::
-CD
1113
e~
....
...
u
I
C-a
u.,
-1:
'lie:>
IDa.
I Ee
c::I_
CI
! -~
CI~
-till
~.
il&lD
el:
c:~
cae:
eCl
:z
..
-a
-
.
...
..
~
-=
..
.
~
..
~ cG~ C-~ ~ .,.~. c
.;: co c: C - 0 c:: lD E en .,- _ 0 - ca
._ ~om =tDO~ u'a ~_m__~-~.
W' _ - :::l D.C .... co - 0IlI"C m=-a--Q
= _mlD enc.CO ~..c:--CD~_lD__~_
lDftI:::l lD _~C. ClD=U>~_==_
~_ UO- _e~otD~~G>-C: ~_uu~
-~- -e _~lD.~-O_-COCOClDtIIl
is ;e::=~co~Drn~~'g=~o~.Q.e=
E~:~e~lD~s~S~~g~S-~=..c:E=_~
--"C'i5;:tcn. ..... CT-~ --Q. lD~ .
..!!!!l ~- "C . - Iii""-c]! E - eft U en!!: -"$.!!. 'g
~lDm~lD~m~cC:lD~G'C~Co~C::::l~a.o .
o ~;c:- 8o-w.-m O~o. - 8-
~c co-tDCl.U _-G.Q~C_O___ c.~
Q.ftI~ -m_:::l ene-co =m-rn-uo. _
_~_e2!OtD'g~~o~=_o~~en=mcQ._ -
-0-. -..c:O ~..c:~>cnEc-.~_o>->
..c:_:::l_lDG__'CE._>tIIltlll lDEm_lD-_:::llD
_Q.="CD_OQ.__~>...c:OlD_tD_ODa..~Q"C
..c:
'0
EO
CD _ C
~oe.2
;u=~
CD:::lftl"C
c:'Oco
~e~Q.
C~n:lcn
o >-= co
Z.J:)oo
~~C:"S CII ~
__coco,gc u,a.
Ii ~ ..!! -6 en U C) -& ~~ e !
C8colDftlX~ m mil)
co CI. en:t:: ca 0 5<!: -a:: ~ eft -
s. -c~":"'o Ct.:::l~:t::
_ ~ e J?Q.. c .. - ~ ~ c B
~fIS~o-lg!:.Eu1i~~e
cw :e = -:: ~ _ ~:::: ~ 1: C,,__
e>..-lblD- !; 8~oo
z::.=miii=-C.!:iS '30-
!a~ &:-:: t! a.'Oc::;.2'.5 ~
e ..0>. =..-"'-
~~t'll:=~.!i-!2-=~E
-J co 0_ 0 > _ '0 U is 0_ II>
-
-
a
E
::::I
lD-
-.
or::::
=-
- Q.
-e
"CI Q,
-...
=0
g,f
--'
-'-
(I)
.
-
CD
=
~
CD
>
-
-
III
C
~
CD
-
-
c
~
o
.
-
u
CO
a.
E
-
c
o
-
.
.
-
E
w
"
c
CD
-
as
-
c:
CD
E
c
o
-
'>
c
W
:!e
co
.,U
EIO
e1i
G_
.=.
;e
UI-
II)
..
c:
E.
C::u
e.
- Do
I;e
..,-
-
.,
5:
C)
g
'"
G
_-'5
C) .Q
=~O
~c.5
oBe
€lI)ta
~.E~
-.-
~....Q
:l'~ ~
D
-=
cw
t:J":
- e
II~
-.
E...
...,.
~
Co;)
.. !! 005
>oJaOJQ
t;e~E'3CDti.c:15
ns _- en en I: -_.:!:: - !It
e(!)o~oe~c~=-
~ ~... -0
'5~S5"5Eo2:-is
8u>c:'=G)_Q.,.:ElD..::
;It'IlIta::l -OCl)ta_~
u; os ~ 5 ., c: ~~ _
oo!::? c%="'.2 u c:a.~
CLCa--carn>ez::
EftI-CE1!lbw -
oC::'" - CIoC:
8 5~ eEE is:;-8
c:~ = cPN
ftIC2- U :gOM
~-;;~ ~ .cUCl,...a
Cl"'Cl Cl ~c:-.c.o
- E CIo > ta:ao - . Q,E e
~ e Ol'C_cn"'!!fII
"::1Dc:a. O_.e_.....
~ClE ~zJ!oi:&a..z;
E-'O .....-.!!.2oi,"'2
'i== .'i~ U)D~o5 00 g,
= ~...-= ::95 l! 5=? e U)Z 0
o;:::c;:ca;~1ii--.Clcnc
e G Dr:: e..... a.~ E U_.= g
->CiO->E _"'00.
~2~e~~.ui:i.ie_
~~
UtD
-'t:
lio
ClQ,
Ee
0_
el
.E
>,C;;
:; CD
....e
00
~'C
tD
--
Cl~
- .
:-
...
.e:
e:e
tDe:
Co
Z
.; E
~ _ 0
if; "0 0 .:=
..:~..'O
~ o~ ~!
...g,.....c::-...
c::~Ea;J5=
~e~E'8;
-
1:
~
.
::
.c
-
CD
::
.....
=-0
i-; U
'0-)(
CeO
ra-i.=
~S~
t'IlIe- u
;ic;:~"E
=oa~
sEg@
J;;;-~e
J?i-ta
---.J>~u
2!!
:lI
..
Z
~
0-
11m
.z
""'u
A_
E.
o.
UCJ
..,.
~I!
co
...,
ECIO ,...
cD
o.
'=a
Ce
11I-
E
.. SCI>c: ..
- ~=. -0
c: .C1Eg~
.
e. -:-:5Q,.g-o
. "Q c:-
-=.., = ~ C1t~;;:: 1ft
.. e. ~'C.5ce~
-. o B e=~.
:I ~e
&I- w- €e;c-C1:!
- S 3='0
. . ~-I;:~ e-
> S 'g_.a~.I2c:
- >o.!.2.S!tu. t!
- %:_ o_-c:_
&a = ~ - ~ ~-
C
... ~g ~ -Q. ~_ -= ft-
. tJ ~~!~E8~~Sec: .~g~~~
- ..- -~ ~... ID<_-n
- ..= >~~%~Ift -.-S-c:~.._~
<C ~=u~.-~.IO ~= =~--
e. .~=z~E.E QM~C>OC .~
DO;
- -.. -50 ~..Q; CI~ =.a~~~M
0 It; ~>==~~S=~E~iO~&;~~
CIIt e!!! ~~~;~ai~~E~~Sa"~-H
... - -IC _ 0 ~o>...I>
- .c e~-oM=_~~~~~ ~2~~~
u u ~0-..~ g~~=- ~ _
as S-~~"i~~Q ~ ~_>o..~_
Q. ~e - E=E_."c-.~..
E _.~~.o ~e~~~~_~e.~
-
c I:-a
0 u.
-1:
- lil:l ~
. -Cl. >0-;;;
. Ee ~ ..
- c_ cnE
E CI 00
::E~
W
"C -~
c: sa
- .. -
c -:. ~E
- .- :aeM
<<S .e: .,ca-""
co- ,g~C1"
..
- -c: c..'CE
c: ce ...c 011 0
G) :II: u~E:S
E 0
c ~ c:
0 .. -
.. _ .M:
.. 'E ... ...
- iDs:::.
> .. 00
... -==
c: ..
UJ :z: =e
= u..!::
K;;
.. SiD
..
:z: -€
~o
00
- .Q
%..
c;
c:
..
~
..
.
en
CD
"a
~
u..
.
>
-
-
II
C
l-
CD
-
-
c
-
o
CD
-
U
ca
Q.
E
-
c
o
-
CD
CD
-
E
w
'C
I:
CD
1&
-
c
CD
E
c:
o
'-
">
c
W
~!!
co
_u
e-
~1i
~:.
1:.5
....
C"')
-
ii
I:
!.
eX
- ..
.5.5
-
-
~
S
-0 i
. enU
-s-8en -
CT8.U~"~'i
-~E'ii~=~:a
liC:-c..ecc
-.2"O.D7;.-
~~ '5 E"O.5 e C
e2oc:'Sec:!'
8.~ 'iii ~ e "0 oS,g &
_S>~=Sl!e
_UiI.&.lSl~U_Q.
_ ... >0. ,,;
o .sa D:i,
c: =-='2-
-::.5:1:):
~.c~ &~2"
ca cn- en 0 ~
it' fC &:s Ui · J! ...
Q ~"O ~='gs.s c:
__Ct_ ---8
-cn~="'.,c:._
e "'...~-o;::::Ie
05 _D"C:.~ M:;;;!
-....- --"'..
-....1i=.-..-
l3~=~';!~ &~
e~
~:. .S
m >0 o. ~"O, "0
'bet 1:'_ _ e
_N~~~"'-U"
u'K-__!!OC-
. .1:1....-;_1:51:>>
C)'-=..-Dec-
a.';. 2~"-: i
1- IItf- 8'2- =
_~ u ..-c
-u ..CI[tUO
-S::e .~S2:~
--.>.Oco..
=.>~0.Q,>Q,
II
-=
c_
o-
11=
_1:;
E~
... ..
.-:
U
)?:o
fJ'. ==
,... (:) lit..
m_C:::I
...E.2~
D ~1It.c
lit -
C -_
-~E"
"i.1!~~
m'-CU
E ~ ~.g
fii.5!8_
YoI U .. Q,
_co;
,a!!!
E~
e~
-"0
.it!
~i
- Q.
i;i
:i~
=~
u.
-1::
liiCl
-a.
Ee
0_
=
1i
8
C; Ut- CD
0=._=
en.2=~"'z:.
~ fii"~.g
.. '6 "0 ~-s -
c..:c .. == 0 ~
.!~~:g~.
u
~
In
.
e
B
-~
...
-.
-=.
.-
.1:
c-
-i:
a:C1
z
n;
g
c:1It- ..
0= -_=
1It.2=~IIt~
~ _~~u
- 15 "0 l:"-s E
~:E =i:i E ~
Cl~==Q.m
en
..
>-
..
'E
..
...
..
::
=
..
.,
%
~
-
...
oo!!
gi
~!:.o
S"''O~
_ De Q
...E~ti
=~..c
c:: ".c :a
~.c~:::::
~~EE
~
oS!
~
::
~
u
.
iii
"-
.
i
CD
."
'ii
:::I
II.
tD
>
-
-
ca
c
...
CD
:::
cr:
(;
.
-
u
CIS
a.
E
c
o
"is
."
-
E
w
"C
C
CIS
-
CD
-
s:
CD
E
c
o
..
">
c
W
i'""""1!
i:s
C1c"o
~'15
e.
- Do
Ce
...-
'ii
i:
CI
EJI
c:u
e.
- Ill-
~E
11I-
-
CI
.I:
is
a
..::
c:;.
ClO:
-.
113
e!!
.... ..
oC
U
-
=oa
u.
-1:
-0
CIa.
EE
0-
=
-
. co
--- ~
&I .Q ftI
G; ~
-. .. t!
c "-
.a ..
c.-. iC
ae:: 0
cc: z
-
..
oa
-
::
-
:.
~
Ii
a
:::
r--
I
-
U)
o
-
rn
..
-=
CD.cO
:::I~ c:
~'EE
~~;
~,g.
~il
-
..
"'0
E
CD
>
S
"0
~
ft
CD
s=
-
.s
Z:-
:s
"iii
~
CI.
..
e
~
-
-
'C
CI'
>
~
.E
-
c
Cl
E
~
"5
cr
co
-
o
-
c:
::l
o
e
III
'5
..
II)
:I
..
u
.
.c
!!'
~
.2
"-
III
..
c:
~'a
-&
Co
C;~
Z..
....I~
.!'i
"0"
:e.c
li
c..!3
.-
Q'C
=~
1:.
=s
"D.@
'i.
>0.
~~
i'g
=-
~=
g!
-0
~c
:;'5
:s~
11IM
-eS
g,:O
.!!~
=2;
~ -
....
~:p
!!! ~=
- "t:2i:
- S....
~~~o
~=.!'8
-ftIuO
!: -S .,. :~
as "C c:: ... z
O-.9ac.;l
CE:.cc
as ::l _ _ III
-""e=.c
s:;..~__
u
;;:
>. ...
= ..
SE
~.g
co
II) ..:
~c;!
12~ e
~CA_
c.oS
1:) 2' =-
.19-=
C""e
8~1;;
-- ..
U "a ::l
e-..,
'- ca. II)
51!;
..
.
=
..
-
;:II
..
Z..
'a__
'iii
I ~=-
~
~
~
-