|
The US Department of Energy's Office of Transportation Technologies has established the Clean Cities campaign that includes projects and conferences about alternative fuel use. General information about the Clean Cities program is available on the website www.ccities.doe.gov. The program supports public-private-partnerships on alternative fuel powered vehicles and supporting infrastructure. The program deals not only with urban buses, but also with private passenger cars, neighborhood vehicles and electric bikes as well as trucks.
A description of this program is included here because CNG technology is of major importance within the Clean Cities activities. The cities covered are
- Tacoma, Washington (Pierce County Transportation Authority),
- El Paso, Texas (Sun Metro Public Transportation Authority),
- Rogue Valley, Oregon, served by Rogue Valley Transportation District,
- Antelope Valley (near Los Angeles, California), served by Antelope Valley Schools Transportation Agency.
The respective case studies (1), (2), (3), (4) were published by the US Department of Energy (DOE). Although the list of transit bus operators using CNG is much longer - including, amongst others, Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority (with the perhaps largest CNG fleet of all operators), New Jersey Transit, Philadelphia, Greater Cleveland area, Santa Fe and more -, the reports referred to above provide a comprehensive overview on CNG experiences.
The responsible agency (DOE) leaves it completely to the stakeholders within the cities to establish project frames and details. The focus lies on the use of cleaner fuels in order to improve air quality. The DOE provides an alternative fuel vehicle database from which participants of the Clean Cities program can select their vehicles of choice. The criteria are based on the EPA definition of alternative fuel vehicles. (Note: when testing the website in September in 2001 no buses were listed with either requirement.)
The program builds upon partnerships between public entities and private stakeholders. The website reports about more than 4,400 stakeholders - from small local businesses and municipal governments to regional air quality organizations and national alternative fuel companies - to be members of the program. The strategy is aimed to:
- form coalitions of interested stakeholders on local and regional bases,
- assess the local and regional alternative fuel markets,
- identify existing and potential alternative fuel vehicle fleets and
- create a program plan ( w1 ).
This program plan has to be submitted to the Department of Energy for reviewing. The DOE will designate the city to become a Clean City. The program plan has to include the description and the commitments of stakeholders, a memorandum of understanding between the stakeholders, a necessary organizational set-up to develop and implement the program, a responsible coordinator and a steering committee. Furthermore, it needs to contain a description of the local background, the goals and objectives, and a market survey. (For details see [ w1 ].)
Funding of the various activities depends on the kind of project or program to be implemented; the program refers to existing federal and state provisions. The main federal incentives for the purchase or conversion of individual alternative fuel vehicles are federal income tax deductions between US$ 2,000 and 50,000 for clean fuel vehicles ( w2 ).
There are also federal grants oriented towards large investments such as infrastructure, and larger purchases. The website gives further information about the various agencies' incentive programs ( w1 ). The federal tax deduction for buses and refueling installations is independent if it is a purchase from an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) or a conversion of a vehicle. Referring to the energy policy act of 1992, the amount of the tax deduction for a large bus is US$ 15,000. The US Department of Transport provides financial support through its congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program. The US EPA may also contribute to program activities via its pollution prevention grants program which provides support if the state agencies contribute at least 50% of the total cost of their project.
The Clean Cities program approach is based on local initiatives and involvement of all stakeholders. It leaves a definition of the activities to the local people, but the DOE provides guidance on the appraisal procedures for acknowledgement as an official member city. Comprehensive public participation and stakeholder meetings are required, as are a continuous information flow to all relevant parties, appointment of local coordinators, and signing of a memorandum of understanding between all partners. The lead agency requires a definite working plan with implementation milestones.
There are numerous legislative acts in the US, supporting alternative fuel vehicles of all kinds. The Clean Cities Program does not establish a new funding channel but refers to existing financing mechanisms. Although the economics work against a shift from diesel to natural gas, the program is successful because it is based upon the responsibility of public and private fleet operators for public health. Intensive press activities and special periodicals create a "group effect", initiating competition between cities for clean air success stories.
While the Clean Cities program in general is open to all kinds of alternative fuels, CNG (compressed natural gas) certainly plays a major role. For specific information on CNG, visit also the Info Pool's CNG bus or the CNG fuel sites.
Under the umbrella of the Clean Cities program, the following case studies are especially highlighted and featured because of their use of CNG:
- Antelope Valley Schools Transportation Agency transports about 35,500 students in 157 vehicles with a capacity of 78 passengers each. There are also a number of vans to transport special-education students. Each school bus travels an average of 100 miles daily from a central depot, leading to a total of about 15,000 miles per year. The buses return to the central depot at the end of the school day for refueling and maintenance. The first 16 CNG buses were delivered in 1992, with dedicated engines especially designed for CNG operation (no conversion design). The fueling station was provided by a regional gas supplier without charge. The slow-fill-facility costs US$ 300,000, the fast-fill-facility US$ 100,000 (capacity not mentioned in the publications). The CNG buses of the first generation had relatively high fuel and maintenance costs while fuel for the second-generation CNG with John Deere engines cost 13 cents per mile (compared to 16 cents for an advanced diesel bus) and maintenance only 13 cents per mile (compared to 21 cents per mile for the diesel bus). The total operating costs per mile are far lower: 26 cents compared to 37 cents per mile (4).
- Rogue Valley Transportation District in Oregon began operating CNG buses in 1994, the purchase cost was about US$ 20,000 more than a comparable diesel bus. Fuel cost at the end of 1996 was given with 14 cents per mile compared to diesel costs of more than 15 cents (3).
- Pierce Transit Transportation Authority in Tacoma, Washington, runs a fleet of 72 CNG buses (and a total fleet of 193) with one fast-fill-station. The CNG transit buses cost each between US$ 30,000 and 50,000 more than their diesel counterparts. Total operating costs for CNG are cited to be US$ 0.28, which is more or less equal to the average of the diesel bus fleet (US$ 0.27). The CNG fueling facility, completed in 1992, cost US$ 847,000. Because Pierce Transit has participated in an evaluation program of the Department of Energy, emission data are available. CNG buses show significant advantages in terms of PM and NOx. The average emissions were 54% lower than those from comparable diesel buses (1).
- Sun Metro, the Public Transportation Authority of El Paso, Texas, operates 53% of its 240 vehicles on natural gas, both LNG and CNG. According to law in Texas, centrally fueled fleet operators with fleets of 15 or more vehicles have to switch to alternative fuels due to air pollution problems. Special funding was provided for this purpose. For the mixed operation of CNG and LNG, a combined fueling facility was built with total construction costs of US$ 3 million, of which 80% were contributed by air pollution control programs. The CNG buses have driving ranges of about 300 miles, LNG buses a little less than 400 miles, and diesel buses a little more than 400 miles. The CNG buses cost each US$ 275,000, LNG US$ 256,000 and comparable diesel buses US$ 216,000. The cost difference between LNG and CNG is due to the fact that ten additional fuel tanks were installed in the CNG buses to bring the range up to 300 miles. A recent analysis of operating costs showed no significant difference between diesel and CNG buses. Because the lube oil in the gas buses remains cleaner than in diesels, the company intends to double the oil change interval to 12,000 miles, which would bring a cost advantage (2).
The general conclusions of the fleet operators agree more or less totally with the ones of natural gas bus operators cited in the IANGV-paper (5):
- Commitment is needed from bus fleet operators.
- A significant part of the fleet must be changed to natural gas, ideally at least a whole depot.
- Higher purchase costs of 10 to 20% more than the diesel versions have to be accepted.
- Refueling infrastructure is expensive.
- The refueling capital cost for 200 CNG buses would be about US$ 2.7 million compared to US$ 350,000 for a diesel fuel station.
- Training of drivers and mechanics is necessary.
- There is a need for the active involvement of a fuel supplier.
- Lifecycle costs are generally lower for CNG buses, even without including public health benefits (5).
|
