Fuel economy, cost, and greenhouse gas results for alternative

fuel vehicles in 2011

Aaron Windecker
a,
, Adam Ruder
b
a
TRC, 243 Church Street, NW, Suite 200-B, Vienna, VA, USA
b
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, 17 Columbia Circle, Albany, NY, USA
a r t i c l e i n f o
Keywords:
Alternative fuel vehicles
Greenhouse gas
American recovery and reinvestment act
a b s t r a c t
This paper presents in-service data collected from over 300 alternative fuel vehicles and
over 80 fueling stations to help eets determine what types of applications and alternative
fuels may help them reduce their environmental impacts and fuel costs. The data were
compiled in 2011 by over 30 organizations in New York State using a wide variety of com-
mercial vehicle types and technologies. Fuel economy, incremental vehicle purchase cost,
fueling station purchase cost, greenhouse gas reductions, and fuel cost savings data clari-
es the performance of alternative fuel vehicles and fuel stations. Data were collected from
a range of vehicle types, including school buses, delivery trucks, utility vans, street sweep-
ers, snow plows, street pavers, bucket trucks, paratransit vans, and sedans. CNG, hybrid,
LPG, and electric vehicles were tracked.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Alternative fuel vehicles provide eet operators novel opportunities to conserve fuel costs and reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. The range of available technology includes compressed natural gas, hybrid electric, plug in hybrid electric, elec-
tric, and propane. However, eet operators may be unfamiliar with the performance and costs associated with these vehicles.
Moreover, vehicle and fuel dealers may exaggerate claims about the cost of ownership or payback periods of these vehicles.
This information gap forms a barrier to adoption and makes it more difcult for eet operators to select the most suitable
technology. To help bridge this gap, this paper presents data collected from 332 alternative fuel vehicles and 84 alternative
fuel stations that were purchased in 2010 and 2011 in New York State.
2. Methodology
The alternative fuel vehicles and alternative fuel stations were purchased with grant funding under New York State En-
ergy Research and Development Authoritys (NYSERDA) administration of the Department of Energys (DOE) Clean Cities
FY09 Petroleum Reduction Technologies Projects for the Transportation Sector funded by the American Recovery and Rein-
vestment Act (ARRA). Clean Cities is the DOEs agship alternative-transportation deployment initiative, sponsored by the
Vehicle Technologies Program. Clean Cities advances the nations economic, environmental, and energy security by support-
ing local actions to reduce petroleum consumption in transportation through the efforts of more than 8400 stakeholders par-
ticipating in nearly 100 Clean Cities coalitions across the US. This grant funded up to 100% of the incremental costs of
vehicles (the cost above a comparable vehicle that uses conventional fuel). This grant also funded up to 50% of the cost to
1361-9209/$ - see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2013.04.002

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 7032426083.

E-mail address: awindecker@trcsolutions.com (A. Windecker).
Transportation Research Part D 23 (2013) 3440
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Transportation Research Part D
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/ t rd
purchase and install alternative fuel stations. Grant recipients included local governments, schools, utilities, and private
companies in New York State. Grant recipients were free to propose the alternative energy technology and vehicle type that
best satised their eets needs. DOE selected NYSERDAs proposal as one of 25 projects nationwide.
Grant recipients chose vehicles that use ve alternative fuels or advanced technologies. This included 215 compressed
natural gas (CNG) vehicles, 61 hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), three plug in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), eight electric
vehicles (EVs), and 45 propane (LPG) vehicles.
1
For the fueling stations, electric fueling stations comprised 79 of the stations,
CNG comprised three, and LPG two. This uneven distribution means that some results represent small sample sizes.
The grant recipients agreed to provide quarterly mileage and fuel use data for each vehicle purchased or converted under
the grant. For the analysis, the same quarters data for each vehicle were used to avoid seasonal uctuations in performance.
This avoided comparing one vehicles summer performance when operating its air conditioner with another vehicles fall
performance when little or no air conditioning was needed. The quarter selected was the period of October to December
2011.
2
Vehicle performance in the fall quarter is less inuenced by heating and cooling demands than the summer or winter
quarter. This was the most recent quarter for which data were available at the time of this analysis. Furthermore, because
the deployment of vehicles was staggered over 2010 and 2011, this was the quarter for which the greatest number of grant
recipients reported data on vehicle usage.
3. Results
3.1. Fuel economy
The business case for purchasing an alternative fuel vehicle rests heavily on the incremental cost of the alternative fuel
vehicle, the expected price of fuel over time, and the vehicles fuel economy. The incremental cost can be reliably determined
from local vehicle dealers. The expected price of fuel can be estimated using the current price of fuel, historical prices, or
projections such as those published by the US Energy Information Administration. But the real world fuel economy of the
alternative fuel vehicles can be difcult to determine. While the US Environmental Protection Agency publishes fuel econ-
omy data for light duty vehicles, it currently does not publish similar data for medium- or heavy-duty vehicles or fuel con-
version kits. Fuel economy is also a key factor in the greenhouse gas reduction potential of alternative fuel vehicles.
Table 1 shows the fuel economy of the alternative fuel vehicles funded by this grant calculated using the October to
December 2011 mileage and fuel use data. This data were self-reported by the grant recipients. Although this reporting
was a grant requirement, the fuel economy results did not impact recipients grant amount so as to avoid creating an incen-
tive for misreporting. The sample size for each type of vehicle is listed so as to acknowledge that some data points may rep-
resent only a few or even one vehicle. However, the fuel economy numbers presented in this table cannot be directly
compared across fuels. For example, the result that LPG vans averaged 16 miles/gallon of LPG and the CNG vans averaged
8.5 miles/GGE (gasoline gallon equivalents) of CNG does not mean that the LPG vehicle has better fuel economy. The LPG
van may use 6 gallons of LPG to travel 100 miles and the CNG vans may use 12 GGE of CNG to travel 100 miles, but this does
not indicate whether using 6 gallons of LPG emits more or less greenhouse gas or cost more or less than using 12 GGE of CNG.
The exception to this is HEV vehicles. Because HEV use the same fuel as conventional vehicles, diesel or gasoline, eet oper-
ators need only know their current eets fuel economy to judge the results for the HEV vehicles.
To compare fuels, the fuel economy averages must be converted into the same unit of measure, fuel cost per mile driven.
Fuel cost per mile is calculated as the fuel price per gallon divided by the vehicles average miles per gallon from Table 1. The
price per gallon of alternative fuel can be found by contacting local suppliers. The DOEs Alternative Fuels Data Center pro-
vides an interactive Alternative Fueling Station Locator, an online map showing the location and contact information for
alternative fuel stations across the US. By contacting local suppliers, and consulting the fuel economy listed in Table 1, eet
operators can easily calculate the fuel cost per mile driven for alternative fuel vehicles in their area. This allows eet oper-
ators to reliably compare the fuel options available against each other and against the eet operators current conventional
fuel eets fuel cost per mile.
3.2. Fuel cost per mile
Nationwide average fuel prices can be used to calculate an approximate fuel cost per mile, providing a convenient way to
compare results across fuels. It is important, however, to emphasize that fuel prices vary geographically, e.g., in January 2012
the price per GGE of CNG ranged from $1.69 in the lower Atlantic region to $2.42 in New England (US Department of Energy,
2012a).
3
Furthermore, over time the prices of gasoline, diesel, CNG, propane, and electricity change and the price advantage one
fuel may offer today may not last over the service life of the vehicle. In addition, these average prices do not reect the Federal
1
An explanation of these technologies can be found at: http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/vehicles.
2
The exception to this is the data for the neighborhood electric vehicles, where cumulative data since vehicle deployment was used because of the high
variability between the miles per kW h data for these vehicles over these 3 months.
3
The lower Atlantic region includes West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. The average fuel price per GGE of CNG for
the Central Atlantic region which includes NY was $2.28 (US Department of Energy, 2012a).
A. Windecker, A. Ruder / Transportation Research Part D 23 (2013) 3440 35
and State incentives and laws that may confer favorable tax treatment for fuel. The DOEs Alternative Fuels Data Center, pro-
vides an online searchable database on incentives and laws pertaining to alternate fuels.
The approximate fuel cost per mile of the 332 alternative fuel vehicles can be calculated using the nationwide average
fuel prices and the vehicles fuel economy. Table 1 shows an approximate fuel cost per mile broken out by vehicle type
and technology. Electric vehicles achieved the least expensive fuel cost per mile, as can be seen by comparing the neighbor-
hood electric vehicles and electric vans with vans and sedans that use a fossil fuel. School buses serve as a useful point of
comparison because four types of alternative fuel school buses were purchased under this grant, PHEV, diesel HEV, gasoline
HEV, and LPG. The PHEV and both types of HEV school buses achieved between $0.44 and $0.46 per mile, whereas the LPG
school buses averaged $0.75 per mile.
Although this would appear to reect poorly on LPG technology, this result depends on the price of LPG used to convert
miles per gallon of LPG to fuel cost per mile. For example, one school district reported that its actual price per gallon of LPG
was $1.97, considerably less than the nationwide average fuel price of $3.08. Part of the reason it was able to realize this low
price was that it could take advantage of the Alternative Fuel Excise Tax Credit of $0.50 per gallon of LPG.
4
This school district
achieved a fuel cost per mile of $0.50 for their propane school buses. This was only several cents higher than the fuel cost per
mile calculated using the nationwide average fuel price for the PHEV and HEV school buses. An even more dramatic example of
how organizations are able to achieve lower fuel prices is a utility company whose cost per GGE of CNG was $0.66. This is sig-
nicantly below the nationwide average of $2.13 per GGE of CNG. Because fuel prices vary between organizations as well as
across geography and time, using average fuel prices should be used as a rough guide only to the fuel cost/mile of alternative
fuel vehicles. Fleets considering alternative fuel vehicles should conduct similar calculations based on local prices.
3.3. Fuel savings
In addition to comparing the average fuel economy results from Table 1 to a eet operators conventional fuel vehicles, it
useful to compare these results against the grant recipients own conventional fuel vehicles. The reason for this is that each
Table 1
Fuel economy of vehicles by technology.
Type Technology Units Average fuel economy Sample size Average incremental
or conversion cost
per vehicle ($)
Fuel cost/mile using
average fuel price ($)
a
Bucket truck HEV Miles/gal of diesel 4.9 9 55,300 0.78
Heavy duty truck CNG Miles/GGE of CNG 3.9 10 70,300 0.55
HEV Miles/gal of diesel 4.6 25 42,900 0.84
Log loader HEV Miles/gal of diesel 0.2 1 41,200 18.22
Neighborhood electric vehicle
b
EV Miles/kW h 6.1 6 (12,300) 0.02
Passenger bus CNG Miles/GGE of CNG 6.4 1 27,500 0.33
HEV Miles/gal of diesel 8.1 8 81,400 0.47
Pickup truck HEV Miles/gal of gasoline 15.6 1 2000 0.22
LPG Miles/gal of LPG 8.5 4 9800 0.36
Sanitation packer truck CNG Miles/GGE of CNG 0.4 1 55,700 5.67
HEV Miles/gal of diesel 2.3 1 41,000 1.66
School bus HEV Miles/gal of diesel 8.4 2 85,500 0.46
HEV Miles/gal of gasoline 7.4 2 56,400 0.45
LPG Miles/gal of LPG 4.1 40 8800 0.75
PHEV
c
Miles/gal of diesel 8.8 3 111,800 0.44
Sedan CNG Miles/GGE of CNG 24.0 2 7100 0.09
HEV Miles/gal of gasoline 37.7 5 5400 0.09
Street sweeper CNG Miles/GGE of CNG 0.2 2 72,500 8.55
SUV HEV Miles/gal of gasoline 33.0 6 8300 0.10
Van CNG Miles/GGE of CNG 8.5 195 15,100 0.25
EV Miles/kW h 2.8 2 10,500 0.04
LPG Miles/gal of LPG 16.0 1 9000 0.19
Medium duty truck CNG Miles/GGE of CNG 7.0 4 34,000 0.30
HEV Miles/gal of diesel 8.5 1 39,900 0.45
a
Prices of gasoline ($3.37/gal), diesel ($3.86/gal), CNG ($2.13/GGE), and LPG ($3.08/gal) are based on data collected between January 13 and 27, 2012, as
reported by the DOE Clean Cities Alternative Fuel Price Report January 2012. Price of Electricity ($0.1032/kW h) is based on the 2011 nationwide average
retail price for the commercial sector as reported by the US Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly February 2012.
b
Neighborhood electric vehicles cost less than their comparison vehicle, a gasoline pickup truck, but are top speed restricted.
c
Grant recipients only reported the gallons of diesel used by the PHEV and did not report kW h.
4
The AFTC expired on December 31, 2011 (US Department of Energy, 2012b).
36 A. Windecker, A. Ruder / Transportation Research Part D 23 (2013) 3440
eet may have a different set of operating parameters which affect their mileage. For example, a utility van driving in the
New York City area will experience a different mix of city and highway driving than would a utility van located in a less den-
sely populated area of the state. In order to control for operating parameters, grant recipients were asked to provide data on a
conventionally fueled vehicle that was operated in a similar manner to their alternative fuel vehicles. For example, a school
that deployed a LPG school bus was asked to provide mileage and fuel use data on a comparable diesel school bus. This al-
lows for a comparison of fuel economy between the alternative fuel vehicle and a conventional fuel vehicle running on
approximately the same set of operating parameters. The result of this comparison shows the effect of changing vehicles
while holding operational parameters roughly constant.
Providing data froma conventionally fueled comparison vehicle was optional, and responses were received from 18 of the
33 grant recipients. However, because the larger eets did respond, comparison data is available for 74% of the vehicles. The
grant recipient was given the discretion to decide which conventional fuel vehicle to supply data on. This was done because
the grant recipient was in the best position to determine which has the most comparable routing, loading, upts or other use
parameters that could affect fuel economy. Table 2 lists the fuel economy of the alternative fuel vehicles and the fuel econ-
omy of the comparison vehicle provided by the grant recipients.
The fuel economy of the HEV vehicles can be directly compared with the fuel economy of the conventionally fueled vehi-
cles because both vehicles use the same fuel. Overall, the results were mixed. Three of the HEV eets achieved a fuel econ-
omy improvement of more than 50%, two fuel economy improvements of less than 15%, and two show decreases in fuel
economy thus demonstrating that the impact of alternative fuel vehicle technology is not consistent and that the technology
does not necessarily offer savings in every application. Bucket trucks appear to be examples of an unsuitable application,
although the sample size is limited. The other poor performing HEV vehicle with worse fuel economy was a HEV diesel
school bus; different HEV diesel school bus, as well as a pair of HEV gas school buses performed better than their comparison
vehicles.
Table 2 also uses the nationwide average fuel prices to estimate the cost per mile between the alternative fuel vehicle and
the conventional fuel comparison vehicle. This is done to compare alternative fuel vehicles that used a different fuel, CNG or
LPG, than their comparison vehicle. None of the LPG school bus eets showed fuel cost savings when using nationwide aver-
age fuel prices. When fuel costs are recalculated, however, using the grant recipients actual fuel prices, two of the LPG school
bus eets show cost savings compared to diesel buses and the other two show much smaller losses. This highlights the im-
pact that local fuel prices can have on the success of alternate fuel vehicles. While the actual fuel prices shown in Table 2 may
have less relevance for eet managers trying to make a purchase decision with their own local prices, these results are proof
of concept, showing that alternative fuel vehicles can reduce fuel cost not just in theory but also in practice.
3.4. Incremental vehicle cost
The estimated fuel cost savings and greenhouse gas reductions must be put in context of the investment needed to adopt
alternative fuel vehicles. Table 1 would seem to suggest that school bus eets should forgo LPG, with a fuel cost per mile of
$0.75 using average fuel prices, in favor of hybrid technology, with a fuel cost per mile of $0.46. However, this ignores the
upfront cost that must be incurred to purchase an alternative fuel vehicle instead of a conventional fuel vehicle, and the var-
iation in cost between technologies. Consider that the HEV diesel school bus has an incremental cost of approximately
$85,500 compared to an incremental cost of approximately $8800 for LPG school buses.
5
Table 2 shows the annual fuel cost
savings or loss calculated using both actual fuel prices and average fuel prices. These annual fuel cost savings or loss numbers
can be combined with the incremental costs presented in Table 1 to estimate a rough payback period. A full analysis of the life-
cycle cost of alternative fuel vehicles would also take into account factors such as maintenance costs, repair costs, and training
costs, which is beyond the scope of this analysis.
The vehicle eet with the best payback is the neighborhood electric vehicle that not only saves fuel costs, but also costs
less to purchase than its comparison vehicle. Neighborhood electric vehicles have the drawback of being top speed restricted,
so are limited in their applications. One of the four LPG school bus eets achieved a payback period of under 5 years, and a
second LPG school bus eet achieved a payback period of under 8 years. The other two LPG school bus eets showed an an-
nual loss. Thus alternative fuel vehicles can generate cost savings, but do so unreliably with very different outcomes even
from eets implementing the same technology. The two eets of CNG vans also achieved different paybacks, about 12
and 35 years. The reason for this is one eet of CNG vans is operated by a utility company whose price for CNG was only
$0.66 per GGE of CNG, much less than the other eets price of $2.56 per GGE of CNG. This shows the importance of local
pricing on the success of alternative fuel vehicles. Overall 13 of the 20 eets showed payback periods of over 20 years or
showed annual fuel cost increases. This demonstrates the risk inherent in adopting new technology and the difculty of
making the nancial case for alternative fuel vehicles without subsidy. To overcome this challenge, the DOEs The DOEs
Alternative Fuels Data Center provides a searchable list of Federal and State incentives and laws that can provide nancial
assistance with purchasing these vehicles.
5
Recent changes in EPA emissions standards have reduced the incremental costs of alternate fuel vehicles; e.g., the incremental cost reported for the 2011
and 2012 model year LPG school buses was $6900.
A. Windecker, A. Ruder / Transportation Research Part D 23 (2013) 3440 37
Table 2
Fuel cost savings by eet.
Fleet, eet size Annual fuel cost
savings (loss) per
vehicle using actual
fuel price ($)
Annual fuel cost
savings (loss) per
vehicle using
average fuel price ($)
Miles/year Fuel Actual
fuel
price ($)
MPG Fuel cost/mile
using actual
fuel price ($)
Fuel cost/mile
using average
fuel price ($)
CNG sedans, 2 NA 947 8108 CNG (GGE) NA 24.0 NA 0.09
Comp gasoline NA 16.4 NA 0.21
CNG heavy duty trucks, 10 3733 1072 5468 CNG (GGE) 0.66 3.9 0.17 0.55
Comp diesel 4.43 5.2 0.85 0.74
CNG Vans, 16 1264 459 5217 CNG (GGE) 0.66 11.1 0.06 0.19
Comp gasoline 3.64 12.1 0.30 0.28
CNG Vans, 161 433 522 4643 CNG (GGE) 2.56 7.6 0.34 0.28
Comp gasoline 3.69 8.6 0.43 0.39
Neighborhood elec. vehicles, 6 NA 664 1943 EV (kW h) NA 6.1 NA 0.02
Comp gasoline NA 9.4 NA 0.36
HEV diesel bucket trucks, 8 (198) (191) 7713 HEV diesel 4.00 4.8 0.84 0.81
Comp diesel 4.00 4.9 0.82 0.79
HEV diesel heavy duty truck, 1 NA 615 5064 HEV diesel NA 3.9 NA 0.98
Comp diesel NA 3.5 NA 1.11
HEV diesel heavy duty truck, 1 1350 1619 10,744 HEV diesel 3.22 10.0 0.32 0.38
Comp diesel 3.22 7.2 0.45 0.54
HEV diesel passenger buses, 5 5152 5375 18,323 HEV diesel 3.70 8.1 0.46 0.48
Comp diesel 3.70 5.0 0.74 0.77
HEV diesel school bus, 1 (121) (145) 10,760 HEV diesel 3.21 7.3 0.44 0.53
Comp diesel 3.21 7.5 0.43 0.52
HEV diesel school bus, 1 2224 2751 12,880 HEV diesel 3.12 9.6 0.33 0.40
Comp diesel 3.12 6.3 0.50 0.62
HEV gas school buses, 2 272 326 21,240 HEV gasoline 2.81 7.4 0.38 0.45
Comp gasoline 2.81 7.2 0.39 0.47
HEV gas sedans, 3 259 297 4871 HEV gasoline 2.94 41.7 0.07 0.08
Comp gasoline 2.94 23.8 0.12 0.14
LPG school buses, 6 (207) (3414) 16,863 LPG 1.92 4.0 0.47 0.76
Comp diesel 3.18 6.9 0.46 0.56
LPG school buses, 6 1170 (2017) 14,947 LPG 1.97 3.9 0.50 0.79
Comp diesel 3.44 5.9 0.58 0.65
LPG school buses, 8 1817 (1118) 12,665 LPG 1.50 4.1 0.36 0.74
Comp diesel 2.98 5.9 0.51 0.65
LPG school buses, 4 (587) (3922) 14,051 LPG 1.86 3.7 0.50 0.82
Comp diesel 3.23 7.1 0.46 0.54
LPG pickup trucks, 3 234 (890) 10,828 LPG 1.87 7.4 0.25 0.42
Comp gasoline 2.76 10.1 0.27 0.34
PHEV diesel school bus
a
1 4486 5156 14,692 PHEV diesel 3.36 10.0 0.34 0.39
Comp diesel 3.36 5.2 0.64 0.74
PHEV diesel school buses,
a
2 247 304 12,870 PHEV diesel 3.15 8.1 0.39 0.47
Comp diesel 3.15 7.8 0.41 0.50
a
Underestimates the fuel cost per mile of PHEV vehicles because grant recipients did not report the amount of electricity consumed by PHEV vehicles only the amount of diesel consumed.
3
8
A
.
W
i
n
d
e
c
k
e
r
,
A
.
R
u
d
e
r
/
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
P
a
r
t
D
2
3
(
2
0
1
3
)
3
4

4
0
3.5. Fuel station cost
An added cost for alternative fuel vehicle eet operators may be lack of fueling station availability. DOEs Alternative Fuels
Data Center, Alternative Fueling Station Locator provides a convenient way for eet operators to search for alternative fuel
stations in their area. Having the ability to fuel the vehicle at the eets garage, however, can be a signicant convenience.
Both of the grant recipients with PHEV vehicles who responded to the phone survey answered that they have on-site charg-
ing stations. Eight of the nine grant recipients with LPG vehicles who responded to the phone survey answered that they
have an on-site fueling station. Three of the seven grant recipients with CNG vehicles who responded to the phone survey
answered that they have on-site fueling stations. The least expensive fueling station type was the electric vehicle charging
station, with the average cost of $10,000 per dispenser. LPG stations are slightly more expensive, costing an average of
$65,000 for a tank and dispenser. The CNG stations were signicantly more expensive. These CNG stations included one
or two quick ll dispensers and cost on average $1.5 million.
6
None of the grant recipients included in this survey installed
a slow ll CNG station, which is much less expensive than the quick ll stations. As a point of caution, because wage rates vary
between states, the cost of installing fueling stations in New York State will differ from the cost in other states.
3.6. Greenhouse gas emissions
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is an important reason why many eets adopt alternative fuel vehicles. Table 3 shows
the well-to-wheels greenhouse gas emissions
7
of each eet. It does this by using the fuel economy results for each eet and the
greenhouse gas intensity of each fuel type provided by the DOE Argonne National Laboratory GREET Fleet Footprint Calculator.
Table 3 also shows the GHG emissions for the eets comparison vehicles running on conventional fuel for a benchmark. For all
but three eets, GHG emissions were reduced by adopting alternative fuel vehicles. The largest reductions were achieved by
electric, HEV, and PHEV eets.
3.7. Grantee experience with adoption of alternative fuel vehicles
The 33 grant recipients who purchased vehicles were also asked to participate in a phone survey, all but one responded.
The purpose of the phone survey was to identify issues that the grant recipients faced in deploying alternative fuel vehicles.
The phone survey asked:
Would you recommend this vehicle technology to others?
What has been your experience with vehicle maintenance?
What has been your experience with vehicle performance?
Do you have your own fueling station? If not, what is the distance to the station you use?
All of the grant recipients deploying CNG responded that they would recommend CNG. However, one of the seven de-
scribed some very serious setbacks they experienced with the CNG vehicle. This respondent complained of leaking CNG
tanks, transmission problems caused by the added weight, and a design aw that placed the fuel gauge underneath the vehi-
cle. This made it difcult for drivers to check the fuel remaining because they needed to exit the vehicle to do so, and this,
together with the closest fueling station being 13 miles from their garage, meant that the vehicles ran out of fuel multiple
times. Unlike with gasoline or diesel, they found that they could not bring fuel to the vehicles, and instead had to tow the
vehicles to the CNG station. On the other hand, respondents highlighted several benets of CNG. One city found that CNG is
quieter than diesel, which was a very useful attribute for their CNG street sweeper because it was assigned for night oper-
ations. In the respondents opinion this makes up for the increased maintenance issues they experienced with the CNG street
sweeper. The use of CNG also alleviated the hassle of scheduling diesel deliveries as the gas is piped rather than trucked to
the Citys garage.
The results for the hybrid vehicles, HEV and PHEV, were mixed. Of the 17 responses, nine would recommend, four would
not, and four were uncertain. The primary problem that respondents raised, mentioned by four respondents, was disappoint-
ment with fuel economy compared to what they expected based on manufacturers claims. Other respondents were pleased
with the fuel economy. Another issue raised by respondents was that the complexity of the hybrid system meant that they
could not conduct repairs themselves. In addition, when the vehicles were in for repairs they experienced delays with parts.
Fleet operators should therefore account for the different maintenance needs that alternate fuel vehicles have.
All nine of the respondents with LPG vehicles recommended the vehicles, although one complained that the fuel economy
was less than expected. One respondent found that the style of driving can have a large impact on the fuel economy, and
pointed out that proper driver training is a necessity. All of the grant recipients funded under this grant were required to
6
Seventy-nine electric vehicle charging stations were sampled; two LPG stations, one had a single tank and dispenser, and the other two tanks and one
dispenser. Of the three CNG stations, one had 40 time ll and one quick ll dispensers, and two had of two quick ll dispensers. The costs of these stations were
similar.
7
GHG emissions are calculated from well to wheels, meaning that the emissions from fuel extraction, processing, distribution, etc. are added to the amount
of emissions released from burning the fuel itself.
A. Windecker, A. Ruder / Transportation Research Part D 23 (2013) 3440 39
conduct training for their drivers and mechanics. Two of the recipients spoke to the range limit of a vehicle that cannot be
conveniently refueled en route. One school district is in the process of asking other school districts in the area to select pro-
pane as their alternate fuel of choice so that the schools will be able to use each others fueling stations. Fleet operators con-
sidering alternative fuel vehicles of any type should create a training plan and review the fueling stations available in their
area.
4. Conclusion
Deploying alternative fuel vehicles gives eet operators the potential to realize nancial and environmental benets.
Uncertainties surrounding the cost and benets of alternative fuel vehicles present a decision-making barrier. This barrier
may be overcome using data for the 332 alternative fuel vehicles funded under NYSERDAs administration of the DOEs Clean
Cities FY09 PetroleumReduction Technologies Project for the Transportation Sector funded by ARRA. This data, including fuel
economy, incremental vehicle purchase cost, fueling station purchase cost, greenhouse gas reductions, and fuel cost savings
can be used by eet operators to better anticipate the result of adding alternative fuel vehicles to their eet. Combining the
data presented in this analysis with local pricing data and knowledge of local conditions and existing eet fuel economy can
help inform eet operators as to what alternative fuel vehicle technologies are best suited to local needs and conditions.
Alternative fuel vehicles demonstrate greenhouse gas and fuel cost savings, however, these benets were not experienced
uniformly by the vehicle eets. Achieving success with alternative fuel vehicles is dependent on local fuel price, local oper-
ating conditions, and the fuel economy of the eets existing conventional fuel vehicles.
References
Argonne National Laboratory, US Department of Energy, 2012. GREET Fleet Footprint Calculator. <http://energychoicemodel.com/eetcalculator>.
US Department of Energy, 2012a. Clean Cities Alternative Fuel Price Report January 2012. <www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/afpr_jan_12.pdf>.
US Department of Energy, 2012b. Alternative Fuels Data Center, Federal & State Incentives & Laws, Alternative Fuel Excise Tax Credit. <www.afdc.energy.gov/
afdc/laws/law/US/319>.
US Energy Information Administration, 2012. Electric Power Monthly February 2012. <www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher. cfm?t=
epmt_5_3>.
Table 3
Well to wheels GHG emissions by eet.
Fleet Sample
size
MPG
a
GHG short tons per
10,000 miles
Comp
fuel
Comp MPG Comp GHG
short tons per
10,000 miles
GHG (reduction)
increase per
10,000 miles
CNG sedans 2 24.0 4.1 Gasoline 16.4 7.6 (3.5)
CNG heavy duty trucks 10 3.9 25.4 Diesel 5.2 27.2 (1.8)
CNG vans 16 11.1 8.9 Gasoline 12.1 10.4 (1.5)
CNG vans 161 7.6 13.0 Gasoline 8.6 14.5 (1.5)
Neighborhood electric vehicles 6 6.1 1.4 Gasoline 9.4 13.3 (11.9)
HEV diesel bucket trucks 8 4.8 29.8 Diesel 4.9 28.8 1.0
HEV diesel heavy duty truck 1 3.9 36.1 Diesel 3.5 40.5 (4.4)
HEV diesel school bus 1 7.3 19.4 Diesel 7.5 18.9 0.5
HEV diesel heavy duty truck 1 10.0 14.1 Diesel 7.2 19.6 (5.5)
HEV diesel passenger buses 5 8.1 17.5 Diesel 5.0 28.3 (10.8)
HEV diesel school bus 1 9.6 14.8 Diesel 6.3 22.6 (7.8)
HEV gasoline school buses 2 7.4 16.8 Gasoline 7.2 17.4 (0.6)
HEV gasoline sedans 3 41.7 3.0 Gasoline 23.8 5.3 (2.3)
LPG school buses 6 4.0 19.3 Diesel 6.9 20.5 (1.2)
LPG school buses 6 3.9 20.0 Diesel 5.9 24.0 (4.0)
LPG school buses 8 4.1 18.8 Diesel 5.9 24.0 (5.2)
LPG pickup trucks 3 7.4 10.6 Gasoline 10.1 12.4 (1.8)
LPG school buses 4 3.7 20.9 Diesel 7.1 19.9 1.0
PHEV diesel school bus
b
1 10.0 14.1 Diesel 5.2 27.0 (12.9)
PHEV diesel school buses
b
2 8.1 17.3 Diesel 7.8 18.2 (0.9)
a
CNG vehicles listed as miles per GGE. Electric vehicles listed as miles per kW h.
b
Underestimates the GHG emissions of PHEV vehicles because grant recipients did not report the amount of electricity consumed by PHEV vehicles only
the amount of diesel consumed.
40 A. Windecker, A. Ruder / Transportation Research Part D 23 (2013) 3440