Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 11-21-2000-6cORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: November 21, 2000 Action Agen a Item No. ~~ SUBJECT: Alternative Fuel and Low-Emission Vehicle Work Grou DEPARTMENT: ERCD PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): Report from Work Group Information on MSERG Grant INFORMATION CONTACT: David Stancil, 245-2590 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 968-4501 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 336-227-2031 PURPOSE: To receive a presentation on the report of the Alternative Fuel and Low-Emission Vehicle (AFLEV) Work Group, and to authorize staff to submit a Mobile Source Emission Reduction Grant (MSERG) application. BACKGROUND: In 1999, the Board adopted a series of three resolutions related to improving air quality and air quality awareness in the County. In addition to becoming a member of the N.C. Air Awareness Coalition and instituting a County government Ozone awareness program, the Board also instructed staff to work with the Commission for the Environment Air Quality Committee and electric/solar expert Marty Mandell on a plan to lower emissions in the County vehicle fleet and convert appropriate County fleet vehicles to alternative-fuel vehicles (AFV's). Driving many of the air quality concerns is the increase in vehicle miles traveled each year and the subsequent effect on the ozone layer. Orange County is included in North Carolina's recommendations to U.S. EPA on 8-hour ozone non-attainment designations, consistent with the adoption and implementation fior the Governor's Clean Air Plan. EPA comments on this recommendation are expected in December. Since January, the AFLEV Work Group has met to 1) look at opportunities for alternative fuel vehicles, 2) examine other local programs (such as the Town of Chapel Hill's' AFV's), and 3) identify vehicles in the County's fleet that are scheduled for replacement and might be candidates for AFV's. The Work Group report (attached) proposes that, as an initial step, the County apply to NC DENR for an Mobile Source Emission Reduction Grant (MSERG) by the December 31 grant deadline to fund the cost differential for purchase of six compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles and one electric vehicle. These vehicles would be replaced in FY 2001-2002 through the regular vehicle replacement process, and based on their use and mileage would be good candidates for AFV's. The report also proposes that the grant include a request for the construction of a CNG refueling station at the County public works facility in Hillsborough. The Town of Chapel Hill has expressed interest in an arrangement that would also allow County AFV's to use the Town's refueling station on Airport Road in Chapel Hill. The addition of a County CNG station would create a northern Orange station to match the one in southern Orange, and expand the statewide network of CNG refueling stations (a goal of the state MSERG program). A summary of the vehicles proposed for purchase and information on the refueling facility is provided in the AFLEV report (attached). FINANCIAL IMPACT: The total amount of the project is anticipated to total $206,000, with a grant request to NCDENR for $81,500. The AFV's to be purchased are non-emergency vehicles due for replacement (with one exception) on the current replacement schedule (approximately $102,500 in the current CIP), and the cost differential far purchasing these AFV's would be covered by the grant (approximately $50,500). Approximately $53,000 will be needed to construct the CNG refueling station at the Public Works facility, purchase electrical recharging equipment and train mechanics at the Motor Pool. Of this amount, $31,000 would be requested through the grant. The required County match of approximately $22,000 will be included in the 2001-11 Capital Investment Plan and the 2001-02 annual operating budget. This amount will cover the County's cost of infrastructure and staff training. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board accept the report, and authorize the staff to develop a Mobile Source Emission Reduction Grant to be submitted to the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Air Quality Division by December 31, 2000, along the lines of that proposed in the report -with any changes or revisions as desired from the Board. Alternative Fuel Vehicle Options Report to the Orange County Board ofCorr~missioners Alternative Fuel and Low Emission Vehicle Workgroup November 14, 2000 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction Acknowledging that protection of the air quality in Orange County is essential for the well being of the County's residents, the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) passed three air quality resolutions in 1999. These resolutions directed County employees to begin an Ozone Air Quality Action Plan, to investigate low emission and fuel-efficient vehicles, and to examine the purchase of alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) as an option far county fleet emissions reduction. In response to these directives, the Alternative Fuels and Low Emission Vehicles (AFLEV) Workgroup was established to lead the investigation of these latter issues and to propose an action plan which includes the potential purchase of a number of AFVs. .... ` °~' This report summarizes the findings AFLEV Goals of this workgroup and offers a proposed action plan for the group Short-term: Research the advantages and disadvantages of the and for Orange County. A set of various alternative fuel vehicle options. Use that information to gpa1S (Short-term, intermediate- apply for a State of NC, Division of Air Quality, Mobile Source - ' term, and long-term) has been ' ': Emissions Reduction Grant that would cover some of the costs associated with purchasing multiple AFVs during focal year developed by the group, and is 2001. , ' listed in the box at the left. These ~' goals are consistent with the'series Intermediate Term: Explore the possibility of acquiring an of air quality resolutions passed by alternative fuel bus, continue replacing gasoline vehicles with the BOCC over the last year and a AFVs as appropriate, develop the educational component of the half and with the provisional goals county s AFVpragram, coordinate with other local bodies through the newly formed Triangle J Clean Cities Program. still being finalized by the Shaping Orange County's Future (SOCF) '' Long-term: Minimize emissions from the county s vehicle fleet ;.. Task Force. Note: The ' and maximize the fleet's fuel efficiency. recommendations herein involve ~.. ° - - complex technical issues that relate to the selection of alternative fuel vehicles. A reasonable amount of research has been performed to evaluate the different options available, but it is important to note that only time will tell which alternatives prove the most-feasible options. Sectzon 1-Short-Term Goal Research the advantages and disadvantages of the various alternative fuel vehicle options. Use that information to apply for a State of NC, Division of Air Quality, Mobile Source Emissions Reduction Grant that would cover some of the costs associated with purchasing multiple AFVs during fascal year 2001. The AFLEV Workgroup considered the following three criteria during evaluation of the options for vehicles to meet County requirements: • Emissions -There should be a significant reduction in emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and reactive hydrocarbons relative to gasoline-powered vehicles. • Performance and Range -The alternative-fuel vehicles must be reliable. They should not have substantially higher maintenance costs than conventional vehicles. Most importantly, the vehicles must have adequate travel range for use in the County. The range must be higher than that required for use by cities, villages, or universities. • Costs -The costs for the vehicle and for the refueling stations must be evaluated. . . . . . . . .~ Emissions and Performance: The alternative fuel options that have been considered by the workgroup are electric, compressed natural gas (CNG), and ethanol (85% ethanol and l5% gas, generally notated as "E85" or simply "ethanol"), or bi-fuel combinations. Liquefied natural gas, and methanol have not been considered, and converted bi-fuel systems (systems that run on either CNG or gasoline) have been discounted in favor of originally equipped bi-fuel vehicles because of safety and maintenance considerations. The primary assessment of these fuel options was based on the degree to which their use will contribute to lower emissions from County fleet vehicles. For example, solar and electric vehicles have outstanding technical issues with battery operation. A brief chart detailing the emissions comparisons of each of the fuels is listed below: Table 1-Emissions No tailpipe emissions (100%), although maybe 30-40% reduction when considering power plant emissions Alternative Fuel Source 74% i tail pipe emissions (100%), reduction may depend on power plant emissions No tail pipe emissions, .reduction depends on efficiency of power plant' 85% 70% Up to 30% No A decrease in carcinogenic hydrocarbons and in C023 1: According to "A$Cs of AFVs", (California Energy Commission, 11 /99) electricity from a grid source of power leads to a 30% overall reduction in emissions from gasoline powered engines. If solar power is used, the reduction is 40%. 2: NC Division of Air Quality; 3: http://www.grcenfuels.orp/ethaair.html As shown in Table 1 above, the greatest overall reductions in emissions come from electric vehicles, followed by CNG, and then ethanol. A decision based on this assessment alone would tend to favor the purchase of electric vehicles aver gasoline vehicles and over any of the other AFVs. However, factors other than emissions are also important t6 the purchase decision. Travel range per fill-up is very important to consider in the purchase for use by County departments and agencies because of the service area covered. Travel range varies from fuel to fuel. Generally, electric vehicles have the least range, while ethanol vehicles have the greatest. Bi-fuel vehicles can also have extensive ranges if both fuel tanks are used. Table 2 below compares the expected range of several types of vehicles. . I .1 Table 2 -Travel Range for Selected Vehicles/Types Vehicle t~r}altie and kypc' r 'tw i i~" a r„ fuel type°~~ { ' c 4 ,r ~:~, w ~iF'r Engine '~' ~~ ~~ Y'i~ .i}1w 'i~.a ected~ auge per till up/charl;e ~ s iii r „~ Dodge Ram (Van) CNG dedicated V8 200-300 mi. Crown Victoria (Car) CNG dedicated V8 100-175 mi. (extended range avail.) Ford F250 (Truck) CNG dedicated VS 150-200 mi. (extended range avail.) Ford Ranger 4x2 (Truck) Electric (PbA) 3-phase AC motor 50 mi. Chevrolet Cavalier (Car) CNG/Gas $i-fuel 4-cyl. 180 rni. Ford F150 (Truck) CNG/Gas Bi-fuel V8 100-200mi (400 mi. if gasoline is also used GMC Sierra (Truck) CNG/Gas Bi-fuel V8 550 mi. (150 on CNG/400 on Gas) Source: www.afde.doe.goy 1: There are multiple types of batteries in use. Each one allows for a different vehicle range. Lead Acid (PbA) batteries are more traditional and have a fairly low range. According to Bill Terry of Chapel Hill Public Works, only Lead Acid batteries are available in NC right now. Bi-fuel vehicles have the highest travel range, but only when gasoline is used (because the CNG fuel supply has been used). However, when vehicle operation is shifted to gasoline, the emissions of air contaminants are increased. As a result, the advantages of the alternative fuel are lost. This fact, plus the possibility that operators will preferentially use gasoline instead of CNG in the bi-fuel vehicles, makes them less desirable than dedicated CNG vehicles. Applications for the Mobile Source Emissions Reduction Grants that include bi-fuel vehicles are not as likely to be funded as those proposing dedicated CNG vehicles. Casts• In addition to emissions and vehicle performance, cast considerations must also be factored into a decision about the selection of AFV options. Although they are still more expensive than gasoline vehicles, AFVs are becoming more and more affordable. Greater scales of production and new technology have decreased the costs of these vehicles substantially. If one compares the costs of the vehicle; costs of the fuel and fuel facility; and maintenance costs, however, the purchase of many AFVs is not yet cast effective over the short-run. Long-run costs, though, are much closer, and if the monetary value of improved air quality is included, some AFV options can be cost-effective. A complete cost~benefit analysis of individual options has not been completed, but information developed regarding the costs associated with acquiring and maintaining an AFV is given in the Table 3 below. 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 3 -Price Differential by Fuel Type ' ~ s,1 >.: e4= 5t~cker:Y~rtc State c h act rice ~~ _ ~; #t difker~~,e~ l , ~'d~J'c1in~1- 'M .. ~ ~ ~ ine ors : (~asc~ .w, c+*~ ) Crown Victoria N/A , $4,000 "` FordF-1S0 - N/A $3,600 ~ ~ _~ odge Ram Passenge $4,200 N/A Van Chevrolet Cavalier $6,000 N/A Ford F-150 $4,300 Ford Ranger (4x2) $150-$200 more per month for new truck 36 mo. lease, about N/A equal for used truck 36 mo. leaseZ Solectria Force (car) $12,0003 N/A 1: State contract price is listed if there is/was a contract for this car, otherwise sticker price difference is given. 2: $549/month, 36 month lease for 2001 Electric Ford Ranger (Family Ford in GA); South Lake Ford (GA) says to expect $650/mo. for new or $350/mo. fpr refurbished 1998 models. Cost of regular Ford Ranger 36 month lease is about $350/mo. There are no NC dealers who currently carry this vehicle. 3: Force is only available in electric. This price difference is compared to a Honda Civic Sedan (gasoline). Solectria Force lists at about $28,000 There are three cost elements involved in purchase of vehicles, including: 1. Purchase Cost -Costs for alternative-fuel vehicles are higher than for conventional vehicles, as shown in the table. As the demand for alternative-fuel vehicles increases and as - technalogy improves, costs should be reduced. The higher purchase costs maybe offset by other factors, including reduced emissions of air pollutants. 2. Maintenance Costs - In general, maintenance costs aze lower for both electric and CNG vehicles when compared to gasoline vehicles. 3. Fuel Costs -Fuel costs include both the cost of the fuel and the initial purchase costs for refueling facilities/equipment. Table 4 below lists estimates of some fuel casts and refueling facility/equipment costs. It should be noted that the future price and supply of these fuels can fluctuate and aze sometimes unpredictable. Table 4 -Fuel and Cost Comparison Gasaliune $1.07 ounty's price per gallon - off of State bulk purchase (The price varies. This is an average of ast two tanker orders: $0.97 and $1.17. Refuelin facili : no additional costs Ethanol $1.30 fate's price per gallon, we would need to negotiate our own contract with the supplier. efueling facility: Cheaper than ;natural gas. Would require purchase of fuel storage tank d some type of pumping mechanism. Natural Gas $0:85 er gasoline gallon equivalent. This is an average cost. Reported range is between $0.70 and 0.90. Refueling facility: Very expensive but will serve many vehicles. A 50-cfm (cubic eet per minute) compressor and its necessary storage, dispenser and accounting components, hick can handle 15-20 vehicles costs a roximatel $160,000. (Electric` Solar $1.40 er gasoline gallon equivalent. Assuming 5 charges/week, 50 miles per charge, for 10 years. 7000 initial investment fora 1.5 kw s stem. Grid $0.25 er gasoline gallon equivalent. Based on $0.50 for full charge ; 50 miles of travel per charge. hangers range from $ 600 or so to $ 2,500 for a single car. Fast chargers, which can ignificantly reduce the time involved in charging a caz, are much more expensive (etvi.org) 1: Electric vehicles can use either a photovoltaic panel (solar) or the electric current from the power plant (grid) for recharging. The Electric Transit Vehicle Institute, (www.etvi.org), says charge costs for an electric car using the grid are about.l/3rd the cost of gasoline. 2: A reasonable estimate according to NC Solar Center at NCSU. 7 i • • • r • • + • • • • • • • • • •~ Final Evaluations (Electricl: In working through the options and maintaining an awareness of the goals, three key considerations have been found to be most important to the AFLEV Workgroup. They are 1) lowering emissions; 2) acquiring reliable and versatile vehicles; and 3) developing regional collaboration. Electric vehicles aze the best option for emissions reduction, although there are questions about indirect links to power plant emission. Additionally, fuel facility development costs are likely to be least for electric vehicles, because chazging/refueling equipment can be purchased for only one or two vehicles and can be easily upgraded later, while fiiel infrastructure for CNG and ethanol vehicles would be designed for many vehicles, leading to larger up-front casts. The major drawback for electric vehicles is their short driving range. This has been a major concern of the group. Even with their other emissions and fuel cost advantages, if they cannot offer a similar performance to gasoline vehicles, they may not be the best choice at this point. Some final concerns are 1) Electric vehicles aze often for sale only by small, lesser-known companies. This means they produce relatively few of them, which can keep the cost high. 2) The electric vehicles that use the latest and best technology are often only available in certain regions (generally California and the northeast). 3) Often electric vehicles must be leased (ex: Ford Ranger), and servicing must take place at dealerships in other states, which could lead to significant down-time in the case of needed repairs. In the short-term then, we could assume that the disadvantages of electric vehicles outweigh the advantages. However, there do appear to be two candidate vehicles in the County fleet replacement schedule that have short driving range needs-and thus might be appropriate for electric vehicle replacement. final Evaluations CNG and Ethanol All gasoline-powered vehicles manufactured since 1970 can run 10% ethanol fuel (90%gasoline and 10%ethanol) on their production engines. While this does lead to lower emissions, it is not considered a low emission fuel. To get to that category, the mixture must include at least 85% ethanol (E85). Most vehicles are not equipped to run on E85 at this point in time. However the Ford Taurus and Ford Ranger aze built ready to run on either gasoline or E85. For example, new Rangers purchased by the County in the last few years can run on E85 if there is access to this fuel. The State of North Carolina now has about 1,000 vehicles that will run on E85, but they are only using ethanol with about 100 of them (all in Raleigh) because the state does not yet have facilities set up to dispense this fuel. According to State DOT Equipment manager John Burns, there is no commercially available ethanol fuel available in North Carolina at this time, but plans are underway to make it so. Burns suggested that if the County wanted to run some of our vehicles on Ethanol, an arrangement could be worked out with the state. To do so, the County would only need a storage tank and a pump. This allows the County to immediately lower emissions on vehicles already owned, with limited up-front costs. It is important to note, though, that ethanol emissions, while lower than pure gasoline, are still not nearly as law as CNG emissions. Additionally, CNG engines (unlike ethanol) are available in many different horsepowers, so CNG could be used to run other equipment or vehicles in the future - making an initial investment in a CNG re-fueling facility a potentially good long-range decision. Another benefit of ethanol is that both UNC and the Town of Chapel Hill aze interested in using ethanol fuel. The fact that E85 cars aze already available locally and that the fuel is available 9 locally is also very positive. However, there aze very few of these cars around now.. If we could get Chapel Hill and the University to commit some resources to ethanol, it might be worth it to look into setting up this system as an intermediate goal. Ethanol storage location would be a concern, as the Public Works facility does not now have an extra tank that could be converted to Ethanol storage. Anew tank and pump mechanism would have to be added. Recommendation for Vehicle Selection A final determination of which AFV options are best for Orange County includes a comparison of all the data presented so faz. In order to provide a simple overview of all of the eazlier charts and tables, each of the chazacteristics and considerations have been combined loosely together in the following advantage/disadvantage table: _ r lectric 'd ower emissions than the other AFV options. ery limited range. Longer refueling time. Not ower maintenance costs than gasoline powe vailable locally. Must be leased and serviced from ehicles, much cheaper re-fueling, less initial ut-of--state dealer. Less powerful. Limited networ apital outlay for refueling equipment than f refueling options. G option. Smooth and quiet Solar era emissions. Completely renewable power igh up-front start up costs. Very limited range. ource. Free charging after initial investment in nger charging/refueling time. Not available olar equipment. Refueling center is moveable ocally. Must be leased and serviced from out-of- d easily added to for larger fleets. tale dealer. Less powerful. Limited network of efuelin o lions. NG edicated ower emissions than bath ethanol and ge of vehicle reduced. Limited network of asoline. Cheaper fuel. Less vehicle efueling centers. Still a nonrenewable fuel source. intenance cost. Still a reasonable travel xpensive up-front costs for refueling facility. ange for many county vehicles. CNG fuel and ehicles becoming increasingly popular (Town f Chapel Hill has several vehicles and is aining their mechanics to work on them). imilar power to gasoline engine. i-fuel Same as dedicated CNG, but added convenience sers may choose to use gasoline often and f being able to use gasoline when CNG is not herefore, no real air quality benefits come from vailable. No loss of range. caning this vehicle. These vehicles are not referred b DENR for MSERG fundin . thanol (E85) renewable resource fuel. Maybe available for ecause ethanol absorbs water, it can only be sto urchase from breweries. Lower emissions th or a short time. This means we can only buy small asoline. As powerful as a gasoline engine. ounts and may not get the best price. In fact, it ome cars can run on it right now with no y nat be any cheaper than gasoline. Finally, it justments necessary (Ford Ranger, Taurus). higher emissions than other alternative fuels. hapel Hill and UNC interested in Ethanol. Based on all the above information (and the factors identified as important -low emissions; reliable, versatile vehicles; regional collaboration), it seems that CNG vehicles aze the best option at this point. These vehicles have sufficient range, very low emissions, and a readily available and stable fuel supply. CNG-fueled vehicles have already been partially funded in Chapel Hill and other nearby azeas through earlier NCDENR Mobile Source Emissions Reduction Grants, the same funding source the County is hoping to access. Ethanol could be a good option to explore further as part of the workgroup's intermediate goal, if we can decide how to set up the refueling infrastructure and if we are willing to settle for only . Imo. .]~. -~ slightly reduced emissions. Ethanol should be considered for use in existing vehicles that can use the fuel. Electric vehicles offer many long-term opportunities, and should become a more viable option in the near future and should also remain on our options shortlist. . Proposed Plan The N.C. Division of Air Quality's primary goal for the MSERG grants in fiscal year 2001 is to reduce nitrous oxides (NOx) by funding increased infrastructure for alternative fueled vehicles. The County's optimal goal maybe replacing conventional vehicles that aze already due for replacement with AFVs, where practical. As such, the £oolowing list is a compilation of vehicles identified with the Public Works Department which are 1) scheduled for replacement in fiscal yeaz 2001, and 2) would be a candidate for AFV's. Each new vehicle would be a dedicated CNG or, in one case, a dedicated electric vehicle. Tn order to refuel these. vehicles it would also be necessary to purchase and assemble a CNG re- fueling station at the Orange County Public Works office in Hillsborough. Also, the County could enter into an agreement with the Town of Chapel Hill for mutual use of refueling facilities. This would enable County vehicles in southern Orange to use the Town's refueling center at Chapel Hill Public Works, and the Town has expressed interest in discussing such an arrangement, which might enhance both Town and County efficiency. This would provide a "northern Orange" and "southern Orange" distribution facility for CNG vehicles. As previously stated, providing such infrastructure is a stated goal for the MSERG grants this yeaz, and pursuit of this arrangement would likely strengthen the County's application for funding assistance to NCDAQ in December. The County has a computerized monitoring system in place that will enable staff to measure and track the fuel efficiency and cost-benefit of AFV's. Documentation for each of the replacement AFV's will allow the County to monitor and evaluate the vehicles (what are the maintenance costs, are the AFV's tougher on tires, what are the annual cost savings as opposed to emissiones reductions, for example), and after an appropriate period of time, perform cost~benefit analysis on the AFV's versus conventional gasoline vehicles. 10 As shown is the following table, we would propose pursuing a demonstration project with primarily CNG vehicles, consistent with the type of vehicles on the market and projected effectiveness. These would include six CNG vehicles and one electric vehicle. ~. Table 5 - Caun Fleet Vehicles Suitable for Re lacement b AFVs i FY 200 -02 Vl~,_~#~ YFar 1 'Make'"t 1 ~~l @~iicle ~S'. 1 t1o~ ~`££ ~ Ue t~"~ 101 81Tl~nt ~te;•'i'. r ~ ~ r ~S~y r "ki Pro tis ~1~lor°~~ c~n,e~itMwlth. ' Dodge van (CNG, $18,514), 250 miles per fill-up. CNG cost differential - 32 1986 Ford E350 Van Public Works 6/2001 4,245. adge van (CNG, $18,514), 250 miles Pickup er fill-up. CNG cast differential - 125 1986 Ford Ran er truck Public Works 6/2001 4,245. ord F-150 truck (CNG, $19,620), 200 Pickup files per fill-up. CNG cost differential 75 1988 Chevrolet C30 truck Public Works 6/2001 3,139. Club- odge 15-passenger van (CNG, wagon Recreation 24,408), 300 miles per fill-up. CNG 85 1986 Ford van Van and Parks 6/2001 st differential - $4 482. Ford Crown Victoria (CNG, $24,461), Passenger 175 miles per fill-up. CNG cost 191 1990 Chevrolet Cavalier car Motor Pool 6/2001 ifferential - $4,931. Ford F-150 (electric, $35,000), 50 files per charge (replace between 001 and 2003). Electric cost 440 1999 Ford Ran er Truck ERCD 6/2008 ifferentlal - $22 500. Dodge van (CNG, $18,514), 250 miles Passenger per fill-up. CNG cost differential - 185 1989 Chevrolet Im ala car Finance/IS 5/06 ,245. i ms cnarc nsGS me ventcles Ulat could tle replaCep Cty f#Itenlatlve tuel VehlCle3 m t'1&CSI year 2001-02. They were Selected aCCOrding tp thClr Ilse history and compatibility with the specifications of their alternative fuel vehicle replacements. At the end of each row is a brief description of the Alternative fuel vehicle that would be used as a replacement. Not all of these vehicles are due for irttmediate replacement. Both the ERCD and Finance Department vehicle would be replaced, with the existing vehicle being reassigned or sold. The proposed electric truck purchase may be' delayed until vehicle reliability concerns are addressed. Section 2- Intermediate Goals Explore the possibility of acquiring an alternative fuel bus, continue replacing gasoline vehicles with AFT's as appropriate, develop the educational component of the county s AFV program, coordinate with other dotal bodies through the newly formed Triangle J Clean Cities Program. Once the County has "dipped its toes in the water", we can continue our immersion into Alternative Fuel Vehicles by exploring the purchase of additional AFVs (perhaps an electric or CNG bus for use as a shuttle between Chapel Hill and Hillsborough) and by coordinating with local high schools and technical education centers to develop repair and maintenance personnel to service alternative fuel vehicles locally. Reseazchers are designing and creating new batteries that should dramatically improve the range of electric vehicles in the near term. Part of the intermediate goals can be to explore the possibilities of using solaz power to rechazge subsequent electric vehicles. Further research into the use of ethanol should also be undertaken. Perhaps through involvement with the Clean Cities Program, we could discuss the development of an ethanol network among interested entities (private and public) in the county. Another possible issue for further study is electric school buses. The County maybe able to secure grant money through the Clean Cities program or as an environmental education project (air quality education and the role of alternative fuel vehicles) for this sort of initiative. To realize these goals, a workgroup could be assigned to the exploration of these intermediate projects so that we can begin formulating along-term plan for Orange County and take a lead role in formulating an alternative fuels network in the azea. In this effort, attention should be given to coordinating with the private needs and preferences for alternative fuel options. . . . . . . . . Section 3- Long-Term Goals Minimize emissions from the county's vehicle fleet and maximize the fleet's fuel efficiency. From 1950 to 1990 Orange County's population increased 173% and is expected to have increased another 22% to 2000. With all these new residents come additional vehicles, and additional air-polluting emissions. As a proactive measure, the BOCC has determined that the County should take a leadership position in minimizing the negative impact the County fleet has on local air quality. One of the best ways to do this is to simultaneously minimize fleet emissions and maximize fleet fuel efficiency. By beginning a process of slowly replacing less fuel efficient vehicles with newer more fuel efficient ones and substituting AFVs far gasoline powered vehicles whenever possible, the County is taking important steps in realizing that goal. Through continued purchase of AFVs and development of an alternative fuel infrastructure network, the County is also making it easier and cheaper for the County's private businesses and individual County residents to also make the shift from traditionally fueled vehicles to alternatively fueled ones. This initial AFV leadership will lead to clean air for Orange County long into the future. Potential areas of emphasis in the long-term for AFV's might include: • Promote solar-powered bicycles and other pedestrian-powered vehicles. • Promote solaz-powered lawnmowers and encourage local high schools to continue to explore demonstration projects in this area. • Look at electric buses as a future means of transit in the County. • Look at other options that will serve to reduce the number of vehicle miles driven and reduce ground-level ozone. Conclusions As directed by the BOCC, the Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Low Emissions Workgroup has made assessments of the alternative fuel vehicles currently available and in consideration of Orange County's unique circumstances and needs has offered this report which includes our three main goals and recommended action strategy. These goals are: Short-term: Research the advantages and disadvantages of the various alternative fuel vehicle options. Use that information to apply far a State of NC, Division of Air Quality, Mobile Source Emissions Reduction Grant that would cover some of the costs associated with purchasing multiple AFYs during fiscal year 2001. Intermediate Term: Explore the possibility of acquiring an alternative fieel bus, continue replacing gasoline vehicles with AFVs as appropriate, develop the educational component of the county's AFV program, coordinate with other local bodies through the newly formed Triangle J Clean Cities Program. Lang-term: Minimize emissions from the county's vehicle fleet and maximize the fleet's fuel efficiency. 1. The proposed action strategy is to start acquiring a number of dedicated Compressed Natural Gas and electric vehicles to replace some of the traditional-fuel vehicles that are due for replacement in the next fiscal year. Seven vehicles scheduled for replacement in FY 01-02 are proposed for alternative fuel vehicles, with six dedicated CNG vehicles, including passenger vans, cargo vans, pickup trucks and a passenger vehicle. In addition, one electric vehicle would be purchased as a demonstration project. Each of the vehicles would replace similar gasoline- fueled vehicles in either the motor pool, or departments of Finance, Public Works, Recreation and Pazks or Environment and Resource Conservation. A CNG refueling facility will need to be ].2 . . . . . . . . 13 constructed, and arrangements to refuel at the existing Town of Chapel Hill facility as well will be finalized. Additional ixaining of Motor Pool mechanics will be needed for the new vehicles. 2. In order to cover some of the costs of this initiative, the County should apply for a Mobile Source Emissions Reduction Grant from the State of North Carolina, Division of Air Quality. That application is due at the end of December. To facilitate that application process, we should continue our cooperation and collaboration with the Triangle J Clean Cities Program. The MSERG grants will fund the purchase price differential between a conventional vehicle and an AFV, and will also fund a significant portion of the refueling facility (although a County match of 30-40% may be necessary). We anticipate that the grant request will thus need to include $4$,000 for CNG refueling station infrastructure and electrical recharge equipment (this includes a probable County match of around $20,000), approximately $153,000 for vehicle purchases ($50,500 of which is the purchase price differential for AFV's and could be covered by the grant), and $5,000 for training and tools - for a total grant application of $206,000. The projected County match would be $124,500 ($20,000 match for infiastructure, $2,000 for training and tools. The County could also count as a match the $102,500 for the purchase cost of vehicles that would be otherwise replaced with gasoline-powered vehicles). Seven alternative-fuel vehicles $50,500 $102,500* $153,000 CNG fueling station / electric char in station $28,000 $20,000 $ 48,000 Trainin and Tools $3 000 $2,000 $5 000 TOTAL $81,500 $124 500 ($22,000) $206,000 * -The vast majority of this cost would be incurred with or without the grant, with all but one vehicle scheduled for replacement in FY 2002 anyway. The seventh vehicle replaced would be reassigned or sold. 3. During this application process and afterwards, options far AFV purchases during the fallowing fiscal year should continue to be examined, with consideration given to the feasibility of acquiring an electric or CNG bus for potential use as a shuttle bus between Chapel Hi11 and Hillsborough, including discussions an which agency would provide the service. Afive-year strategic plan should be developed to allow for review and evaluation of changing technology and aptions, with an annual review. While one technology maybe the most effective use of resources at the present, we should not limit thoughts and opportunities for future options.. By continuing to evaluate new AFV options and developing a practice of replacing some of our higher emission, less fuel efficient vehicles with these new alternatively fueled vehicles every year, the County will demonstrate a proactive stance toward addressing ground-level ozone and the impending non-attainment designation for air quality. We will also be working toward our long term goal of protecting the health of Orange County's residents and resources. Members of the AFLEV Work Group: Ray Forhnann, Julie Tucker and Mark Smith (Commission for the Environment); Marty Mandell (solar and electric energy activist), Wilbert McAdoo (Public Works), David Cannell (Purchasing); Paul Thames (County Engineer); Karen Lincoln (Planning); Maxc degree and David Stancil (ERCD). Thanks to Bill Terry, Chapel Hill Public Works. fobile Source Emissions Reduction Grants http://daq.state.nc.us/Offices/Technical/Mobile/grants.f 14 Mobile Source Emissions Reduction Grants Table of Contents: o purpose ~ Background c Wby Mobile Source Emissions Reduction is_Imnortant to Maintain Good Air Quality! ~ Alternative uel Guidelines ~ Project Selection Criteria ~ Requirements for a Grant _ . c How to apply for a_ Grant ~ Previous Grant A v~ards Purpose The purpose of the Mobile Source Emissions Reduction Grants is to achieve actual reductions from on- and off- road mobile source related emissions in North Carolina ta-assist the State in maintaining the National Air Quality Standards for primarily ozone and carbon monoxide. Background In 1993, the North Carolina General Assembly passed Clean Air Legislation which provided that beginning on January 1; 1995, certain portions of those taxes on the sale of gasoline in North Carolina be used #o fund portions of the State Air Quality Program. The. Department of Environment and Natural Resources formed a Grant Review Committee to help determine how to use the revenues generated from the gasoline tax. The committee represents a broad range of public interests, including environmental, industry, and city, county, and various State government agencies. Funding for these grants is provided by a tax of 1/64 of a cent per gallon of gasoline sold, which currently generates about $800,000 annually. Grants will be awarded by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources with the assistance of the Grant Review Committee. Each year the Grant Review Committee selects a focus for the upcoming grant year. The focus for the 2000 grants will be on the formation of partnerships between public and private entities to expand the alternative fuel infrastructure in North Carolina. Why Mobile Source Emission's Reduction is Important to Maintain Good Air Quality North Carolina currently is maintaining National Ambient Air Quality Standards for the ,a . ,~ .Mobile Source Emissions Reduction Grants http://dagstate.nc.us/ofl'ices/TechnicaUMobile/gra most criteria pollutants, including ozone (03), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur dioxide, lead, and particulates. However, the state is not meeting the stricter ozone (03) standard that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency adopted in 1997. Ozone is formed when nitrogen oxides (NOX) react with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the atmosphere. High levels generally occur during hot stagnant weather in the summer months, primarily in urban azeas. Autos, trucks, and other motor vehicles emit a lazge portion of the pollutants that cause ozone during the summer. Statewide, highway and off-road mobile sources accounted for 51 percent of the nitrogen oxides (NOX) and 41 percent of the VOCs in the summer of 1990. Mobile sources (highway and off-road) generate even higher proportions of major air pollutants in the state's larger cities: VOC's 48 percent NOX 88 percent When mobile source emissions aze reduced, air quality is improved. Alternative Fuel Guidelines 1. Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) alternative fuel vehicles, where available, aze preferred over conversions. 2. Grant funds aze only available for the incremental cost of alternative fuel vehicles. 3. Alternative fueling facilities founded by this grant program must be publicly accessible. Project Selection Criteria 1. Degree of matching or "in-kind" funds proposed for the project. 2. Degree of control program implementation and actual emission reduction as opposed to planning. 3. Assessment of benefits for the proposed project. 4. Permanence of benefits from the planned project. 5. Breadth of applicability of results in North Cazolina. 6. Low cost/high benefit of the planned project. 7. Project's potential for high total benefits in North Carolina. 8. Overall length of project (preference for 2 years or less). 9. Degree of support/participation from affected parties. 10. Public perception of appropriateness of selected projects. Requirements for a Grant 1. Project must emphasize mobile source emissions reduction, (i.e. hydrocarbon (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), and nitrogen oxides (NOX). 2. Applicant must address/consider Project Selection Criteria. 3. Project must emphasize actual emission reductions as opposed to planning. 4. Proposal must be fora "new" project. 5. Grant Holders must report back to DENR on actual benefits of completed project. How to apply for a Grant Mobile Source $missions Reduction Grants http;//dagstate.nc.us/Offices/Technical/Mobile/grants.l 16 For more information on requirements or application package, please contact: Melissa Ellender Division of Air Quality, Mobile Source Compliance Branch 1641 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1641 Tele.(919) 715-6257 FAX(919) .733-1 S 12 melissa. ellender(a~ncmail.net There will be two optional pre-proposal meetings to clarify any questions about the grant process or project eligibility, This will be an excellent opportunity to discuss your project, network, and form partnerships that will enhance your project. One public information session will be held on October 30, 2000 at 10:00 at the Mooresville Regional Office. The second session will be held on November 1, 2000 at 10:00 at the Parker Lincoln Building Room 1D 240 in Raleigh. Download the: Annlication. Package (PDF formatl Ma to Parker Lincaln DF format Overview Ma of Ralei h PDF ormat Ma to Mooresville Re Tonal Office P F format Overview a of Mooresville PDF rmat Previous Grant Awards 2000 ant Year 1999 Grant Year 199$ ant Year 1 rant Yeaz 1996 Grant Year 1995 Grant Year ~4'~' To view and print PDF files you must install the Adobe Acrobat reader.It is available, free of charge, from Adobe. ~, rl- ~~ ''• DAQ is a division of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources DENR Contact the Webmaster with questions or comments regarding this site.