Richmond*s Fleet Analysis - carbonn Climate Registry

V

IRGINIA

C

OMMONWEALTH

U

NIVERSITY

Richmond’s Fleet Analysis

Shelley Campbell, Ronnie Clements, Joseph Griffiths, and Benjamin Leach

2012

Virginia Commonwealth University | Ошибка! Текст указанного стиля в документе

отсутствует.

U R B A N A N D R E G I O N A L P L A N N I N G

1

Richmond’s Fleet Analysis 2012

Acknowledgments ……………………………………………………………………..3

Executive Summary ……………………………………………………………….....4

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………..5

The Current Fleet……………………………………………………………………..5

Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………...6

Electric Ford Focus vehicles …………………………………………..6

Compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles ………………………..7

Focus Group……………………………………..……………………………………..10

Best Practices…………………………………………………………………………12

Creating a Green Fleet Plan…………………………………………..12

Optimizing Efficiency .………………………………………………….13

Increasing Alternative Fuel Use…..………………………………..15

Summary…………………………………………………………………......17

Recommendations…………………………………………………………………19

Create a Plan……………………………………………………………….19

Optimize Efficiency……………………………………………………...19

Increase Alternative Fuel Use………………………………………20

Raise Awareness………………………………………………………….20

Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………...21

References……………………………..…………………………………………….22

Appendix I: Results of Green Fleet Best Practices Research…....24

Appendix II: Richmond’s Green Fleet Award Application………..28

Appendix III: Calculations for Ford Focus……………………………..29

Appendix IV: Calculations for CNG Refuse Trucks…..……………..31

Appendix V: Focus Group Questions and Results…..………………34

Virginia Commonwealth University | 2


Acknowledgements

This document could not have been produced without the guidance, supervision, and help of Dr. Damian Pitt. Our team would also like to thank the city’s Energy Manager, Larry Burkett for providing a great deal of information and contacts within the city. Also, Cynthia A Simpson has done a tremendous amount of work in locating and providing vital information and statistics for this project. Lastly, we would like to thank William Heckstall and the outstanding team at the DPU for sitting down and speaking with us about the CNG refuse trucks and their day-to-day dealings with the vehicles. Your time, energy, and support have made this analysis possible.

Thank You!



Executive Summary

This document was written for the City of Richmond Office of Sustainability and for the

Department of Public Works (DPW). It includes an analysis of the City’s “green fleet” pilot program and recommendations for the future of the fleet. The goals of this project were to determine the nature of the fleet as it stands today and to make recommendations for the future in the effort to meet goals of emission reductions set forth in the City’s sustainability plan,

RVAgreen: A Roadmap to Sustainability .

The City’s fleet today is composed of approximately 2,200 vehicles and equipment. The current fleet operating budget is $20 million, of which $5.4 million is for the purchase of new vehicles. The city currently has plans to purchase four (4) new fire trucks, eleven (11) new pieces of equipment, and 40 new police vehicles. However, the green fleet initiative is not being considered in the purchasing of these new vehicles. The budget has allocated $6.9 million towards fuel costs and $9.2 million towards maintenance. Conversion to alternative fuel vehicles could result in savings in both fuel and maintenance. So far, the only green fleet efforts have been the purchase of four (4) electric Ford Focuses (to begin operating in 2013) and the replacement of diesel refuse trucks with 25 compressed natural gas (CNG) refuse vehicles.

However, there are still eight (8) diesel trucks still in service.

Calculations indicate that, based on a hypothetical annual VMT of 10,000 miles per car,

4.9 metric tons (MT) of CO

2

equivalent greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will be saved through the use of the new Ford Focuses. The CNG refuse trucks went into operation in 2012 and have decreased fuel costs for refuse collection by nearly 50%, but the continued use of the back-up diesel trucks has led to no net reduction of GHG emissions. Replacing the remaining diesel trucks with CNG would further increase fuel cost savings and reduce GHG emissions by 10% compared to the previous all-diesel fleet.

A focus group with four DPW supervisors indicated a broad base of support among department employees for the move to green vehicles. Also, best practices in green fleet management were researched through document analysis. The study has led to the following recommendations for the city of Richmond’s future green fleet initiatives:

1.

A Green Fleet Plan should be developed with short and long term quantifiable goals for emission reductions.

2.

Fleet efficiency should be optimized through procurement policy and preventative maintenance. All staff should be trained of the best policies for efficiency.

3.

The use of alternative fuels should be increased through the purchase of CNG and electric vehicles and supporting infrastructure to handle those vehicles. Partnerships should be made to help fund large scale infrastructure projects.

4.

A culture of education and awareness should be fostered to keep sustainability and best practices in the minds of vehicle operators. Communication at different levels should be increased to foster a community of people committed to the goals to be laid out in the

Green Fleet Plan.



Introduction

The purpose of this report is to analyze the City of Richmond’s green fleet pilot program for the City of Richmond’s Office of Sustainability. The scope of the project included studying the City’s current fleet and its operations, researching and summarizing green fleet management best practices from other cities with successful green fleets, quantifying costs to the City from fuel and maintenance of both traditional and alternative fuel vehicles for comparison, and learning from the operators of Richmond’s existing green vehicles how the green fleet program is working so far. These analyses are the foundation for the recommendations offered to help

Richmond’s green fleet be successful.

The Current Fleet

Today the City of Richmond’s fleet is comprised of approximately 2,200 vehicles and equipment. Within the 2012 and 2013 Biennial Fiscal Plan the City has allocated an estimated

$20 million towards the Fleet’s operational budget. This budget general fund also includes $5.4 million to be used towards new fleet purchasing power (Adopted Biennial Fiscal Plan 2012 and

2013). This money is projected to help to update the fleet by purchasing four (4) new fire trucks,

11 new pieces of heavy equipment for the Department of Public Works (DPW) including two new flushers, two new street sweepers, and two new pothole repairers, and 40 new police vehicles. Currently these new purchases do not go towards the overall Green Fleet initiative for the city. Along with this the budget has allocated $6.9 million towards fuel costs for running the fleet and $9.2 million towards maintenance of the fleet.

As it stands today the City of Richmond has only adopted one major fundamental change in its fleet towards its conversion to a green fleet. The City replaced 37 diesel refuse trucks with

25 trucks running on 100 percent concentrated natural gas (CNG). However, the City retained eight (8) diesel trucks that are put into operation when CNG trucks are being serviced.

Currently the Greater Richmond Transit Company (GRTC) and Richmond Public

Schools (RPS) bus networks run independently from the City and the fleet management office.

The City has taken it upon itself to partner with GRTC and RPS in the development and conversion plan for integrating natural gas fueled buses into the existing fleet. The city has set aside $3 million dollars for this transition from the 2012-2013 budgets. The ultimate goal of this partnership is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30% which reduces the GHG emission count for the City.



Analysis

Electric Ford Focus Vehicles

The 2011 Richmond Sustainability Plan states that reducing energy consumption in government operations is one of its primary objectives. As part of this plan, a greenhouse gas

(GHG) emissions inventory for Richmond determined that 173,660 Metric Tons (MT) of carbon dioxide (CO

2

) equivalent were emitted into the atmosphere from the City’s municipal operations in 2008. The same study also calculated that the city’s municipal fleet emitted 13% of that total, or 22,576 MT of CO

2

equivalent.

To meet the objective of reducing energy consumption, the City of Richmond has purchased four all electric Ford Focus vehicles to be used by the Department of Public Utilities.

They are not expected to be in service until the beginning of 2013, but a quantitative comparison between four standard 2012 Ford Focuses and four all electric Ford Focuses demonstrates the possible energy, GHG, and cost savings associated with this switch. Table 1 highlights the results of this comparison. (See appendix II for calculations.)

Table 1. Performance of Standard vs. All-Electric Ford Focus Vehicles

Initial Cost*

Fuel Cost

Energy Use (Btu/yr)

Energy Use (KWh/yr)

GHG emissions

(CO

2

equivalent)

Payback Period

Standard Ford

Focuses (4)

$72,800

$4,115/yr

147 million

43,076

11.5 MT/yr

All Electric Ford

Focuses (4)

$150,462

$1,408/yr

43 million

12,800

6.6 MT/yr

Annual Savings

(All Electric)

-$77,662

$2,707/yr

103 million

30,276

4.9 MT/yr

Percent

Savings

66%

70%

70%

43%

28.7 yrs

* Price of standard Focuses based on mid-range sticker price and price of electric Focuses based on conversation with Larry Burkett, Richmond Energy Director

Actual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by the Focuses could not be calculated because the vehicles are not yet in service, but a hypothetical scenario can still be used for comparison. In this scenario, an annual VMT of 10,000 miles per vehicle is assumed. The initial cost for the standard Focuses was determined using the Ford Company’s advertised vehicle prices. Fuel costs were calculated using the current average gasoline price for Richmond ($3.19/gallon) and the projected rate for electricity ($.11/kWh) for the electric vehicles. Energy use was calculated using standard conversion rates and miles per gallon (31 mpg for standard 2012 Ford Focus) and kWh per mile estimates (32 kWh/100 miles for electric 2012 Ford Focus) (DOE). Finally, CO

2 equivalent emissions were calculated using the coefficient of 8.92 x 10

-3

MTCO

2

/gallon gas

(EPA) and the Richmond electricity coefficient of 0.15 MTCO

2

/MBtu (Pitt, 2012).



April

May

June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Average

Total

Table 1 illustrates that, although the incremental cost of purchasing the electric vehicles rather than the standard vehicles is high ($77,662), the annual fuel, energy, and CO

2 emissions savings are substantial. An annual CO

2

emissions savings of 4.9 MT only minimally reduces the

22,576 MT calculated in the 2008 GHG inventory. However, this number represents the savings from only four vehicles. If the entire city fleet of light vehicles could be replaced with all electric

Ford Focuses at a lower negotiated price, the eventual CO

2 emissions and cost savings would be dramatic. Also, fuel cost savings from initially established fleet efficiency procedures can be reinvested in procuring all electric vehicles.

Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Vehicles

In 2012 the City of Richmond converted nearly the entire refuse truck fleet to new vehicles running on compressed natural gas (CNG). Over the first seven months of running those vehicles the DPU has seen its average monthly fuel costs for the refuse truck fleet drop by nearly half, saving an average of $10,671 per month compared to the average monthly diesel fuel costs from the fiscal years 2010-2011. These savings are being found even though a portion of the refuse truck service is still being provided by diesel trucks that serve in a back-up capacity to the new CNG trucks. However, the current combination of CNG and diesel trucks is consuming

30% more energy, in diesel gallons equivalent or Btu, than the earlier all-diesel refuse fleet. As a result, even with CNG’s lower carbon content per Btu the switch to CNG vehicles has resulted in no net decrease in average monthly GHG emissions.

Appendix IV provides a detailed analysis of refuse truck energy consumption and GHG emissions from before and after the switch to CNG vehicles, based on data provided by the city’s

Office of Sustainability. As shown in Table 2, the CNG vehicles consumed an average of 13,388 ccf (hundred cubic feet) of natural gas per month between April and October, 2012. (The natural gas is converted to CNG and pumped into the trucks at the city’s CNG fueling station at 3502

Hopkins Road.) The average monthly fuel cost for the natural gas was $6,296, and the energy content of that gas converts to 9,914 equivalent gallons of diesel fuel.

Table 2. Monthly CNG Refuse Truck Fuel Usage – Public Works (2012)

Month

Fuel

Used

(CCF)

Fuel

Used

(MCF)

12,687 1,269

13,033 1,303

14,290 1,429

15,032 1,503

13,919 1,392

11,797 1,180

Fuel

Used

(DGE)

9,395

9,651

10,582

11,131

10,307

8,736

9,596

12,959 1,296

13,388 1,339 9,914

93,717 9,372 69,397

Price Per

MCF

Average

$4.86

$4.62

$4.91

$4.49

$4.80

$4.64

$4.60

$4.70

NA

Total

Monthly

Fuel Price

Avg. Fuel Use per Vehicle

(CCF)

Avg. Fuel

Cost per

Vehicle

$6,166

$6,021

$7,016

$6,749

$6,681

$5,474

$5,961

$6,296

$44,069

507

521

572

601

557

472

518

536

NA

$247

$241

$281

$270

$267

$219

$238

$252

NA



As shown in Table 3, the fleet of entirely diesel-fueled trucks consumed an average of nearly 8,800 gallons of diesel fuel per month in the fiscal years 2010-2011, for an average monthly fuel cost of $22,284. In fiscal year 2012, the eight diesel trucks that remained in service as a back-up to the CNG fleet still consumed over 1,500 gallons per month, at an average cost of

$5,318.

Table 3. Fiscal Year Diesel Refuse Truck Fuel Consumption– Public Works

Fiscal Year

Trucks in

Operation

Monthly Fuel

Use (Diesel

Gallons)

9,990

Monthly

Fuel Cost

Monthly Fuel

Use (Gallons) per Vehicle

285

Monthly

Fuel Cost per Vehicle

$672 2010 35 $23,507

2011 35 7,596 $21,062 217 $602

2012 8 1,540 $5,318 193 $665

Avg. (2010-11) 35 8,793 $22,284 3,015 $637

Unfortunately, the switch to CNG refuse trucks has thus far not resulted in the GHG emission savings that the Office of Sustainability had hoped to achieve. The total monthly refuse truck fleet emissions from both the CNG and back-up diesel vehicles in 2010 were estimated and compared to the average monthly emissions from the diesel vehicles in fiscal years 2010-2011.

The CNG vehicles are less energy-efficient than the diesel vehicles from a Btu per mile standpoint, resulting in a 30% fuel use increase, in diesel gallons equivalent, as shown in Table

4. The ensuing GHG emission estimates were based on conversion factors of 22.4 pounds per gallon for the diesel vehicles and 12.06 pounds per hundred cubic feet (CCF) from the CNG vehicles (Randolph and Masters, 2008). The net result was a 1% increase in monthly GHG emissions from the current refuse fleet as compared to the previous all-diesel refuse fleet.

Table 4. Comparison of Average Monthly Energy and Fuel Costs

Vehicle Type

Old Fleet (diesel avg. 2010-11)

Green Fleet (2012 combined)

CNG

Diesel

Total Savings from Green Fleet

Fuel Consumed

(Diesel gallons or diesel equivalent)

8,793

11,454

9,914

1,540

-2,661

Energy

Consumed

(Million Btu)

1,220

1,589

1,375

214

-369

Fuel

Cost

$22,284

$11,613

$6,296

$5,318

$10,671

Greenhouse

Gas Emissions

(lbs CO

2

-e)

196,968

195,957

161,461

34,496

1,011

Percent savings from Green Fleet -30% -30% 48% 1%

The switch to CNG coincided with a reorganization of the refuse collection route system, in which the total number of routes dropped from 115 to 90 and service days were reduced from five to four per week. However, the new routes are now longer, and the total distance of all routes has remained at 3,450 miles. According to information gathered by the Office of

Sustainability, the CNG trucks now cover an average of 82 of the 90 pick-up routes, with the


Richmond’s Fleet Analysis 2012 other eight routes covered by one of the back-up diesel vehicles. With an average route distance of 38.33 routes, this works out to an average of 3,143 miles per week for the CNG trucks and

307 miles per week for the diesel trucks. In other words, the diesel trucks now cover about 8.9% of total refuse collection by mileage. However, as shown in Table 4, the diesel vehicles still account for about 46% of the total monthly fuel cost. These figures demonstrate again the extreme cost savings associated with the CNG vehicles, and the potential to realize substantial additional cost savings by switching the remainder of the fleet to CNG.

Additional analysis was conducted to estimate the energy use and GHG emissions from a full green fleet transition, in which all of the back-up diesel trucks would be replaced and 100% of refuse collection would be performed by CNG vehicles. If the diesel back-up vehicles were replaced with additional CNG vehicles, the average weekly mileage covered by the CNG vehicles would increase by 307 miles, or just under 10%. Table 5 demonstrates the energy use, fuel costs, and GHG emissions that would result from this full conversion to CNG vehicles, assuming a 10% increase in natural gas consumption by CCF.

Table 5. Average Monthly Energy Use, Fuel Costs, and GHGs – Diesel vs. 100% CNG

Vehicle Type

Fuel Consumed


Energy

Consumed

(Million Btu)

Fuel

Cost

Greenhouse

Gas Emissions

(lbs CO

2

-e)

Old Fleet (diesel avg. 2010-11) 8,793 1,220

$22,284

196,968

Full Green Fleet 10,905 1,512

$6,926

177,607

Total Savings – Full Green Fleet

Percent savings – Full Green Fleet

-2,112

-24%

-293

-24%

$15,358

69%

19,361

10%

These calculations demonstrate that replacing the diesel trucks and turning to a 100%

CNG refuse fleet would lead to monthly fuel cost savings of nearly 70%, or over $15,000 a month. However, in evaluating these results one must take into account that natural gas prices are traditionally highly volatile. Recent production increases based on hydro-fracturing extraction technology have decreased natural gas prices dramatically, but future changes in market or regulatory conditions could cause those prices to increase, thus reducing the extent of the fuel cost savings with respect to diesel or other fuels.

Table 5 also shows that the GHG emissions from a 100% CNG refuse truck fleet would be approximately 10% lower than those of the previous all-diesel fleet, for a total annual GHG reduction of approximately 105 MT. The combined GHG savings from the two green fleet initiatives would then be about 110 MT per year. While these savings would represent a small fraction of the 22,576 MT estimated for the total fleet in 2008, they indicate that there is great potential for future emission savings from switching more of the fleet to alternative fuel vehicles.



Focus Group

An important aspect of changing the fleet is how it affects City employees who drive fleet vehicles. Therefore, the research team organized and conducted a focus group with workers who are familiar with the green vehicles that are already in use and experienced the transition from traditional vehicles. We chose to meet with staff of the Solid Waste Division because most of the City’s green vehicles are the CNG refuse collection trucks operated by that division. The focus group was held at the DPW main refuse central command office located at 3502 N.

Hopkins Road on November 13, 2012. The original intent was that current drivers of refuse collection vehicles would participate, but those drivers work schedules made them unavailable to participate. However, William Heckstall, Interim Facilities Maintenance Manager for DPW, suggested that we meet with the division’s supervisors, all of whom are experienced drivers of the division’s trucks both before and after the transition.

Present at the focus group were Mr. Heckstall, three supervisors, and all four members of the research team. Prior to

“If I had a business, I would go green”

the meeting, the research team drew up a protocol with eighteen questions or prompts to guide discussion (Appendix IV). The goal of this focus group was to understand the functional

~DPU employee

behavior found at this facility and within its fleet staff and to learn the employees’ attitudes about the conversion to a CNG fleet, which in turn could prove helpful in assessing the overall adaptability of converting the rest of the City of Richmond to a “Green Fleet.”

The focus group was a successful part of the data collection process. The research team learned much about the attitudes and perceptions of the new CNG vehicles held by the employees and supervisors of the Solid Waste Division. Without dissent, the group fully endorses the new vehicles and has nothing but positive comments to make about them.

According to the participants, green vehicles should be pursued elsewhere in the City. In fact, they are quite proud of the fact that their division is leading the way in the City toward a green fleet, and in good humor post the question to other divisions: “The City went green …. remember?” One supervisor went on to say, “If I had a business, I would go green.” Also the comment was made that if he could, he would personally own a green vehicle.

The research team learned in the focus group that the division retains eight (8) diesel refuse collection trucks in addition to the 25 CNG trucks recently acquired. This was not indicated in the City’s Sustainability Plan which contains wording that leads to the conclusion that all of the previous trucks had been replaced by the CNG vehicles. We also learned that the

CNG vehicles are leased while the diesel trucks are owned by the City. The diesel trucks are put into the driving rotation when CNG trucks are being serviced to maintain full operating capacity daily. The division practices proactive maintenance, so a truck being serviced does not necessarily mean that it is being repaired or that there are problems with it.

According to the supervisors, employees are so taken with the CNG vehicles that they do not want to drive the diesel trucks anymore and are not pleased when they have to use a diesel truck. The reasons are many. CNG trucks are quieter, do not have the strong smell associated


Richmond’s Fleet Analysis 2012 with diesel fuel, are more reliable, and faster. The new trucks are better for the workers’ health because they do not have to breathe noxious diesel fumes. Supervisors also indicated that the

CNG trucks are also better for performing the task of refuse collection, and that the hydraulics operate better on the new trucks than on the diesels.

In addition to the switch to CNG vehicles, the division also changed from a five-day refuse collection schedule to a four-day schedule, which has been very popular with the division’s workers. The change gives the drivers and refuse collectors a three-day weekend with minimal impact on city residents, and also opens Fridays up for doing most of the proactive vehicle maintenance. Workers have an added incentive to complete their work in a timely manner on the four days of operation because they are allowed to return home after their routes are completed. Another benefit of this change is that there has been a decrease in overtime work, and resulting overtime pay, in this division after the schedule change.

The Solid Waste Division has made laudable improvements in management and in moving the City forward toward greater sustainability. However, the supervisors mentioned that no one from the City has inquired about the move to CNG vehicles. How can the City, including the fleet management personnel, not be interested in the largest green fleet division? The City is losing a great opportunity to learn from its own green fleet program. These workers are excited about their vehicles, and were very enthusiastic when sharing their thoughts with the researchers.

They deserve the attention of the City and the opportunity to share their experiences with other

City divisions.

When asked specifically about what further changes they would like, the supervisors mentioned that the workers need more pay or at least a periodic bonus. Drivers earn $13/hour and collectors earn $10/hour. Also, there are not enough full-time workers at present, and the shortage is filled by hiring temporary workers who do not have the benefit of the training that full-time workers have, which results in slower work and extra time to train workers who will not stay long. Sometimes even with temporary workers, the division is still short and the supervisors have to fill in either driving refuse collection trucks or collecting (working the back end of the truck).



Best Practices

Richmond can learn from green fleet programs in other cities while developing its own program. The best recipe for success is a determined and sincere effort throughout all levels of a local government. A few alternative fuel vehicles and a green operations manual can begin the exploratory process of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but only an integrated and fully supported program will achieve the objectives put forth in Richmond’s Sustainability Plan.

The team employed document analysis of green fleet programs and plans of cities in the

United States and Canada that have been recognized as having model green fleets. Often, these cities have won awards from the 100 Best Fleets organization. The research team contacted representatives from this organization to learn about its process of making award decisions, as well as to learn more about the City of Richmond’s recent application to the organization which resulted in an Honorable Mention award in 2012.

The research of best practices indicates that a truly green fleet program approaches the problem of development from three angles: Create a green fleet plan, optimize the efficient use of municipal vehicles, and increase the use of alternative fuel vehicles. Greenhouse gas and other harmful emissions result from the interaction of policy, driver, and vehicle, and only through a focus on all three can they be reduced.

Creating a Green Fleet Plan

The first step in developing a successful green fleet is cultivating a citywide culture supporting it. This may seem simple and obvious, but it is often a difficult challenge. The best motivation to alter behavior comes from within. Doing something because one is told to will achieve the minimum results. From the most senior manager to the garbage truck operator, everyone must work towards the objective of reducing their carbon footprints. This will require a concerted educational campaign aimed at employees outlining the purpose of a green fleet program. Localities significantly reducing their vehicle greenhouse gas emissions have a clearly stated vision for a greener fleet and a plan for its application (Best practices manual, 2008). The vision statement must be easily understood, yet comprehensive. The City of Columbus Ohio, winner of the 2011 Government Green Fleet award, states the purpose of its green fleet program is to: address the management, operation, and procurement of fleet vehicles under the control of the city in order to improve the energy efficiency and reduce emissions of its fleet.

The City of Columbus recognizes that energy use associated with the operation of its vehicle fleet is one of the many factors impacting local air quality and the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global climate change (Green fleet action, 2011).

This statement of purpose addresses both the what (management, operation, and procurement) and the why (global climate change mitigation) of the program. Once such a vision is formulated, a culture of change can be established.

Following the establishment of goals, the scope of the issue and the definition of success must be determined. A city wanting to reduce its fuel use and GHG emissions should calculate


Richmond’s Fleet Analysis 2012 baseline numbers, which can then be used for comparison with subsequent years. This baseline must also be comprehensive, like the vision statement. Every vehicle in every department needs to be accounted for. Ideally, this baseline will also extend as far into the past as possible to establish historical trends and track operational and seasonal patterns. As much as possible, this should be done under the guidance of a central fleet authority using consistent measuring systems.

After the baseline has been determined, strict and measurable reduction targets for both fuel use and GHG emissions need to be established. It is not enough to make general statements promoting reductions. These sound good in a meeting, but are quickly forgotten in the day-today work of municipal operations. Short- and long-term targets must be set realistically and fully aware of limited budgets and resources. Overly ambitious objectives will likely fail, and in the end only dampen enthusiasm for the vision. Some examples of short term targets are: In 2010 the City of Columbus Ohio set a 2% reduction target in overall fuel use by city vehicles by 2014

(Green fleet action, 2011); in 2005, the City of Hamilton, Ontario set a CO

2 equivalent reduction target of 6,066,000 kg by 2008 (Green fleet implementation, 2005). Both cities achieved or are on track to reach these targets. These same cities also have long-term goals. At the end of 2011,

Columbus is working on developing a long term GHG emission reduction target upon completion of a baseline inventory accomplished through GPS tracking of city vehicles. This reduction target will also be in accordance with the standard set by Clean Fuels Ohio, a nonprofit organization dedicated to greening the fleets of Ohio (Clean fuels Ohio, 2012). Hamilton has set a long-term target to reduce GHG emissions by 20% from 1990 levels (Green fleet implementation, 2005).

Progress towards target reductions must also be measured on a regular basis using the same system developed for the creation of the baseline. In Minneapolis, this is completed annually by the City’s Director of Fleet Services Division (City of Minneapolis, 2010). This will help determine which city departments are successfully implementing reduction strategies, which vehicles are most efficient, and which operational procedures have been delivering results.

Implementation strategies can then be reformulated as needed and assistance can be provided to those departments falling behind. However, this measurement does not require competition and internal discipline. Fleet managers should be encouraged to experiment with creative reduction measures. Not every strategy will work, and target measurement systems should be used to foster cooperation and shared understanding between the many facets of a city’s fleet.

Optimizing Fleet Efficiency

Significant reductions in fuel use, GHG emissions, and even costs can be realized through the efficient management, operation, and maintenance of the fleet. This can prove difficult, as it requires influencing behavior as opposed to simply purchasing new technology, but there are proven methods that work. Right sizing, life cycle analysis, preventative maintenance, driver training and incentives, and public awareness can greatly assist in meeting target goals without the purchase of a single alternative fuel vehicle.

Right sizing is the minimization of vehicle miles traveled of oversized or unnecessarily heavy vehicles in your fleet (Green fleet strategic, 2011). Many aspects of a fleet’s operations


Richmond’s Fleet Analysis 2012 can be accomplished using light vehicles. Heavier vehicles use more fuel and therefore emit more GHGs. For example, a class three truck with a gross vehicle weight rating of between

10,000 and 14,000 pounds is on average 24% more fuel efficient than a class four truck (Green fleet strategic, 2011). Whenever possible, vehicles should be appropriately downsized for their respective job and the procurement of new vehicles should be based on the right size for the intended purpose of the vehicle.

Life cycle analysis—which determines how and when vehicles should be procured and disposed of—can provide a guideline for the efficient and cost saving use of vehicles from their procurement to the end of their use. Vehicle values depreciate quickly in an inverse relationship to maintenance costs. As maintenance costs increase so does a vehicle’s downtime, negatively influencing its efficiency. Life cycle analysis can determine the best time to sell or trade in vehicles and whether repairing or replacing a vehicle is the best choice. This analysis can also determine the best vehicle to purchase. More efficient vehicles may have a higher upfront cost, but calculating their life cycle savings on fuel and maintenance costs will determine which is the better purchase in terms of total costs. Another option for vehicle procurement is leasing, in which the city could reduce capital expenses and administration costs, but miss out on ownership incentives, leveraging prices with dealerships, and depreciation costs control (Green fleet strategic, 2011).

Preventative maintenance of fleet vehicles leads to greater fuel efficiency, less downtime, and ultimately reduced GHG emissions. Engine malfunctions can lead to over fueling of a vehicle’s system, worn filters consume more fuel during operation, and underinflated tires reduce fuel efficiency. Predicting when a part needs to be replaced and creating a timeline for regular maintenance will prevent inefficiently-running vehicles and on road failures. Predictions should be determined based on vehicle and part manufacturer specifications and on the experienced use of the vehicles themselves. They also should be updated regularly to keep pace with developing technologies. Preventative maintenance programs should also be thoroughly documented. This will then help a fleet manager track operation and maintenance costs, fuel and oil costs, automotive parts costs, and labor costs (Best practices manual, 2008). This information can be used for budget forecasting and life cycle analysis. It can also assist in discerning vehicle use patterns which can improve overall fleet operation. Preventative maintenance also increases driver morale because employees will know they are using more reliable vehicles.

Proper management and maintenance of the fleet are essential to a green fleet program, but the most important actors in successful fuel and greenhouse gas reduction programs are the drivers themselves. They must be knowledgeable and supportive of efficient driving procedures and have an incentive to apply them daily. It is imperative that drivers are well trained in efficient driving practices before they operate city vehicles. This training should include the elimination or reduction of rapid acceleration, hard braking, and idling. These simple measures can greatly decrease fuel use and save money. The City of Molson, Ontario saves over $225,000 annually by strictly enforcing its policy that idling never exceeds five (5) percent of operating time (Best practices manual, 2008). Also, drivers should be trained how to correctly recognize and report vehicle maintenance issues and needed repairs. This training should be codified in an official operations manual. Driver training must be updated to keep up with technology advancements. As with the preventative maintenance program outlined above, compliance with


Richmond’s Fleet Analysis 2012 training standards should also be tracked by comparing expected fuel use based on an assigned route with actual fuel use. Studied in combination with preventative maintenance documentation, this tracking can highlight which drivers and vehicles are most efficient and which ones need to be corrected or replaced. Drivers should also be encouraged to drive efficiently with incentives.

These incentives can range from praise and recognition to monetary bonuses. Such rewards are usually a better motivator than discipline. Finally, drivers must be included in the decision making process and provided an opportunity to give feedback and influence policy.

Public awareness campaigns can also boost internal commitment to a greener fleet and influence vehicle purchasing and driving behavior of the larger community. Fleet managers and drivers will be encouraged to increase their efficiency when they know the general public is watching and looking to them for guidance. Marketing campaigns should coincide with green fleet development programs. One example is Mammoth Cave National Park in Kentucky, recently recognized by the Kentucky Clean Fuels Coalition as a green fleet leader. The park advertises its 100 percent flex fuel vehicle conversion on KYGreenTv and Clean Cities TV

(Chandler, 2012). Park visitors and residents will be inspired to change their own behavior, which will in turn reinforce the efforts of city employees. Possible examples of include signage highlighting new policies, social media, challenges to private sector fleet operators, and public school engagement (Best practices manual, 2008).

Finally, a greener fleet does not only mean GHG emission reductions from vehicle tailpipes. An impactful green fleet policy considers the entire environmental picture. Some additional ways to do this are using re-refined or synthetic oils, environmentally friendly fluids, recapped tires, recycled water for vehicle washing, and alternative fuels. Requiring materials recycling and environmentally sound waste disposal are also important. Measures such as these can reduce waste, preserve water, and minimize the emissions of harmful air pollutants—not just

CO

2 but also nitrogen oxide, ozone, and sulfur dioxide.

Increasing Alternative Fuel Use

The second approach to greening a city’s fleet is increasing the use of alternative fuel vehicles. New technologies, government programs, and private-public partnerships can provide substantial support for municipalities. Alternative fuels reduce GHGs and other air pollutant emissions and, if managed correctly, can lower fuel costs. The main options a city should consider are biodiesel and ethanol vehicles, compressed natural gas (CNG) trucks, and hybrid or all electric vehicles. A supporting infrastructure must be built to allow for efficient fueling of these vehicles as well. While often expensive, the procurement of alternative fuel vehicles, infrastructure development, and access to alternative fuels can be accomplished through organizational partnerships.

One option for cities is converting some or all of the fleet to biodiesel powered vehicles.

Biodiesel is produced from vegetable or animal matter or from waste oils. Although it emits

CO

2 into the atmosphere, it is part of the natural carbon cycle and does not emit more than the atmosphere can absorb naturally. Pure, 100% biodiesel can be used, but it is most commonly found in blends of 5 (B5), 10 (B10), and 20 (B20) percent with traditional petroleum. A 100 percent biodiesel fuel can reduce CO

2 emissions by up to 75 percent and a B20 blend by up to 15


Richmond’s Fleet Analysis 2012 percent compared to traditional gasoline (Enviro-fleets: reducing emissions, 2010). It also reduces the emissions of other pollutants such as carbon monoxide and sulfates. One great benefit of biodiesel is that the required conversion of vehicles, especially newer ones, is very minimal. Higher percentage blends such as B20 can coagulate in colder temperatures and create clogs. Biodiesel blends also increase the lubricity of the fuel, thus increasing the life span of fuel pumps and injectors by up to 50 percent (Best practices manual, 2008). One drawback of biodiesel is that it tends to be more expensive than gasoline depending on location. However, the combination of available grant funding and the low cost of conversion make it a viable option for cities looking to lessen the externalities caused by vehicle emissions.

Ethanol fueled vehicles are another alternative. Ethanol is typically produced from the fermentation in such typical crops as corn and sugarcane. Although there is some professional contention about the GHG emission reductions over the life cycle of ethanol production, it is generally accepted that ethanol fuel is a net reducer (Randolph & Masters, 2008). Ethanol fuels usually come in blends of 85 (E85) and 10 (E10) percent with traditional petroleum. E85 fuel typically costs less than traditional gasoline, but it has a lower fuel efficiency which essentially equals out their comparative fuel costs. One drawback to using E85 is that it cannot be used in traditional engines. Vehicles must be specifically designed to run on ethanol. This upfront cost for ethanol vehicle purchasing reduces E85’s financial appeal. But as with biodiesel vehicles, grant funding and partnerships can assist with vehicle conversion and procurement costs. Plus, the cost of E85 is less in locations close to producing regions, such as in the corn growing

Midwest and Great Plains states. Ultimately, ethanol production will be enhanced by new technology allowing for full exploitation of crops, including the lignocellulosic, or woody parts

(Best practices manual, 2008).

CNG vehicles are also a possibility for greening a fleet. Many large vehicle manufacturers have CNG vehicles available as a factory option. CNG is a cleaner burning fuel than gasoline and emits up to 25 percent less CO

2

equivalent (Enviro-fleets: reducing emissions,

2010). CNG is considerably cheaper than gasoline as well, typically fluctuating between 10 and

40 percent less (Best practices manual, 2008). CNG also emits close to 40 percent fewer volatile organic compounds. In addition, CNG has the advantage of being naturally more abundant than petroleum. Heavy vehicles tend to dominate the CNG market, but CNG fueled light trucks are also available. The incremental costs of CNG conversion and procurement can be high, but the fuel cost savings over the life cycle of the vehicle make up for the initial expenditure. See the

CNG truck quantitative analysis section for further explanation on page 10.

Another option for cities is the use of hybrid and electric vehicles in the fleet. Although hybrids are not technically alternative fuel vehicles, an electric motor is used in tandem with the traditional petroleum motor to increase fuel efficiency. In comparison, a 2013 Toyota Prius hybrid gets a combined 50 miles per gallon (mpg) versus a 2013 Toyota Corolla, which gets only a combined 29 mpg (Energy efficiency and, 2012). Plug in hybrids go a step further by allowing the operator to plug the battery in and make the vehicle 100 percent electric when driven in the city. Since the majority of municipal vehicles can perform their daily functions on one charge, this is a promising possibility. Finally, all electric cars such as the Nissan Leaf, Chevy Volt, and

Ford Focus EV provide the greatest opportunity for city fleets to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Although these vehicles can be expensive, their potential for drastic emission


Richmond’s Fleet Analysis 2012 reductions is appealing. See the “Standard Ford Focus vs. Electric Ford Focus Comparison” for more details.

Alternative fuel vehicles require a substantial commitment to, and investment in, supportive fueling infrastructure. The biggest barrier to this commitment is cost. Biodiesel, E85,

CNG, and electric charging stations can be very expensive, thus greatly increasing the payback period. But there are government programs and partnerships available to make the transition easier. Successful communities often utilize a regional approach to alternative fuel infrastructure development. This approach makes sense as the costs can be shared by multiple municipalities and access to infrastructure can be made available to all contributing government fleets. The

Sacramento Clean Cities Coalition is an example of successful regional collaboration. The coalition has combined the resources of the City of Sacramento with seven neighboring counties, boasts a 97 percent alternative fuel vehicle inventory, 225 alternative fueling stations, and an annual greenhouse gas emissions reduction of 15,093 tons of CO

2

(Sacramento clean cities,

2012).

There are several options for cities seeking financial support in reducing the carbon footprint of their fleet. The Department of Transportation provides funding for the building of alternative fueling stations and alternative vehicles through its Congestion Mitigation and Air

Quality Program (CMAQ). The most recent call for proposals has $26.2 million available

(Frequently asked questions, 2011). The Clean Cities program offers grant writing support for cities deciding to apply for a CMAQ grant. The City of Columbus, Ohio has made excellent use of these resources. The 2011 year-end report on the city’s Green Fleet Action Plan explains how the city used CMAQ grants and Clean Cities support to meet its goal of purchasing 22 new heavy duty CNG trucks and five (5) heavy duty hybrid trucks (Green fleet action, 2011). The

Environmental Protection agency also has the National Clean Diesel Campaign which can help fund cities wishing to invest in the switch from diesel vehicles to cleaner ones. Locally, the State of Virginia recently signed an agreement with Alliance Auto Gas and Clean Energy Corporation whereby the companies agree to put in the local infrastructure for propane and CNG fueling in return for a bulk contract on the city’s alternative fuel procurement. This will allow for

Richmond to develop alternative fueling infrastructure, get a reduced rate for vehicle conversion, and purchase CNG and propane for $1.81 and $1.63 a gallon respectively (A. Harned, Personal

Communication, Oct 31, 2012).

Best Practices Summary

The best practices for a city wishing to develop a green fleet are summarized as follows:

1.

Creating a green fleet plan a.

Develop a vision i.

Clearly stated and comprehensive ii.

Gain management and employee commitment iii.

Promote stakeholder and community engagement b.

Establish objectives


Richmond’s Fleet Analysis 2012 i.

Conduct baseline greenhouse gas and fuel use inventory for fleet ii.

Set realistic and quantifiable short term and long term objectives reduction iii.

Measure progress toward objectives regularly c.

Make the monitoring of the green fleet plan the responsibility of a central fleet management authority

2.

Optimizing Fleet Efficiency a.

Right size the fleet i.

Match appropriate vehicles with their designated functions ii.

Make procurements based on right size considerations b.

Conduct life cycle analyses i.

Determine how and when to dispose of vehicles ii.

Determine if leasing or purchasing vehicles is the best option c.

Develop a preventative maintenance program i.

Fix vehicles before they break based on informed predictions ii.

Track and document preventative maintenance iii.

Use tracking to discover driver and vehicle patterns that can be improved d.

Formalize driver training programs i.

Train all drivers on proper vehicle operation standards such as those related to anti-idling, slow acceleration and braking, and vehicle monitoring and reporting ii.

Codify policies in an operations manual and have employees sign a form saying they understand the policies and agree to abide by them iii.

Promote improved driver performance through incentives iv.

Elicit feedback from drivers in the continued improvement of operating procedures. e.

Make the public aware of green fleet efforts i.

Create a comprehensive marketing campaign ii.

Educate the public of the benefits and requirements of a greener fleet

3.

Increasing the Use of Alternative Fuel Vehicles a.

Convert to alternative fuel vehicles i.

Biodiesel ii.

Ethanol iii.

CNG iv.

Hybrid and Electric vehicles b.

Develop alternative fuel infrastructure i.

Overcome cost barriers ii.

Apply for CMAQ and EPA vehicle conversion grants iii.

Promote regional cooperation


Richmond’s Fleet Analysis 2012 c.

Nurture organizational relationships i.

Use Clean Cities grant writing assistance ii.

Partner with fuel companies in development of infrastructure and alternative fuel procurement

Richmond’s current practices are compared to four other cities in Appendix I. With work, taking direction from leaders in the field, Richmond’s fleet has the potential to easily become a leader in this field. It is recommended that the Fleet Management office should perform an audit of the existing fleet and design a fleet maintenance management database. This system will provide comprehensive reports and datasets pertaining to the ongoing efficiency of the fleet vehicles, such as maintenance costs per mile, inventory parts turn, parts demand fill rate etc. The

City should also consider looking at other cities such as the City of Sacramento, California as a best practice guide on fleet management solutions and green fleet initiatives.

Recommendations

Our recommendations for Richmond’s green fleet are based primarily on the information we obtained from the research on best practices in the fleet management field as well as the insightful focus group we conducted with the Solid Waste Disposal Division of Richmond’s

Department of Public Works. There are four broad policy recommendations, each broken down into components that we feel are consistent with where Richmond currently is in its green fleet program development.

Create a Green Fleet Plan

The City’s existing Sustainability Plan is comprehensive, and should be complemented with a Green Fleet Plan that only addresses fleet-specific issues. It should be consistent with, and work toward meeting the goals of, the Sustainability Plan. The Green Fleet Plan must contain a vision, which should address the purpose of greening the fleet and what specific areas are being addressed. It should also include a baseline inventory of energy use and GHG emissions from the city fleet, and quantifiable goals for GHG reduction. An identified fleet management authority should be responsible for implementing the plan, and progress towards meeting its goals should be measured regularly, and the plan should be placed in every vehicle and should be part of the training to use the vehicles.

Optimize Fuel Efficiency

The City has made gains in optimizing efficiency through purchasing/leasing of alternative fuel vehicles and through training in the use of the vehicles. However, to fully optimize fleet efficiency behavioral changes need to be made. By utilizing knowledge and carefully training a dedicated staff the fleet can run at its most efficient.

 “Right-size” the fleet by using historic data and the knowledge of the fleet drivers, management, and maintenance personnel to reduce the number of vehicles to what is


Richmond’s Fleet Analysis 2012 absolutely necessary and to replace vehicles with the correct size vehicle for the purposes for which they will be used.



Conduct life-cycle analyses to determine how and why to dispose of / replace vehicles.



Establish a preventative maintenance program.



Create and implement an anti-idling policy.



Create procedures on proper acceleration and braking.



Create standard vehicle monitoring and reporting policies.



Invest a portion of savings from increased operations efficiency into procurement of alternative fuel vehicles

Increase Alternative Fuel Use

In particular, we recommend pursuing two types of alternative fuel vehicles: Electricity and CNG. The investments already made in Richmond for an electric vehicle infrastructure make the use of electric vehicles rational and implementable. The City’s purchase of four allelectric vehicles is a step in the right direction for utilizing this infrastructure.

The City also has invested in a CNG fueling station, and there is also an alternative CNG fueling station available to the City’s fleet. The satisfaction of the supervisors and employees of the Solid Waste Division with CNG vehicles indicate that this is a fuel option that is superior to traditional fuels.



Pursue electric and CNG vehicles for all future fleet purchases/leases



Work to increase the infrastructure for both electric and CNG fueling for both City fleet use and general public use.



Partner with fuel and energy companies for procurement of alternative fuels.



Partner with Virginia Clean Cities is to help the City write and obtain grants to further its mission for clean and renewable energy sources.

Raise Awareness

Education is a key piece to making the city’s fleet “green.” Understanding goals and methods to decrease emissions will lead to better driving practices. However, education and awareness go beyond the drivers themselves. Awareness is about creating a culture of support that keeps the goals of sustainability at the forefront of people’s minds. Support for the city’s efforts will ensure that future decisions are made with sustainability in mind.



Include information on sustainable driving practices and policies in driver instruction classes.

 Have attendees of the driver instruction classes sign a copy of the City’s green fleet vision statement and indicate that they are aware of the new practices and policies.





Have all employees who have already attended driver instruction attend again to become familiar with the new practices and policies.

 Conduct a marketing campaign to highlight the City’s commitment to sustainability specifically through its efforts to move to a green fleet.



Highlight the Solid Waste Division for being the first in the city to move to alternative fuel vehicles, and at the same time bring greater awareness to city residents of their work.



Use Solid Waste Division supervisors who are familiar with the CNG refuse trucks as spokespeople for a campaign to increase awareness of alternative fuel vehicles among

City departments and private-sector partners.

Conclusion

Climate change is a reality and our city vehicle fleets contribute to it. The City is working towards becoming more sustainable, and one of the most visible things that it can do is to operate a green fleet that will serve as a reminder of as the city’s commitments and a means to promote the use of green vehicles and fuels by citizens. The change to more sustainable means of transportation will involve slow and steady effort, but with good leadership from the City and investment in the alternative fuel infrastructure, change will happen city-wide, and eventually region-wide.

Green fleet operations begin with standard vehicles as City employees begin to practice sustainable driving techniques and adhere to anti-idling policies and other fuel-saving (costsaving, GHG emissions reducing) driving methods. A single fleet management authority will oversee efficient management, operations, and maintenance of the fleet, as well as transitioning to the use of green vehicles citywide. Costs can be met through federal and local funding assistance and partnerships with other organizations and businesses, as well as through fuel cost savings. A baseline inventory will make long term cost savings analysis from alternative fuel use possible. Building on the existing electric and CNG infrastructure is the best path for

Richmond to improve sustainability and reduce harmful GHG and criteria pollutants to improve health and air quality. All of this will improve Richmond’s ability to be compliant with the

National Air Quality standards, especially with reducing ozone emissions, which will benefit

Richmond in many ways.

The Solid Waste Division should be recognized publicly for its move to cleaner fuel and vehicle technologies. The supervisors and employees in that division are in the distinct position of being among the only City workers who have experience with City-owned green vehicles, and their testimonies in favor of going green are enthusiastic and sincere. They would do much to give the green fleet public voices and faces. Other City employees as well as residents would be able to identify with them, and they could do much to promote going green both in the City’s fleet and among private citizens and businesses.

This is an introductory study of the changes already happening to green the city’s fleet and those further changes that could happen in the future. The best efforts were made to assess the current fleet and do comparisons between traditional vehicles and the cleaner CNG and


Richmond’s Fleet Analysis 2012 electric vehicles; however, time and resources limited the scope of what could be analyzed. The

City is still very new to owning and operating green vehicles, and therefore the limited amount of vehicles and the short period of time that those vehicles have been in operation affected the extent of analysis. Time constraints also put limits on how many City employees were able to participate in discussions, and allowed no time for employee observations. The recommendations presented reflect the scope of what was achievable given these constraints.

However, the recommendations provided are firmly grounded in the practices and prior experience of successful green fleets, and by implementing the best of what has been learned through these fleets, Richmond’s own green fleet will have a solid foundation and the prospects for quick and seamless implementation and growth.

References

100 Best Fleets. The government green fleet award . (2012). Retrieved from http://the100bestfleets.com/gf_about.htm

.

Bozic, R.C. (2012). Government Green Fleet Award Judge. Email communication, November 2,

2012).

Chandler, E. (2012). Green fleet best practices: Green fleets of the bluegrass webinar . Kentucky

Green Fuels Coalition.

City of Cincinnati, Clean Fuels Ohio. (2011). Green fleet strategic plan development: Phase I report.

City of Columbus, Department of Finance and Management Division of Fleet Management.

(2011). Green fleet action plan 2011-2014: 2011 year-end update .

City of Hamilton, Public Works, Fleet and Facilities Division. (2005). Green fleet implementation plan .

City of Minneapolis, Fleet Services Division. (2010). City of Minneapolis green fleet policy .

City of Richmond, Office of the City Auditor. (2012) Annual Follow-Up Progress Report Open

Recommendations Through 12/31/11 . Retrieved from http://www.richmondgov.com/Auditor/documents/2012/12-09_AnnualFollowupProgressReport.pdf

.

City of Richmond, Office of Budget and Strategic Planning. (2011) Adopted Biennial Fiscal

Plan 2012 and 2013. Retrieved from http://www.richmondgov.com/Budget/documents/BiennialPlans/2012-

2013_AdoptedBiennialFiscalPlan.pdf

.

Clean Fuels Ohio (2012). Retrieved from http://www.cleanfuelsohio.org/ .



Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Partners for Climate Protection. (2010). Enviro-fleets: reducing emissions from municipal heavy-duty vehicles .

Fleet Challenge Ontario, Municipal Green Fleet Management in Ontario. (2008). Best practices manual .

Gasbuddy.com. (2012). Retrieved from http://gasbuddy.com/GB_Price_List.aspx on Nov 21

2012 .

Pitt, D. (2012). Evaluating the greenhouse gas reduction benefits of compact housing development. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management .

Randolph, J., & Masters, G. M. (2008). Energy for sustainability: Technology, planning, policy .

Washington, DC: Island Press.

Sacramento Clean Cities Coalition. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.cleancitiessacramento.org/ .

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/refs.html

.

U.S. Department of Energy. (2012 ). Energy efficiency and renewable energy . Retrieved from www.fueleconomy.gov

.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Planning, Environment, & Realty (HEP). (2011).

Frequently asked questions about the congestion mitigation and air quality (cmaq) program .



Appendix I

Results of Green Fleet Best Practices Research

Richmond, VA

Population: 205,533 (Census 2011)

Vehicles: 2,200 units. (richmond.gov)

Fuel: 23% of city emissions are gasoline 22,575.8 metric tons CO2e (2008)

Maintenance: CNG waste trucks are maintained based on a weekly schedule.

Target: Establish baseline CO2 emissions for Richmond's fleet

Operations:

Partnerships:

Alliance AutoGas

Clean Energy Fuels Corp (Governor's agreement)

Public Works' Fleet Management Division funds for the Electric Vehicle Pilot for City Fleet (richmond.gov)

Strategy:

Perhaps coordinate Fleet management division with the office of sustainability

Develop a mission statement

Thorough analysis of what vehicles are needed for which job (right-size)

Track fuel efficiency and VMT

Devices that prevent idling (example: Dallas Police Department)

Incentives for proper use

CMAQ and Clean Cities Grants

Transparency:

Columbus, OH


Vehicles: over 5,600 units

Fuel: 3,472,072 gallons of fuel consumed in 2011of which 26% was comprised of 907,236 gallons were biodiesel.

Maintenance:

Target:

Reduce overall City fuel use by 2% compared to 2010 usage by 2014

Reduce annual petroleum use by 5% compared to 2010 levels by the end of 2014)

100% by end of 2013 (Bio-diesel purchases)

50% by end of 2011 (light duty vehicle “green purchases)

Purchase at least 22 heavy duty CNG trucks and 5 heavy duty hybrid trucks through federal grant programs

Create CNG fueling infrastructure

Operations: anti-idling devices that automatically shut-off engines when vehicles idle for more than five minutes as well as engine and hydraulic heaters (columbus.gov)

Partnerships:

Ohio Green Fleets



Recreation and Parks and Transportation divisions

Strategy:

Construct and open the first City-owned CNG fueling station

Establish baseline and reliable measurement tool to calculate GHG emissions from City-owned vehicles; establish target for GHG reduction by end of 2011

Replacing many diesel and gasoline mowers with propane powered OEM mowers.

Transitioning to right-size vehicles for their intended purpose

Transparency: Strict and short term benchmarks

Denver, CO


Vehicles: 3,500 units

136 CNG

103 gasoline/CNG dual fuel

1,041 B20 Biodiesel

29 propane

74 electric

Fuel: 738,000 gallons CNG in 2007 and 1.4 million gallons biodiesel in 2008

Maintenance: Regularly check tire pressure as part of maintenance

Target: Original target 1.5% annual CO2 reduction

Operations:

Set fuel efficiency standards in procurement regulations

Idling ordinance, no more than 5 mins idling in any hour period

Set maximum speed

Minimize VMT by GPS improved routing

Partnerships:

-

Strategy:

Reduce excess fleet vehicles

Education is critical

Buy smaller vehicles

Need a dedicated staff person to manage the fleet/ keep track of mission

LED’s in vehicles

Transparency:

Minneapolis, MN


Vehicles: As of 2011, the fleet included:

2 Plug-In Hybrid Vehicles –

71 Hybrid Vehicles

3 All-Electric Vehicles

404 Flex Fuel Vehicles (vehicles that can use E85 ethanol fuel or unleaded fuel)

290 Bio-Diesel Vehicles (vehicles that use a blend of diesel fuel, fats, and oils)

1 Dust-Free Street Sweeper (sweeps the street and is 99.9% dust free during operation)

Since 2008 the City has reduced the fleet size by 75. (site does not say how large the entire fleet is)



Fuel: Reduced gasoline consumption by 6% between 2008 and 2010.

Maintenance: Creation of a Green Fleet Team, composed of representatives from the Fleet Services Division,

Environmental Services, Sustainability Initiative, and a selected rotation of using departments.

Duties:

Monitor purchasing of vehicles and equipment to meet Policy goals and objectives

Report findings annually

Recommend acceptable initial incremental costs;

Conduct comprehensive life-cycle cost analyses prior to purchasing vehicles or equipment

Seek external funding to offset initial costs.

Target:

The target for the fleet is not defined in isolation; the City has a report called the "Greenprint" that is made annually that defines the city's environmental goals, and the Green Fleet Policy specifically states that it is intended to help the City reach those goals.

In the 2011 (and 2010) GreenPrint, the City has a goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions from municipal operations 1.5% annually (not just the fleet but all operations). [The goal in 2007, 2008, and 2009 was to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from city operations by 12% by 2012 and by 20% by 2020.]

So far, the City has met or exceeded the 1.5% reduction goal each year.

Operations:

Partnerships:

Strategy: The Policy establishes an inventory and a baseline year (Fiscal 2005). The following information will be collected for all vehicle class and fuel or energy type :

Number of vehicles

Annual miles driven (or annual hours of metered equipment)

GHG emissions (i.e., carbon dioxide equivalent)

Non-GHG tailpipe emissions (i.e., EPA criteria pollutants)

Quantity of fuel consumed by fuel type

Cost of fuel consumed by fuel type.

Transparency:

Sacramento, CA


Vehicles: 2,633 vehicles and equipment ( http://www.cityofsacramento.org/generalservices/fleet/)

Fuel :

1.7 million gallons of petroleum based fuel purchased last year

494,862 gallons of alternative fuels (E85, Propane, LNG) purchased last year

Info

Gasoline consumption reduction of 17% from 2009 to 2011

E85 and LNG fuel consumption increased 180% and 93%, respectively, from 2009 to 2011

Diesel fuel consumption decrease by 17%

Consumed 149,885 less gallons of fuel in 2011 compared to 2009

In 2011, decrease of 6.3% in total fuel consumption compared to 2009

Greenhouse gas emissions decreased by 2313 metrics tons from 2009 to 2011. This represented an 11% decrease from 2009 to 2011.

Maintenance:

$4 million in parts purchased each year



Target:

Fleet Management is in the process of adding E85 fueling infrastructure at the Kinney Police Substation to increase consumption of E85 fuel in Police vehicles by approximately 40% - 50%, approaching 80,000 gallons per year.

Fleet Management is replacing refuse trucks with 53 Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) trucks

Operations:

$34.2 million operating budget (Appendix A on page 26 lists POD budgets)

$8.5 million acquisition budget

City Manager extended the existing five-minute idling time limitation to all vehicles in the City’s fleet.

Fleet Management launched Idling Gets You Nowhere and Drive Smart anti-idling campaigns.

Vehicle Department Use Break Down

FINANCE 1 0.0%

CITY ATTORNEY 2 0.1%

LIBRARY ADMINISTRATIVE DIV 2 0.1%

TECHNOLOGY 2 0.1%

HUMAN RESOURCES 38 1.6%

CONVENTION CULTURE & LEISURE 40 1.7%

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 87 3.6%

GENERAL SERVICES 140 5.8%

FIRE 203 8.5%

PARKS & RECREATION 274 11.4%

TRANSPORTATION 336 14.0%

POLICE 611 25.4%

UTILITIES 666 27.7%

Total : 2,402 100.00%

Partnerships:

Fleet is partnering in a Department of Energy (DOE) Federal Economic Stimulus partnership for vehicle electrification with SMUD and other regional fleets. Fleet will be receiving plug-in Hybrid vehicles as part of a two year demonstration project to evaluate electric vehicle feasibility.

Fleet is participating in the CHARGE AMERICA program which is a public private partnership with Coulomb

Technologies and the U.S. Department of Energy to provide electric charging infrastructure to selected cities in the United States.

Strategy:

10 Goals

Establish Fleet Business Intelligence (FBI) Information Sharing

Expand Alternative Fueling and Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Infrastructure

Expand Alternative Fuel Vehicle Purchases (>30%)

Pilot/Demo/Evaluate New Electric Transportation Technologies

Demonstrate Cost Effectiveness of Fleet Operations

Restructure and Consolidate Shop Operations

Identify Near-Term Cost Reduction Opportunities

Continuous Improvement

Maximize Use of Fleet/Equipment Citywide (Fleet Utilization)

Top 10 Best Government Fleets in North America

Transparency: Openly posts and abdicates for public support.



Appendix II

Richmond’s Green Fleet Award Application

In 2012, Richmond submitted an application to 100 Best Fleets TM Government Green Fleet

Awards. 100 Best Fleets is a non-profit national organization catering to the unique challenges and successes of public sector fleets. Each year they accept applications from Federal, State, and local governments vying to be recognized as the greenest in America. Applications are graded using the following seven criteria (Bozic, 2012).

1.

Fleet Composition

2.

Fuel and Emissions

3.

Policy and Planning

4.

Fleet Utilization

5.

Education

6.

Executive and Employee Involvement

7.

Supporting Programs

In 2012, the City of Richmond received an honorable mention for its green fleet efforts. The pros and cons of the city’s application were identified by a Green Fleet Award judge as follows:

Table A.1. Strengths and Weaknesses of Green Fleet Award Application

Strengths



Use of CNG and a little propane



Many fuel efficient light vehicles



Overall policies



Good executive involvement



Traffic light improvements

Source: Rhea Bozic, Green Fleet Award Judge

Weaknesses



Lack of a description of public outreach and education



Lack of recycling description



No car share



Appendix III

Calculations for Ford Focus

The following calculations were used to analyze the fuel use, energy use, CO

2 emissions, and costs of four standard Ford Focus vehicles and four all electric Ford Focus vehicles. For sake of comparison, the following assumptions were made.

1.

There are four of each type of vehicle

2.

Each vehicle travels 10,000 miles/yr for a total VMT of 40,000 miles/yr

3.

There are no differences in operations and maintenance costs

4.

Fuel efficiency standards for each vehicle are static based on 2012 figures

5.

Fuel costs for each vehicle are static based on November 2012 figures

6.

CO

2 coefficients are static based on 2012 figures

Standard Ford Focuses

Fuel Cost

Fuel efficiency = 31miles/gallon

Fuel cost = $3.19/gallon

Fuel Use 40,000 miles

1 yr

Fuel Costs 1,290 gallons

1 yr

Energy Use

1 gallon gas = 114,000 Btu

1 kWh = 3,414 Btu

1,290 gallons X x x

1 gallon

31 miles

$3.19

1 gallon

=

=

1,290 gallons/yr

$4,115/yr

1 yr

114,000 Btu

1 gallon

= 147,060,000Btu/yr

147,060,000 Btu X 1 kWh = 43,076 kWh/yr

1 yr 3,414 Btu

CO

2 emissions

Gasoline CO

2 emissions coefficient: 8.92 x 10 -3 MTCO

2

/gallon gas (EPA)

1,290 gallons X 8.92 x 10-3 MTCO2 = 11.5 MTCO2/yr

1 yr 1 gallon



Electric Ford Focuses

Fuel Cost

Fuel efficiency = 32 kWh/100 miles

Electricity Cost = $.11/kWh

40,000 miles

1 yr

X .32 kWh

1 mile

= 12,800 kWh/yr

12,800 kWh

1 yr

Energy Use

1 kWh = 3,414 Btu

40,000 miles

1 yr x x $0.11

1 kWh

.32 kWh

1 mile

=

= $1,408/yr

12,800 kWh/yr

12,800 kWh

1 yr

CO

2

Emissions x 3,414 Btu

1 kWh

=

Richmond, Va Electricity Coefficient: .150 MTCO

2

/MBtu

1 MBtu = 1,000,000 Btu

43,699,299 Btu x 1 MBtu =

43,699,200 Btu/yr

43.7 MBtu/yr

1 yr 1,000,000 Btu x .150 MTCO2

1 MBtu

= 6.6 MTCO2/yr 43.7 MBtu

1 yr

Payback Period

$77,662.04

$2,707

= 28.7 yrs



Appendix IV

Calculations for CNG Refuse Trucks

The City of Richmond Department of Public Utilities provided energy use data from the city’s CNG fueling station at 3502 Hopkins Road for April through October, 2012. That facility compresses natural gas into CNG on-site to fuel the Department of Public Works’ CNG trucks.

The source data was provided in hundred cubic feet (CCF) of natural gas, with values for diesel gallons equivalent (DGE) also provided based on a conversion factor that one gallon diesel fuel

= 138,690 Btu and one CCF = 102,700 Btu. The volume of CNG produced from the compression process and consumed by the vehicles is not available.

The monthly natural gas consumption figures from the Hopkins Road facility were converted from CCF to MCF (thousand cubic feet) and then multiplied times the average monthly industrial price for natural gas as identified by the US Energy Information

Administration ( http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_dcu_SVA_m.htm

). This provided the total monthly fuel price, which was divided by the number of CNG vehicles (25) in operation to get the monthly fuel price per vehicle.

Table A.2. Monthly CNG Refuse Truck Natural Gas Fuel Usage – Public Works (2012)

Month

Fuel

Used

(CCF)

Fuel

Used

(MCF)

Fuel

Used

(DGE)

9,395

Price Per

MCF

Average

Total

Monthly

Fuel Price

Avg. Fuel Use per Vehicle

(CCF)

Avg. Fuel

Cost per

Vehicle

April 12,687 1,269 $4.86 $6,166 507 $247

May 13,033 1,303

9,651

$4.62 $6,021 521 $241

June 14,290 1,429

10,582

$4.91 $7,016 572 $281

July 15,032 1,503

11,131

$4.49 $6,749 601 $270

Aug 13,919 1,392

10,307

$4.80 $6,681 557 $267

Sept 11,797 1,180

8,736

$4.64 $5,474 472 $219

Oct 12,959 1,296

9,596

$4.60 $5,961 518 $238

Average 13,388 1,339 9,914 $4.70 $6,296 536 $252

Total 93,717 9,372 69,397 NA $44,069 NA NA

The Department of Public Works provided data on diesel fuel consumption from refuse trucks in the fiscal years 2010-2012. The data set included numbers for two vehicles operated by

Parks and Recreation Department, but the fuel consumption from those vehicles was removed so that the analysis could focus exclusively on the refuse trucks operated by the Department of

Public Works. The data provided included total fuel consumption (gallons of diesel fuel) and fuel cost for each vehicle. These fiscal-year totals were then divided by 12 to determine the total monthly fuel consumption and cost, and by the number of vehicles in operation to determine the total annual fuel consumption and cost per vehicle. The average monthly fuel consumption and cost per vehicle was then calculated by dividing the annual totals per vehicle by 12.



Table A.3. Fiscal Year Diesel Refuse Truck Fuel Consumption– Public Works

Fiscal Year

2010

Trucks in

Operation

35

Total Fuel

Use (Diesel

Gallons)

119,883

Total

Fuel Cost

$282,082

Fuel Use

(Gallons) per

Vehicle

3,425


$8,059

2011

2012

35

8

91,154

18,480

$252,743

$63,812

2,604

2,310

$7,221

$7,977

Avg. (2010-11 35 105,519 $267,413 3,015 $7,640

Fiscal Year

Trucks in

Operation

Monthly Fuel

Use (Diesel

Gallons)

9,990

Monthly

Fuel Cost

Monthly Fuel

Use (Gallons) per Vehicle

285

Monthly


$672 2010 35 $23,507

2011 35 7,596 $21,062 217 $602

2012 8 1,540 $5,318 193 $665

Avg. (2010-11) 35 8,793 $22,284 3,015 $637

Due to the lack of full-year data for the CNG vehicles, along with differences in the number of vehicles in operation from year-to-year, comparisons between the two fuel types can only be made on a basis of average monthly fuel use, fuel costs, and GHGs, as shown in Table

A.4.

Table A.4. Avg. Monthly Energy Use, Fuel Costs, and GHGs – Diesel vs. Pilot Green Fleet

Vehicle Type


Green Fleet (2012 combined)

CNG

Fuel Consumed


8,793

11,454

9,914

Energy

Consumed

(Million Btu)

1,220

1,589

1,375

Fuel

Cost

$22,284

$11,613

$6,296

Greenhouse

Gas Emissions

(lbs CO

2

-e)

196,968

195,957

161,461

Diesel

Total Savings from Green Fleet

1,540

-2,661

214

-369

$5,318

$10,671

34,496

1,011

Percent savings from Green Fleet -30% -30% 48% 1%

The greenhouse gas emissions calculations are based on a rate of 22.4 pounds per gallon from the diesel vehicles and 12.06 pounds per hundred cubic feet (CCF) of natural gas used by the CNG vehicles (Randolph and Masters, 2008).

Additional analysis was conducted to estimate the energy use and GHG emissions from a full green fleet transition, in which all of the back-up diesel trucks would be replaced and 100% of refuse collection would be performed by CNG vehicles. The Office of Sustainability reported that the CNG trucks now cover an average of 82 of the 90 pick-up routes, with the other eight routes covered by one of the back-up diesel vehicles. With an average route distance of 38.33 routes, this works out to an average of 3,143 miles per week for the CNG trucks and 307 miles


Richmond’s Fleet Analysis 2012 per week for the diesel trucks. In other words, the diesel trucks now account for about 8.9% of total refuse collection by mileage. If the diesel back-up vehicles were replaced with additional

CNG vehicles, the average weekly mileage covered by the CNG vehicles would increase by 307 miles, essentially 10%. Table A.5 demonstrates the energy use, fuel costs, and GHG emissions that would result from this full conversion to CNG vehicles, assuming a 10% increase in natural gas consumption by CCF.

Table A.5. Average Monthly Energy Use, Fuel Costs, and GHGs – Diesel vs. 100% CNG

Vehicle Type


Full Green Fleet

Total Savings – Full Green Fleet

Percent savings – Full Green Fleet

Fuel Consumed


8,793

10,905

-2,112

-24%

Energy

Consumed

(Million Btu)

1,220

1,512

-293

-24%

Fuel

Cost

$22,284

$6,926

$15,358

69%

Greenhouse

Gas Emissions

(lbs CO

2

-e)

196,968

177,607

19,361

10%



Appendix V

Focus Group Questions and Results

CNG Focus Group Questions

Introduction

Policies and Planning

CNG Specifics

Introduce ourselves and what we are doing.

Get their names, job titles, and roles.

Is there a driving and maintenance policy manual?

How are the drivers measured in their understanding of operation and maintenance policies?

Are drivers and managers aware of the Richmond sustainability plan and its goal to adopt a green fleet policy?

Do the goals and objectives of Richmond's sustainability plan influence the operation and maintenance of the fleet?

How do you like the new CNG trucks?

Were there any issues when the new trucks were brought into service?

Was the reception of the drivers to the new trucks positive or negative and how?

Route, Driving, and

Maintenance

Management

Looking Forward

Are routes managed and tracked with the goal of reducing miles traveled? How is this done?

How are driving practices managed? Rewards, consequences?

What is the average travel/trip time per shift?

What is the average travel/trip length per shift?

Do the trash trucks last the whole day of making pickup rounds? If not how many times per day does it have to be emptied?

Describe the maintenance program.

Are there incentives for managers to reduce the vehicle miles driven by their drivers?

What do you believe would be the best method for positively influencing driving practice?

In your opinion is there a way to make picking up trash more efficient for you and your workers? If so how?



CNG Focus Group Results

CNG Truck Info The cab and the rear mechanism were made by different manufacturers, and two trainings are done, one for each maker's unit.

McNeilus trash truck bodies are used.

Crane Manufactures the frame.

In general 900-1100 psi of fuel burned in 8 hrs which is about half to three quarters per day.

Tanks hold 50 gallons and typically filled up to 3600 psi.

Burn more in winter, but operations remain the same throughout the year.

Trucks burn 1/2-3/4 a tank of CNG a day.

More efficient packing cycle.

Maintenance and Fleet

Management

Drivers submit daily use and maintenance report.

Extra day to work on trucks since they are only in circulations Monday-Thursday.

All maintenance done at fleet management.

The division performs pro-active maintenance.

Fleet pulls vehicles and DPW gets a report.

Records are kept on how many diesel trucks are running per day/per week. Old diesel trucks are still being run.

One day off a week gives “fleet” extra time to work on trucks. “Fleet” does all maintenance. They do proactive and reactive servicing but trucks are maintained.

Observed that CNG vehicles do not need repairing as much as diesel trucks.

CNG trucks can last all day before having to be refilled once arriving back at base.

Va Public Works manufactured gas fueling system

CNG’s are topped off with Natural Gas every night.

No real way to reduce VMT. Routes are pretty much fixed.



CNG Focus Group Results

2015 they will reevaluate trucks and replace old ones. Every five years reevaluate to see if there is a need to replace vehicles.

Route Management Route management is mainly focused on drive time reduction.

They do not track routes for length vs. appropriate fuel use!

Driving Policies Training based on your roll on the truck. With two different training seminars for cab workers and trash loaders.

Va Public Works trains all drivers at start of their employment.

Do not have a driving policy or manual but there were training sessions for the

CNG trucks with three separate vendors but no “green” driving training.

Moving from a 5-day to a 4-day work week has saved fuel and had minimal impact on households.

No “efficient” driving policies. If taking a break should shut the truck down but the incentive is to get the work done quickly and they do not take many breaks

Not enough communication between upper management and people in the field.

No real conversation about “green” policies among fleet drivers.

Drivers work 4 day a weeks with regular routes. No incentive to be more efficient except that once a route is finished workers can go home.

No written anti-idling policy and they typically leave them running all day till they come back in after the

Safety a big focus with No Smoking in and around the CNG trucks and fueling facilities.

The sustainability plan has no impact on daily operations.

Workers General CNG

Truck Observations and

Feedback:

One manager said “If I had a business, I would go green”

Better packing cycle.

Better for employee health.

Equipment holds up better.

They are faster and have better handling.

Quieter and more pleasant to drive.

CNG’s are much better than diesel trucks and the crews really prefer them. They are cleaner, less smelly, more reliable, faster, and quieter. The hydraulics are also



CNG Focus Group Results much better.

Incentives

Green Connection

Worker Concerns

No one with the City has officially asked the division how they like the green vehicles--no follow-up at all.

Supervisors said specifically the CNG vehicles work more efficiently for the task of trash collection

They love them. "Can't get them [drivers] away from them [CNG trucks] now"

When drivers are done with their route they get to go home.

Encourages time efficiency and, but not necessarily fuel efficiency.

No incentives for managers or drivers to reduce VMTs or fuel use.

Overtime is very limited due to moving to a 4 day work week.

Disconnect between citizens and city hall people about the city’s efforts to be green.

Should help promote to the neighboring counties.

Too much turnover in administration for consistent communication and development of green policies from top to bottom

They feel like they are the only department “going green”

Also, they feel the citizens do not know what they are doing and why they are doing this. It prevents city from being a good example to citizens.

SWM collection very stressful and dangerous.

Most days the department is short 8 drivers and 11 collectors city employees.

Pay increases may help in job retention.

Not helpful having to backfill with vacancies with temporary employees.

Temp employees not as concerned with doing job correctly or becoming an efficient employee.

Temporary employees end up costing the DPU time and money in regards to constantly retraining employees. If retention was to go up it would save the DPU money each year.

Bonuses would be a great incentive for managers and drivers to operate more efficiently and to maintain employees.

Low morale and not enough full time employees. Could use some recognition



CNG Focus Group Results and communication.

Veteran drivers are better and more efficient than temp drivers.

Currently many places have too many cans which can slow the process down.

Need to make sure people don’t have more cans than they should. Reduce number of cans in circulation.

Suggestions

Supervisors would recommend everything in the City goes green--would go green with personal vehicles if could afford it

Automated trucks cannot be used everywhere, but applicable to some neighborhoods

Increase capabilities of the emergency fueling station on Maury Street (in case something happens with the facility on N. Hopkins)

Ask for DPW input when making decisions for future equipment procurement.

DPU successes should be sold to fleet management, then similar policies could be expanded elsewhere in the city.

Hire more full time drivers.

Eight diesel trucks are still in circulation and are only used when CNG vehicles are being serviced. In a given day 3-5 diesel trucks are being used.

The group all approve of replacing all the remaining diesel trucks with CNG trucks when the opportunity arises.


Richmond*s Fleet Analysis - carbonn Climate Registry

IRGINIA

OMMONWEALTH

NIVERSITY

Richmond’s Fleet Analysis

Acknowledgements

Executive Summary

Introduction

The Current Fleet

Analysis

Electric Ford Focus Vehicles

Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Vehicles

Focus Group

“If I had a business, I would go green”

~DPU employee

Best Practices

Creating a Green Fleet Plan

Optimizing Fleet Efficiency

Increasing Alternative Fuel Use

Best Practices Summary

Recommendations

Create a Green Fleet Plan

Optimize Fuel Efficiency

Increase Alternative Fuel Use

Raise Awareness

Conclusion

References

Appendix I

Results of Green Fleet Best Practices Research

Appendix II

Richmond’s Green Fleet Award Application

Appendix III

Calculations for Ford Focus

Appendix IV

Calculations for CNG Refuse Trucks

Appendix V

Focus Group Questions and Results

Related documents

Products

Support

Richmond*s Fleet Analysis - carbonn Climate Registry

IRGINIA

OMMONWEALTH

NIVERSITY

Richmond’s Fleet Analysis

Acknowledgements

Executive Summary

Introduction

The Current Fleet

Analysis

Electric Ford Focus Vehicles

Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Vehicles

Focus Group

“If I had a business, I would go green”

~DPU employee

Best Practices

Creating a Green Fleet Plan

Optimizing Fleet Efficiency

Increasing Alternative Fuel Use

Best Practices Summary

Recommendations

Create a Green Fleet Plan

Optimize Fuel Efficiency

Increase Alternative Fuel Use

Raise Awareness

Conclusion

References

Appendix I

Results of Green Fleet Best Practices Research

Appendix II

Richmond’s Green Fleet Award Application

Appendix III

Calculations for Ford Focus

Appendix IV

Calculations for CNG Refuse Trucks

Appendix V

Focus Group Questions and Results

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib