Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutIR 7818 INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS No. 7818 I A,0 April 5, 1994 To the Mayor and Members of the City Council Z5 »r Ex Subject: 16 7 ALTERNATIVE FUELS PROGRAM On November 30, 1994 (I.R. No. 7775), the City Council was -briefed on plans to submit a request for Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) grant funds to the North Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) Regional Transportation Council. CMAQ funds in the amount of $1,157,440 and requiring a City match of $289,360 were requested for fiscal years 1993/94 through 1995/96 for the purchase and/or conversion of 844 City vehicles to use alternative fuels. It was indicated at that time that although the City had not made a decision to commit to a single alternative fuel, the estimated costs to use propane were used in the calculations. On January 6, 1994, the Regional Transportation Council was requested to consider the City for additional CMAQ grant funds in the amount of $1,322,880 in order that the same number of vehicles could be purchased and/or converted to use compressed natural gas (CNG). The City of Fort Worth has been notified that based on our initial request, CMAQ funding in the amount of$1,206,727 has been allocated to purchase and/or convert 822 vehicles to use propane over the next three years. The City will in the next few OFF, weeks be receiving a letter of agreement for FY 1993/94 concerning this request. We have further been informed that all funds for the Western Subregion have been allocated and that it may be three or four months before it will�e known whether the additional funds we requested may be available to utilize CNG as an alternative fuel to the same extent as had been planned for propane. During the past two years, the City has worked with both CNG and propane conversions. City staff with representatives from the Federal, State, and local governments and the fuel industry served on the NCTCOG Fuel Technology Task Force that produced the Regional Alternative Fuels Program. City staff has also networked with other fleet managers who are using alternative fuels to learn from their experiences. City staff has the knowledge and experience to be able to analyze the characteristics of the fuels to determine which would best meet our operational needs. What follows is information about those fuels and what staff believes to be the major issues in considering their utilization on a large scale in the City's fleet of vehicles. As alternative fuels for use in vehicular fleets, propane and CNG have a number of characteristics in common which would provide environmental and economic benefits. Both propane and CNG are environmentally-friendly, efficient, clean burning fuels. Both will cause less wear on engines and reduce maintenance costs. Both will help reduce emissions and improve air quality. Both are non-toxic and present no contamination danger to surrounding soil or water, The Texas economy benefits from the use of both propane and CNG in that the state produces a significant portion of ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER FORT WORTH, TEXAS ............ INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS No. 7818 A T I g To the Mayor and Members of the City Council April 5, 1994 , 0 Page 2 of J,OP I 3 I X Py Subject: eia the country's propane and CNG supplies. Increased utilization will result in economic growth for these industries. There are also some major differences in the two fuels which could significantly affect the City and equipment operation depending on the fuel that is selected. Staff believes those differences to be in the area of conversion costs, the relative ranges, of the fuels, the cost of refueling facilities, and fuel costs. The cost to retrofit a vehicle to use CNG is $3,600 - $3,800. The cost to retrofit a vehicle to use propane is $1,600 - $1,800. The incremental additional cost of a new vehicle dedicated to use CNG is $3,200 - $3,400 and for propane it is $1,400 - $1,600. CNG conversions cost approximately twice as much as propane conversions. The difference in the relative ranges between CNG and propane is the factor that would have the most significant impact on equipment operations and productivity. CNG vehicles can expect to have a range of 33% to 50% of gasoline powered vehicles. Propane powered vehicles can expect to have a range of 80% to 85% of gasoline powered vehicles. The limited range of CNG would require that vehicles be refueled more frequently and thus result in lower productivity or if bi-fueled they would operate more on gasoline which would be counterproductive to the objectives of the alternative fuels program. A requirement of vehicles converted using CMAQ funds is that the vehicle be operated 9,000 miles per year and it be operated using the alternative fuel a minimum of 90% of the vehicle miles traveled each month. The costs of refueling facilities for CNG and propane are also significantly different. Based on the number of vehicles that have been proposed to be converted to alternative fuels, two refueling facilities will be needed. It is estimated that to develop two fast fueling facilities for CNG each with two dispensers on City property would cost $660,000. To develop two propane refueling facilities with the same capability on City property is estimated to cost $50,000 to $70,000. The difference in costs is attributed to the compressors and the relative complexity of the equipment required. It is planned that there will be public access to these facilities. There are a number of options that can be pursued with product suppliers to finance development of these facilities. Generally, fuel costs for both CNG and propane are less than they are for gasoline. However, the price of all fuels will fluctuate according to supplies and seasonal demands. The City has recently paid the following prices for fuel: $.79 per gallon for unleaded gasoline, $.75 per gallon for CNG, and $.54 per gallon for propane. As demand increases and refueling infrastructure for alternative fuels'is developed, fuel Or,^ costs could very well increase. -ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER FORT WORTH, TEXAS `INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS No. 7818 April 5, 1994 OR" To the Mayor and Members of the City Council 0 Page 3 of 3 Cl E P, Subject: It is the City staffs opinion that in terms of the issues of conversion costs, relative ranges, refueling facility costs, and current fuel prices, conversion of City vehicles to propane offers more potential benefits than does CNG. Based on the preceding analysis, it is requested that approval be given to: (1) Proceed with conversion of City vehicles to propane as outlined in the plan submitted to the NCTCOG requesting CMAQ funds, and (2) Identify and pursue options available to develop both City and public-use refueling facilities for propane fueled vehicles. Additional information can be provided upon request. 4o�b Terre>1157 City Manager -ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER FORT WORTH, TEXAS