Members Jim Janney, Chair Mayor, Imperial Beach (Representing South County) Jerry Jones, Vice Chair Mayor Pro Tem, Lemon Grove (Representing East County) Lesa Heebner Councilmember, Solana Beach (Representing North County Coastal) Steve Gronke REGIONAL Councilmember, Vista (Representing North County Inland) PLANNING Pam Slater-Price Vice Chairwoman, County of San Diego Jerry Sanders COMMITTEE Mayor, City of San Diego Alternates Al Ovrom Friday, July 31, 2009 Councilmember, Coronado (Representing South County) 12 Noon to 2 p.m. Jerry Selby Councilmember, Lemon Grove SANDAG Board Room th (Representing East County) 401 B Street, 7 Floor Jerry Kern Councilmember, Oceanside San Diego (Representing North County Coastal) Don Higginson Deputy Mayor, Poway (Representing North County Inland) Bill Horn AGENDA HIGHLIGHTS Supervisor, County of San Diego Sherri Lightner Councilmember, City of San Diego • TransNet ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION PROGRAM Todd Gloria Councilmember, City of San Diego STATUS REPORT AND FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS Advisory Members • RECOMMENDATION ON REGIONAL ALTERNATIVE Susannah Aguilera U.S. Department of Defense FUELS, VEHICLES, AND INFRASTRUCTURE REPORT Ernie Ewin Metropolitan Transit System • DISCUSSION ON REGIONAL ENERGY STRATEGY Rocky Chavez / Carl Hilliard UPDATE North County Transit District Elsa Saxod / Howard Williams San Diego County Water Authority Scott Peters / William Hall San Diego Unified Port District Pedro Orso-Delgado / Bill Figge PLEASE TURN OFF CELL PHONES DURING THE MEETING District 11 Director, Caltrans Bill Anderson Regional Planning YOU CAN LISTEN TO THE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMITTEE Technical Working Group MEETING BY VISITING OUR WEB SITE AT WWW.SANDAG.ORG Johnny Hernandez, Spokesman Santa Ysabel Band of Diegueño Indians Allen Lawson, Chairman San Pasqual Band of Indians Southern California Tribal MISSION STATEMENT Chairmen’s Association Environmental Mitigation Program The Regional Planning Committee provides oversight for the preparation and Advisory Members implementation of the Regional Comprehensive Plan that is based on the local general Vacant / Susan Wynn plans and regional plans and addresses interregional issues with surrounding counties U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and Mexico. The components of the plan include: transportation, housing, environment Steve Juarez / David Meyer (shoreline, air quality, water quality, habitat), economy, borders, regional infrastructure California Department of Fish & Game needs and financing, and land use and design. Therese O’Rourke / Michelle Matson U.S. Army Corps of Engineers San Diego Association of Governments ⋅ 401 B Street, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101-4231 Deborah Townsend / Catherine Caldwell Wildlife Conservation Board (619) 699-1900 ⋅ Fax (619) 699-1905 ⋅ www.sandag.org Gary L. Gallegos Executive Director, SANDAG
Welcome to SANDAG. Members of the public may speak to the Regional Planning Committee on any item at the time the Committee is considering the item. Please complete a Speaker’s Slip, which is located in the rear of the room, and then present the slip to Committee staff. Also, members of the public are invited to address the Committee on any issue under the agenda item entitled Public Comments/Communications/Member Comments. Speakers are limited to three minutes. The Regional Planning Committee may take action on any item appearing on the agenda.
This agenda and related staff reports can be accessed at www.sandag.org under meetings on the SANDAG Web site. Public comments regarding the agenda can be forwarded to SANDAG via the e-mail comment form also available on the Web site. E-mail comments should be received no later than noon, two working days prior to the Regional Planning Committee meeting.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), SANDAG will accommodate persons who require assistance in order to participate in SANDAG meetings. If such assistance is required, please contact SANDAG at (619) 699-1900 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. To request this document or related reports in an alternative format, please call (619) 699-1900, (619) 699-1904 (TTY), or fax (619) 699-1905.
SANDAG offices are accessible by public transit. Phone 511 or see 511sd.com for route information.
2 REGIONAL PLANNING COMMITTEE July 31, 2009
ITEM # RECOMMENDATION
+1. APPROVAL OF JUNE 5, 2009, MEETING MINUTES APPROVE
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS/COMMUNICATIONS/MEMBER COMMENTS
Members of the public will have the opportunity to address the Regional Planning Committee (RPC) on any issue within the jurisdiction of the Committee that is not on this agenda. Speakers are limited to three minutes each and shall reserve time by completing a “Request to Speak” form and giving it to the Clerk prior to speaking. Committee members also may provide information and announcements under this agenda item.
REPORTS
+3. REGIONAL PLANNING STAKEHOLDERS WORKING GROUP MEMBERSHIP RECOMMEND RECOMMENDATION (Lesa Heebner, Councilmember, Solana Beach)
At its May 22, 2009, meeting the Board of Directors approved the establishment of the Regional Planning Stakeholders Working Group (SWG) to provide input on the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and other related initiatives. The attached report provides an overview of the selection process and the recommended membership slate. The RPC is asked to recommend that the Board of Directors approve the slate of members and alternates indicated in Tables 1 and 2 to serve as at-large citizen representatives on the SWG.
+4. TransNet ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION PROGRAM: STATUS REPORT INFORMATION (Keith Greer)
The TransNet Environmental Mitigation Program (EMP) Status Report outlines the status, successes, and challenges of implementing the TransNet EMP under the Memorandum of Agreement signed in March 2008 by the Board of Directors. This report has been presented to the Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee and is being presented to the RPC, Transportation Committee, and Board of Directors for information.
+5. TransNet EMP FIVE-YEAR FUNDING STRATEGY UPDATE, FY 2010 FUNDING RECOMMEND ALLOCATION, AND FY 2010 LAND MANAGEMENT GRANT CRITERIA (Keith Greer)
The RPC is asked to recommend that the Board of Directors: (1) approve the updated Five-Year Conceptual Funding Strategic Plan, the proposed management and monitoring activities and budget for FY 2010 totaling $4 million, and, subject to Board Policy No. 017, authorize staff to solicit proposals and enter into contracts or amend existing contracts accordingly; and (2) adopt the modifications to the submittal and evaluation criteria for land management grants for FY 2010.
3
ITEM # RECOMMENDATION
+6. FINAL DRAFT REGIONAL ALTERNATIVE FUELS, VEHICLES, AND RECOMMEND INFRASTRUCTURE REPORT (Andrew Martin)
The objective of the Alternative Fuels, Vehicles, and Infrastructure Report for Local Government Fleet Applications (Report) is to provide useful information and tools that will enable SANDAG, its member agencies, and other regional stakeholders to take actions that could increase alternative fuel vehicle use and infrastructure availability in the region. Upon a recommendation from the RPC, the Board of Directors released the draft Report for public review. Comments have been received from the public and the California Energy Commission's State Advisory Task Force (SATF). This report provides a summary of the comments and explains how the comments have been addressed. The RPC is asked to recommend that the Board of Directors accept the final version of the Report for distribution.
+7. PRELIMINARY DRAFT REGIONAL ENERGY STRATEGY UPDATE ACCEPT (Susan Freedman)
The Regional Energy Strategy (RES) is being updated to improve the integration of regional energy and transportation planning goals. At the April meeting, the RPC discussed draft RES guiding principles and regional energy goals. The preliminary draft RES has been prepared and is being presented to the RPC to accept for public distribution and comment. It is anticipated that the final draft RES will be presented to the RPC for a recommendation to the Board of Directors in October 2009.
+8. STIMULUS FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES FROM U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DISCUSSION AND CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION (Susan Freedman)
There are various federal stimulus funding sources that local governments and regional agencies, including SANDAG, can apply for. Staff will present an overview of anticipated sources of funding and highlight some current efforts to solicit funding from the Department of Energy and California Energy Commission. The RPC is asked to provide input regarding energy-related grant opportunities and express its level of interest in SANDAG undertaking regional efforts for stimulus dollars.
9. UPCOMING MEETINGS INFORMATION
The next meeting of the RPC is scheduled for October 2, 2009, at 12 noon.
10. ADJOURNMENT
+ next to an agenda item indicates an attachment
4 San Diego Association of Governments REGIONAL PLANNING COMMITTEE
July 31, 2009 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 1
Action Requested: APPROVE
TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE AND REGIONAL PLANNING COMMITTEE ACTIONS JOINT MEETING OF JUNE 5, 2009
The joint meeting of the Transportation Committee and the Regional Planning Committee was called to order by Chair Jim Janney (South County) at 10:30 a.m.
1. PUBLIC COMMENTS/COMMUNICATIONS/MEMBER COMMENTS
William Sheets, a member of the public, spoke regarding lack of security on the Blue Line trolley.
Chair Jack Dale (East County) stated that SANDAG received the California Transportation Foundation “Tranney” awards for the Interstate 15 (I-15) Express Lanes and the Smart Corner Transit-Oriented Development projects. SANDAG also received the National Association of Regional Councils (NARC) Major Metro General Achievement award for the I-15 Express Lanes.
REPORTS (A through D)
A. 2050 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN: WORK PROGRAM AND SCHEDULE (INFORMATION)
This report provides an overview of the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) work program and schedule. The 2050 RTP will be based on a 2050 Regional Growth Forecast, will incorporate the results of the many regional and corridor studies currently underway, and will include new components as required by Senate Bill 375. Additionally, responsibilities and roles of various working groups and the Policy Committees are outlined. This report is being provided to the Regional Planning and Transportation Committees for information and will be provided to the Board of Directors at a future meeting.
Action: This item was presented for information only.
B. 2050 REGIONAL GROWTH FORECAST (RECOMMEND)
In preparation for the 2050 RTP, work is underway to develop the 2050 Regional Growth Forecast. This report provides an overview of the process to develop the forecast and progress to date. Additionally, the report presents draft alternative land use scenarios that have been developed in collaboration with the Regional Planning Technical Working Group as a means to address future growth in the region.
Action: Upon a motion by Supervisor Pam Slater-Price (County of San Diego) and a second by Chairman Bob Campbell (North County Transit District [NCTD]), the Regional Planning and Transportation Committees recommended that the Board of Directors accept and distribute selected draft alternative land use scenarios for public review and use in upcoming public workshops.
C. PILOT SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM STATUS REPORT (INFORMATION)
After extensive work with the Regional Planning and Transportation Committees, in 2005, the Board of Directors awarded $24 million to 14 smart growth projects through the Pilot Smart Growth Incentive Program. This status report is being provided to the Regional Planning and Transportation Committees for information.
Action: This item was presented for information only.
D. 2035 CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION PLAN (INFORMATION)
The California Transportation Plan (CTP) is a statewide, long-range transportation plan for meeting statewide mobility needs. The CTP defines goals, policies, and strategies to achieve a collective vision for California’s future transportation system. This plan, with a minimum 20-year planning horizon, is prepared by Caltrans in response to federal and state requirements and is updated every five years. The current CTP 2025 was approved in 2006 and updated by an addendum in October 2007 to comply with SAFETEA-LU requirements. An update to the plan for the 2035 planning horizon was initiated in September 2008. Caltrans staff will provide an update on the development of this latest planning effort.
Action: This item was presented for information only.
2. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Dale adjourned the joint meeting at 11:32 a.m.
REGIONAL PLANNING COMMITTEE ACTIONS MEETING OF JUNE 5, 2009
The meeting of the Regional Planning Committee was called to order by Chair Janney at 12:00 p.m. See the attached attendance sheet for Regional Planning Committee member attendance.
1. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES (APPROVE)
Action: Upon a motion by Supervisor Slater-Price, and a second by Councilmember Lesa Heebner (North County Coastal), the Regional Planning Committee approved the minutes from the May 1, 2009, meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENTS/COMMUNICATIONS/MEMBER COMMENTS
Don Stillwell, a member of the public, spoke regarding cancellations of bus routes and proposed changes to bus routes.
2 CHAIR’S REPORT
3. ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE WORKSHOP ANNOUNCEMENTS (INFORMATION)
SANDAG will hold two public workshops at the California Center for Sustainable Energy (CCSE). The first will be for the Draft Regional Energy Strategy Update beginning at 5:30 p.m. on July 9, 2009. The second will be for the Draft Regional Climate Action Plan, which was scheduled for 5:30 p.m. on July 16, 2009, but has been postponed; the new date will be announced at a later date. Public comment will be accepted at each workshop and for two weeks following. The CCSE is located at 8690 Balboa Avenue, Suite 100, San Diego, CA 92123-1502. Action: This item was presented for information only.
CONSENT ITEM (#4)
4. CALIFORNIA REGIONAL BLUEPRINT PLANNING PROGRAM (INFORMATION)
The California Regional Blueprint Planning Program awards grants to metropolitan planning organizations, such as SANDAG, to fund comprehensive regional planning efforts. Since 2006, SANDAG has been awarded funding through this competitive grant program to supplement existing funding to implement the Regional Comprehensive Plan. SANDAG was recently awarded a $400,000 grant from the program. The purpose of this informational report is to provide an overview of completed and ongoing work supported by the grant.
Action: This item was presented for information only.
REPORT ITEMS (#5 and #6)
5. REGIONAL ALTERNATIVE FUELS, VEHICLES, AND INFRASTRUCTURE DRAFT REPORT (RECOMMEND)
As part of the California Energy Commission (CEC) partnership, SANDAG is developing a report on available alternative fuels, vehicles, and infrastructure for local government fleet applications, sample ordinances and procurement policies local governments can use, funding opportunities to accelerate deployment of alternative fuel vehicles, and specific areas in the region where fueling infrastructure could be sited.
Chairman Bob Campbell, NCTD, commented in support of this item and urged that diesel fuel not be completely deleted from inventory.
Action: Upon a motion by Supervisor Slater-Price and a second by Councilmember Lesa Heebner, the Regional Planning Committee recommended that the Board of Directors accept the Regional Alternative Fuels, Vehicles, and Infrastructure Draft Report for public distribution and comments.
3 6. SMART GROWTH IN EL CAJON (INFORMATION)
Local smart growth projects are periodically highlighted at the Regional Planning Committee. The Planning and Community Development Director of El Cajon provided an overview of the Downtown Specific Plan Update currently taking place in the City of El Cajon.
Action: This item was presented for information only.
7. UPCOMING MEETINGS
The next meeting of the Regional Planning Committee is scheduled for July 10, 2009, at 12 noon, but may be moved to July 31, 2009. Confirmation will be announced at a later date.
8. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Janney adjourned the meeting at 1:01 p.m.
Attachment: Attendance Sheet
4 CONFIRMED ATTENDANCE SANDAG REGIONAL PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING JUNE 5, 2009 — 12 noon to 2 p.m.
ATTENDING MEMBER / SUBREGIONAL JURISDICTION NAME ALTERNATE Yes No AREA North County Inland City of Vista Steve Gronke Member 3
City of Poway Don Higginson Alternate 3
South County City of Imperial Beach Jim Janney, Chair Member 3
City of Coronado Al Ovrom, Jr. Alternate 3
North County Coastal City of Solana Beach Lesa Heebner Member 3
City of Oceanside Jerry Kern Alternate 3
East County City of Lemon Grove Jerry Jones, Vice Chair Member 3
City of Lemon Grove Jerry Selby Alternate 3
City of San Diego ---- Jerry Sanders Member 3
---- Sherri Lightner 1st Alternate 3
---- Todd Gloria 2nd Alternate 3
County of San Diego ---- Pam Slater-Price Member 3
---- Bill Horn Alternate 3
Advisory Members Caltrans, District 11 Pedro Orso-Delgado Member 3 Bill Figge Alternate 3
Advisory Member San Diego County Water Elsa Saxod Member 3 Authority Howard Williams Alternate 3
Advisory Member Department of Defense Susanah Aguilera Member 3
Advisory Member San Diego Unified Port Scott Peters Member 3 District vacant Alternate 3
Advisory Member MTS Ernie Ewin Member 3 Al Ovrom Alternate 3 3 Advisory Member NCTD Rocky Chavez Member Carl Hilliard Alternate 3
Regional Planning Bill Anderson Member 3 Advisory Member Technical Working Group (TWG) Jonathon Brindle Alternate 3 Johnny Hernandez Advisory Member Southern California Tribal (Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel) Member 3 Chairmen’s Association Allen Lawson (San Pasqual) Alternate 3
5
ATTENDING MEMBER / SUBREGIONAL JURISDICTION NAME ALTERNATE AREA Yes No
Environmental Wildlife Conservation Deborah Townsend Member 3 Mitigation Program Board 3 Advisory Member Catherine Caldwell Alternate
Environmental California Department of Steve Juarez Member 3 Mitigation Program Fish and Game Advisory Member David Mayer Alternate 3
Environmental US Army Corps of Engineers Therese O’Rourke Member 3 Mitigation Program 3 Advisory Member Michelle Matson Alternate
Environmental US Fish and Wildlife Service VACANT Member 3 Mitigation Program Advisory Member Susan Wynn Alternate 3
6 San Diego Association of Governments REGIONAL PLANNING COMMITTEE
July 31, 2009 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 3
Action Requested: RECOMMEND
REGIONAL PLANNING STAKEHOLDERS WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATION File Number 3100000
Introduction Recommendation
The Board of Directors approved the establishment of The Regional Planning Committee is asked the Regional Planning Stakeholders Working Group to recommend that the Board of Directors (SWG) in May 2009. The SWG will act in an advisory approve the slate of members and capacity to both the Regional Planning and alternates indicated in Tables 1 and 2 to Transportation Committees on the development of serve as at-large citizen representatives on the 2050 RTP and its components; development and the Regional Planning Stakeholders implementation of the SANDAG Public Participation Working Group. Plan; and preparation for a future Regional Comprehensive Plan update. The call for SWG membership applications for at-large citizen representatives was issued on June 1, 2009, with a deadline of June 30. More than 70 applications were received and reviewed by a selection committee consisting of members of the Transportation and Regional Planning Committees, the Cities/County Technical Advisory Committee (CTAC), and the Regional Planning Technical Working Group (TWG). The selection committee was chaired by SANDAG Board of Directors’ First Vice Chair. The selection committee recommended approval of a slate of 19 members and nine alternates, shown in Tables 1 and 2. (The alternates would replace regular members if those members needed to resign over the course of the planning period.) The recommended at-large citizen membership and alternates are shown in Tables 1 and 2.
Discussion
The following outlines the selection process for members of the SWG: Membership Categories – The SWG provides a unique opportunity for SANDAG to involve citizens with expertise in subject matter areas of regional interest as well as individuals who reflect the demographics of the region, with particular emphasis on communities that are not traditionally involved in regional planning processes. The SWG charter (Attachment 1) includes two categories of membership: At-Large Citizen Representatives and Community-based Outreach Grant Recipients from Environmental Justice Communities. The recommendation in this report concerns the At-Large membership category only. The Board of Directors delegated authority to SANDAG staff to coordinate the membership selection and grant-making process for the second category. Selection Committee – A committee was assembled to select the at-large citizen representatives to the SWG. At their meetings of May 1, 2009, the Transportation Committee appointed Councilmembers Matt Hall (City of Carlsbad) and Tony Young (City of San Diego) and the Regional Planning Committee appointed Councilmember Lesa Heebner (Solana Beach) and Supervisor
Pam Slater-Price (County of San Diego) to serve on the selection committee. The CTAC appointed Paul Vo (City of San Marcos) and Maryam Babaki (City of National City) at its meeting of June 4, 2009, and on May 14, 2009, the TWG appointed Gary Halbert (City of Chula Vista) and Bill Chopyk (City of La Mesa). The selection committee was chaired by SANDAG Board of Directors’ First Vice Chair, Councilmember Jerome Stocks (City of Encinitas). Recruitment Announcements – Advertisements and articles announcing the call for SWG membership applications were placed in The San Diego Union-Tribune, North County Times, La Prensa, and Asian Journal. A full-page article was published in Spanish in El Latino. A press release was distributed to all regional and local media; e-mail notification was distributed to SANDAG e-mail lists; notices and a featured project were posted on the SANDAG Web site; and an item was featured in rEgion, the monthly SANDAG electronic newsletter. Selection Criteria – The selection committee reviewed the membership applications and selected candidates based upon balancing the group by geography and interests, maximizing the number of groups the candidate is associated with, skills and abilities, experience with regional planning issues, and a demonstrated commitment to serve on the working group for approximately two years. Replacement Process – Should at-large members resign, or miss three meetings in a row or four meetings over the course of one year, the selection committee also selected alternates by subregion. Alternates will be appointed by subregion alphabetically. Should the alternate list be exhausted, the selection committee will reconvene to review the remaining pool of applicants.
Recommended Membership The selection committee recommended the following individuals to serve as at-large members on the SWG.
RECOMMENDED REGIONAL PLANNING STAKEHOLDERS WORKING GROUP AT-LARGE CITIZEN MEMBERSHIP SLATE
Table 1 City of San Diego o Cary Lowe o Barry Schulz o Elyse Lowe o Sandor Shapery o Eddie Price * o Andrea Skorepa * o Stephan Russell County of San Diego o Michael Fitts o Barbara Warner o Oliver Smith North County Coastal o Holly S. McGoldrick o Ervin Poka, Jr. North County Inland o Garry Knight o Margarette Morgan East County o Todd Galarneau o Dennis Wahl South County o David Krogh o Ditas Yamane * o Ken Mitchell * Affiliated with a minority organization with countywide constituent base
2
The selection committee recommended the following individuals as alternates to replace at-large members as needed.
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATES Table 2
City of San Diego County of San Diego o Daniel Allen o Dennis Martinek o Michael Boyle o Nico Calavita North County Coastal North County Inland o Dennis Ridz o Robert K. Leonard East County South County o Lynda Brophy o Tracey Rivera
Next Steps If recommended by the Regional Planning and Transportation Committees, the Board of Directors will be asked to approve the SWG slate at its meeting on September 11, 2009. Staff was delegated the authority to proceed with the grant program for the Community-based Outreach members from the environmental justice community. The results of that process will be included in the staff report for the September 11 Board of Directors meeting. Following Board approval, the first meeting of the SWG would be held on Wednesday, September 16, from 4 - 6 p.m. at the Caltrans offices on Taylor Street in Old Town.
BOB LEITER Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning
Attachment: 1. Regional Planning Stakeholders Working Group Charter
Key Staff Contact: Jane Clough-Riquelme, (619) 699-1909, [email protected]
3 Attachment 1
Charter for Regional Planning Stakeholders Working Group
PURPOSE The purpose of the Regional Planning Stakeholders Working Group (SWG) is to provide ongoing public input into key activities associated with developing the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and its key components, including its goals and objectives; a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) required by Senate Bill 375 (2008); and laying the foundation for the next Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) update.
LINE OF REPORTING Depending on the activity or element being considered, the SWG will act in an advisory capacity to either or both the Regional Planning Committee and/or Transportation Committee on specific 2050 RTP, SCS, and RCP elements. The Regional Planning and Transportation Committees in turn report to the SANDAG Board of Directors, which will make final decisions on the 2050 RTP, SCS, and RCP.
RESPONSIBILITIES The SWG will review and provide input that staff will use to develop and adopt the 2050 RTP, as well as lay the foundation for the next RCP update. These activities may include, but are not limited to, the development of the 2050 Regional Growth Forecast, Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), Urban Core Transit Strategy, and the RTP/SCS Public Participation Plan. The SWG also will assist with associated public outreach and help inform and encourage diverse, inclusive and active, public participation in achieving the SWG’s Purpose.
MEMBERSHIP The SWG will have up to 25 members. 16 to 18 SWG members will be “at-large” members selected based on their individual qualifications as a citizen representative or their role as a community leader, and not as an organization’s designated representative. Of the 16 to 18 individual “at-large” members, up to four members will have experience with various minority organizations with countywide constituent bases (e.g., Chicano Federation of San Diego County, Council of Native American Organizations of San Diego County, San Diego Alliance for Asian Pacific Islanders, etc.). Five to seven members will be “community-based network” members that represent community- based organizations that will have been awarded a SCS/RTP Community-Based Environmental Justice Outreach Mini-Grant and will have executed a Mini-Grant Agreement.
If an at-large SWG member misses three meetings in a row or four meetings over the course of one year, s/he will be replaced. Community-based SWG members may formally designate up to two alternates in writing. If a Community-Based SWG member misses three meetings in a row or four meetings over the course of one year without representation by one of his/her alternates, s/he will be replaced. Replacement at-large members will be selected from the approved waiting list created by the SWG Membership Selection Committee. Replacement “community-based network” members will be selected from the Community Based Outreach Mini-Grant finalists who were not previously awarded a grant.
4
MEETING TIME AND LOCATION The SWG will meet on a monthly basis. Meetings will typically be held on the third Tuesday of the month from 4 to 6 p.m. at the Caltrans District 11 offices on Taylor Street in San Diego.
WORKING GROUP LEADERSHIP The Chair of the SWG will be a member of, and will be appointed by, the SANDAG Board of Directors. The Chair will be a non-voting member who will manage meetings and facilitate discussions amongst the membership. The SWG will elect two vice-chairs by a majority vote. One vice-chair will serve as an advisory member to the Regional Planning Committee while the other will serve as an advisory member to the Transportation Committee when invited by the applicable committee chair due to an RTP-related item being placed on the agenda.
DURATION OF EXISTENCE The SWG will complete its work with the adoption of the 2050 RTP (anticipated in summer 2011).
BROWN ACT AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST Consistent with Government Code Section 54952(b), the SWG is subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act. Input from the SWG will undergo intervening analysis by staff, the Regional Planning Committee, the Transportation Committee, and other committees and working groups. Therefore members of the SWG will not be required to submit Statements of Economic Interest (Form 700).
5 San Diego Association of Governments REGIONAL PLANNING COMMITTEE
July 31, 2009 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 4
Action Requested: INFORMATION
TransNet ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION PROGRAM: STATUS REPORT File Number 1200201
Introduction
The TransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan, approved by voters in November 2004, includes an Environmental Mitigation Program (EMP), which is a funding allocation category for the cost to “create a reliable approach for funding required mitigation for future transportation improvements thereby reducing costs and accelerating project delivery (TransNet Extension Ordinance Section D).” The EMP established two funds: (1) the Transportation Mitigation Fund for direct mitigation, management, and monitoring for transportation-related impacts; and (2) the Regional Habitat Conservation Fund for efforts related to regional land acquisition, management, and monitoring for implementation of the regional habitat conservation plans.
On February 22, 2008, the Board of Directors authorized a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with Caltrans, the California Department of Fish and Game, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to establish the process to implement the goals of the TransNet EMP. The MOA, executed on March 19, 2008, memorialized a Plan of Finance (POF) strategy of $440 million over the ten years for the Transportation Mitigation Fund and $40 million for the Regional Habitat Conservation Fund.
The MOA states, “Starting in 2010, and then once every two years thereafter, SANDAG will develop a report card to analyze the status and progress of the MOA implementing the goals of the TransNet EMP for presentation to the SANDAG Board as part of the update to the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP).” The intent of this report is to provide a brief update on the progress of the EMP since inception as an interim yardstick to measure progress until the 2010 report.
Discussion
Attachment 1 summarizes the progress of the Transportation Mitigation Fund. Since January 2008, nine properties have been acquired focused on the mitigation for State Route 76, Interstate 5, and advanced mitigation for other Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) projects and local streets and roads. A total of 697 acres have been acquired and corresponding letters that these lands can be used as mitigation for project-related impacts have been obtained. Two of the properties acquired under the EMP already have received subsequent federal permits showing that the process of advance acquisition of mitigation is working as envisioned. The focus for acquisitions has been to satisfy the biological mitigation needs of the SANDAG Early Action Projects as identified by the Board of Directors in the Regional Transportation Plan. SANDAG, through its acquisition agent, Caltrans, is underway with over a dozen additional appraisals for future acquisitions of key parcels approved by the wildlife agencies across western San Diego County. It is expected that within one year staff will have identified all of the biological mitigation for the TransNet Early Action Projects, and will be in the process of securing the opportunities accordingly.
Attachment 2 summarizes the progress of the Regional Habitat Conservation Fund. Since FY 2006, 30 land management grants have been awarded throughout the western San Diego region to help implement the San Diego region land manager’s efforts under regional habitat conservation plans to preserve and enhance habitat and endangered species. The grants have been awarded through a competitive program, which has resulted in a wide range of applicants, from large agencies to small nonprofit organizations, across a large geographic area. In addition, 12 multi-year projects for regional biological monitoring and management have been funded to establish the existing conditions of species and habitat within the regional preserve system. These contracts includes the succession of plants and animals resulting from the 2003 and 2007 wildfires, the status and distribution of the California gnatcatcher, the conditions and monitoring of the habitat within the preserve, and the establishment of monitoring protocols and the status of rare plants.
A final effort under the Regional Habitat Conservation Fund is the development of a regional entity to coordinate among land managers and biological monitoring efforts to maximize efficiency and reduce the cost of maintaining and monitoring these preserve systems. This includes using a scientific framework to review the data on land management and biological monitoring, combined with an assessment of the cost and effectiveness of actions to produce a strategic approach on how to best utilize limited funding.
Challenges
The TransNet EMP is a unique approach that is being discussed as framework for other parts of California and the United States. While staff has overcome many hurdles in its implementation, several challenges still exist.
Securing opportunities for wetlands remains a challenge. As shown on Attachment 2, there remains a large need for securing opportunities for coastal and freshwater wetlands. Wetland mitigation is significantly more challenging to secure due to the federal and state regulations to create new wetlands to achieve a “no-net-loss” of wetland acreage. These stringent requirements, combined with the desire of the regulatory agencies to have the mitigation occur within the same watershed as the impact, limit opportunities. SANDAG and Caltrans staffs have employed a three-pronged approach to identifying and securing more lands for wetland mitigation. This includes focused efforts to target properties by staff, use of a consultant to model and validate opportunities unknown to staff, and a Request for Proposals to private and public land owners. These efforts are showing results and it is expected over the next year the amount of lands identified and secured for wetland mitigation will significantly increase towards the estimated need of the transportation projects.
Both the public and SANDAG leadership have requested a transparent, up-to-date system to depict the status of the EMP and to be able to track expenditures. Building off the existing TransNet Dashboard concept, staff has been working with a consultant to create an EMP Dashboard that will enable online access to the status of efforts under both the Transportation Mitigation Fund and the Regional Habitat Conservation Fund. The EMP Dashboard is expected to be completed in four to six months.
2 Finally, the question of how much saving has accrued under the EMP since the start of its implementation has been raised. Cost saving is measured by determining the ability for the early acquisition of mitigation land to be completed within the estimated budget. Land acquisition under the EMP has only occurred since January 2008. Many properties need to have restoration and management cost determined, as well as to obtain various permits. The TransNet EMP MOA provides for a 10-year evaluation period, with reporting every two years to establish opportunities for review. For the nine properties acquired to date, the total acquisition cost was $7.3 million (17.2% lower than the 2002 acquisition budget). This reflects the downturn in the real estate market. A complete picture of cost savings can not be determined with such limited data; however, SANDAG will continue to monitor the budgets.
Next Steps
This report is intended to be a status update of the program. In June 2010, a more detailed report will be provided to the Transportation Committee for its consideration. This report was presented to the Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee and the EMP Working Group, and will be presented to the Transportation Committee on July 31, 2009, and the Board of Directors at its meeting this September.
BOB LEITER Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning
Attachments: 1. CIP Project Number: 1200200 Biological Mitigation Fund 2. CIP Project Number: 1200300 Regional Habitat Conservation Fund
Key Staff Contact: Keith Greer, (619) 699-7390, [email protected]
3 Attachment 1 CIP Project Number: 1200200 Biological Mitigation Fund
Purpose: Environmental Mitigation Program (EMP), Biological Mitigation Fund. To secure mitigation for projects in the Regional Transportation Plan and local streets and roads pursuant to the TransNet Extension Ordinance and the subsequent TransNet Implementation Memorandum of Agreement.
TransNet Environmental Mitigation Program Mitigation Costs as of July 2009
$35,008,633
Acqusition
Restoration $770,000 $870,000 Management
Estimated Remaining Mitigation Needs: Regional Transportation Plan Projects as of July 2009
1,600 1,400 Est. Remaining 1,200 Mitigation Status: As of July 2009, 697.5 acres of land have been acquired for 1,000 988.0 (1704 ac) 800 mitigation under the TransNet EMP for regional and local Regional Acres 600 transportation projects. The focus has been on properties for Transportation 400 the TransNet Early Action projects, including State Route 76 Plan Projects 411.6 expansion and the Interstate 5 corridor. Several properties 200 220.9 (614 ac) 0 will require the future restoration of habitat. The Coastal Wetlands Freshw ater Uplands identification and acquisition of wetland mitigation
(4.1 ac) Wetlands (526.2 ac) opportunities is a signification challenge which staff actively (83.4 ac) is working to resolve. An additional 83.8 acres of uplands acquired for local streets not included in chart. 1 4 Attachment 2 CIP Project Number: 1200300 Regional Habitat Conservation Fund
Purpose: Environmental Mitigation Program, Regional Habitat Conservation Fund. In December 2006 and again in March 2008, the SANDAG Board of Directors authorized funding pursuant to the TransNet Extension Ordinance to maintain and enhance the habitat values of the regional conservation preserve system pursuant to a five- year funding strategy.
Conservation Fund Encumberances by Category as of July 2009
$6,175,000
$3,775,000
$1,050,000 Coordination Management Monitoring
Encumberances by Fiscal Year
$6,000,000
$5,000,000
$4,000,000 Status: Currently SANDAG has granted 30 projects for land $3,000,000 management activities, and has funded twelve other regional $2,000,000 management and monitoring projects ranging from post Monitoring wildfire recovery to status monitoring of endangered species. $1,000,000 Management In 2009, an effort to coordinate all the land management Coordination $0 and monitoring activities started to achieve better efficiency 2006 2007 2008 2009 of and effectiveness of efforts across the region.
5 San Diego Association of Governments REGIONAL PLANNING COMMITTEE
July 31, 2009 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 5
Action Requested: RECOMMEND
TransNet EMP FIVE-YEAR FUNDING STRATEGY UPDATE, FY 2010 FUNDING ALLOCATION, AND FY 2010 LAND MANAGEMENT GRANT CRITERIA File Number 1200201
Introduction Recommendation
The TransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure The Regional Planning Committee is Plan, approved by the voters in November 2004, asked to recommend that the Board of includes the Environmental Mitigation Program (EMP) Directors: (1) approve the updated which provides funding to mitigate habitat impacts Five-Year Conceptual Funding from regional and local transportation projects, and Strategic Plan, the proposed provides funding for regional land management and management and monitoring activities biological monitoring. The EMP is a unique component and budget for FY 2010 totaling of the TransNet Extension Ordinance in that it goes $4 million, and, subject to Board Policy beyond traditional mitigation for transportation No. 017, authorize staff to solicit projects by including a funding allocation for habitat proposals and enter into contracts or acquisition, management, and monitoring activities to amend existing contracts accordingly; help implement the regional habitat conservation and (2) adopt the modifications to the plans. This funding allocation is tied to mitigation submittal and evaluation criteria for requirements and the environmental clearance land management grants for FY 2010 approval process for projects outlined in the Regional as reflected in Attachment 2. Transportation Plan.
The purpose of this report is to recommend an update to the approved five-year EMP funding strategy, the allocation of FY 2010 funding, and modifications to land management grant criteria for FY 2010.
Discussion
Five-Year Funding Strategy and FY 2010 Allocations
On December 15, 2006, the Board of Directors approved a conceptual five-year funding strategy for the TransNet EMP Regional Conservation Fund for regional management and monitoring efforts. On September 26, 2008, the Board updated the five-year funding strategy. This conceptual funding strategy was designed to chart a course for the funding of land management and monitoring activities under the EMP. Annual allocations to implement this strategy are reviewed annually by the Board and approved accordingly.
The EMP Working Group has reviewed the existing five-year funding strategy and has proposed minor changes as shown in Attachment 1 to address the current needs of regional management and monitoring. The only new activity proposed is the standardization of management plans around the region to provide for more consistency among plans to increase the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of their implementation. The activities included in the five-year funding strategy can be reviewed at www.sandag.org/2009EMP. These activities have previously been discussed by the Policy Committees and approved by the SANDAG Board of Directors during the previous adoption of the five-year funding strategy. The proposed funding levels are consistent with the TransNet EMP Memorandum of Agreement adopted on February 22, 2008, and the TransNet Extension Ordinance. Table 1 summarizes the recommended distribution of those funds for FY 2010 and the recommended approach for implementation of the proposed activities consistent with Board Policy 17 (Delegation of Authority).
TransNet EMP FY 2010 Land Management Grant Criteria
During the Fiscal Year 2009 grant review process, the EMP Working Group was asked by the Regional Planning Committee to review and possibly modify the FY 2009 land management grant criteria, to consider urban habitat management where people can see the benefits of their investment. The EMP Working Group reviewed the existing eligibility and evaluation criteria, and the need to consider urban habitat management during its July 14, 2009, meeting.
The EMP Working Group found that as a whole the eligible activities and the criteria for evaluation were still valid to address the management needs of the region. To assist in the review of grant applications the Working Group is recommending that additional information be provided on the allocation of the requested funding and any proposed matching funds, and to indicate how the matching funds are to be secured by the applicant.
Grant projects in urban areas that promote habitat management are eligible projects under the proposed grant guidelines. To promote greater awareness and exposure of land management activities to the public, the EMP Working Group is recommending that all applicants provide the following information which will be used when evaluating the proposed land management grants:
1. Estimated population that would directly benefit from the project (e.g., people living in the immediate vicinity of the project, recreational users of the project, etc.);
2. Number and proposed volunteer hours proposed on project;
3. Use of signage and interpretation features to educate public on purpose of project and the funding source(s) used; and
4. An access plan for public use, if applicable.
These additions would enable future evaluation panels the opportunity to better rate the grant’s ability to provide outreach to the public both in urban and non-urban areas.
The EMP Working Group also is recommending that SANDAG create standardized signage that will denote the use of TransNet funds to fund the grant project. SANDAG should send out a press release after any approval by the Board of Directors on grant projects, and the applicants should be required to send out a press release once the project has been completed.
2 Finally, SANDAG staff is proposing to make the application easier to complete by developing a “fill- in-the-blank” form that will either be online or sent out with the “call-for-projects.” This will allow standardization in the grant applications making it easier for applicants, evaluators and staff.
The revised grant criteria proposed for FY 2010 is shown in Attachment 2.
Next Steps
The recommendations of the Regional Planning Committee will be forwarded in September to the Board of Directors for consideration. If approved by the Board, staff will implement the proposed activities for FY 2010 and follow the updated criteria for land management grants during the FY 2010 call for grant projects. The EMPWG unanimously supported the approval of the guidelines on July 14, 2009.
BOB LEITER Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning
Attachments: 1. Updated Five-Year Conceptual Funding Strategy 2. Project Submission Form for Consideration for TransNet Environmental Mitigation Program (EMP) Funding for Land Management (FY 2010 Funding Only)
Key Staff Contact: Keith Greer, (619) 699-7390, [email protected]
3 Table 1 Summary of Recommended FY 2010 Funding Allocation
Funding Allocated Prior Proposed Funding Activity Recommended Approach Years FY 2010 FY 06-09 Regional Coordination Program Developer $300,000 $150,000 Fund through existing contract Monitoring Coordinator $300,000 $150,000 Fund through existing contract Management Coordinator $300,000 $150,000 Fund through contract 1 GIS Specialist $150,000 $0 Fund through contract Administrative Support $0 $90,000 Fund through procurement Subtotal Regional Coordination $1,050,000 $540,000 Regional Management
Conserved Lands Database $125,000 $0 Work Completed Solicit proposals from land Land Management Grants $5,280,000 $2,085,000 managers through competitive grant program. Invasive Species Mapping $250,000 $0 1 Fund through contract. Updated Vegetation Mapping $300,000 $300,000 Fund through existing contract Fund through Memorandum of Understanding with Sheriff Enforcement $220,000 $150,000 Department and CDFG; both have enforcement capability on native open space lands. Preserve Management Plan $0 $225,000 Fund through contract. Standardization Subtotal Regional Management $6,175,000 $2,760,000 Regional Monitoring Post Fire Monitoring $1,725,000 $0 1 Fund through existing contract. Vegetation Monitoring $295,000 $0 1 Fund through existing contract Rare and Endemic Plant Monitoring $300,000 $0 1 Fund through existing contract California Gnatcatcher Monitoring $740,000 $0 Not proposed for FY 2010 California Coastal Cactus Wren $300,000 $150,000 Fund through existing contract Monitoring & Recovery Burrowing Owl Monitoring $145,000 $150,000 Fund through contract. Rare Butterfly Monitoring $170,000 $60,000 Fund through contract. Wildlife Corridor Monitoring $100,000 $200,000 Fund through contract. Other Wildlife Monitoring $0 $140,000 Fund through contract. Subtotal Regional Monitoring $3,775,000 $700,000 TOTAL FUNDING STRATEGY $11,000,000 $4,000,000
Note: Some activities will require implementation over multiple years.
1 Funds encumbered in FY 2009 are available for this activity in FY 2010.
4 Attachment 1
Conceptual Five-Year Funding Strategy Updated 2009 changes shown in italic
PROPOSED Prior FYs YR-1 YR-2 YR-3 YR-4 YR-5 REGIONAL COORDINATION FY06-09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 1 Program Developer $300,000 $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 2 Program Administrator $0 $0 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 3 Management Coordinator $300,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 4 Monitoring Coordinator $300,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 5 Administrative Support $0 $90,000 $90,000 $90,000 $90,000 $90,000 6 Biologist $0 $0 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000
7 GIS Specialist $150,000 $0 1 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 8 Database Specialist $0 $0 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 9 GIS/Database Technican $0 $0 $130,000 $130,000 $130,000 $130,000 Subtotal Regional Coordination $1,050,000 $540,000 $1,220,000 $1,220,000 $1,220,000 $1,220,000
REGIONAL MANAGEMENT 10 Conserved Lands Database Development $125,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 11 Land Management Implementation $5,280,000 $2,085,000 $1,640,000 $1,645,000 $2,040,000 $1,540,000
12 Invasive Species Mapping $250,000 $0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 13 Updated Vegetation Mapping $300,000 $300,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 14 Enforcement $220,000 $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 15 Preseve level management plan standardization $0 $225,000 Subtotal Regional Management $6,175,000 $2,760,000 $1,640,000 $1,645,000 $2,040,000 $1,540,000
REGIONAL MONITORING
16 Post Fire Monitoring $1,725,000 $0 1 $325,000 $325,000 $325,000 $325,000
17 Vegetation Monitoring $295,000 $0 1 $0 $0 $165,000 $165,000
18 Rare and Endemic Plant Monitoring $300,000 $0 1 $0 $295,000 $0 $0
19 California Gnatcatcher Monitoring $740,000 $0 1 $445,000 $0 $0 $500,000 California Coastal Cactus Wren Monitoring & 20 Recovery $300,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 21 Burrowing Owl Monitoring $145,000 $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 22 Rare Butterfly Monitoring $170,000 $60,000 $120,000 $120,000 $0 $0 Wildlife Corridor and Linkages Monitoring 23 (including genetic studies) $100,000 $200,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 24 Other Species Monitoring (e.g. priority 2 species) $0 $140,000 $0 $145,000 $0 $0 Subtotal Regional Monitoring $3,775,000 $700,000 $1,140,000 $1,135,000 $740,000 $1,240,000
TOTAL FUNDING STRATEGY $11,000,000 $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $4,000,000 Note: Some activities will require implementation over mutliple years. 1 Funds encumbered in FY09 are available in FY 2010
5
Attachment 2
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION PROGRAM (EMP) FY 2010 LAND MANAGEMENT GRANTS – PROGRAM OVERVIEW AND INSTRUCTIONS
Program Description
The TransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan, as approved by the voters on November 2, 2004, includes an Environmental Mitigation Program (EMP). The EMP is a funding allocation category for the costs to mitigate habitat impacts for regional transportation projects. The EMP is a unique component of the TransNet Extension in that it goes beyond traditional mitigation for transportation projects by including a funding allocation for habitat acquisition, management, and monitoring activities as needed to help implement regional habitat conservation plans.
On September 25, 2009, the SANDAG Board of Directors approved land management and monitoring activities and a budget for FY 2010. The Board approved $2.085 million for land management projects related to (1) Invasive Control, (2) Fire Recovery, (3) Habitat Restoration, and (4) Access Control/Management and Garbage Removal.
Eligible Activities
SANDAG has allocated $2.085 million to address invasive species control, recovery and protection of resources damaged by the recent wildland fires, restoration of degraded habitat areas, and management to preclude unintended damage caused by recreation use. This is especially critical due to the potential for the establishment of invasive species in areas burned by the 2007 wildland fires, and the need for recovery and protection of areas until they naturally recover from the burns. It is envisioned that the $2.085 million would be part of a multi-year strategic approach to: (1) control key exotic species, (2) promote fire recovery, (3) provide habitat restoration, and (4) provide access control/management and garbage removal in the regional preserve system. The proposed activities could include active land management efforts that include one or more of the following activities:
1. Invasive Control – Projects that reduce existing or emerging invasive species that threaten endangered and/or other sensitive species.
2. Fire Recovery – Projects that promote natural recovery of post-burn areas such as erosion control features (e.g., silt fences), fiber rolls or straw wattles, straw or wood chip mulching, hydro-seeding and hydro-mulching, the strategic identification of potential target areas for restoration efforts, and sources of plant materials for current and future restoration activities.
3. Habitat Restoration – Projects that engage in active habitat restoration on post-burn and other degraded habitat lands to promote recovery of native vegetation communities and/or threatened, endangered, and other sensitive species habitat.
4. Access Control/Management and Garbage Removal – Projects that control access to managed trails and enforce legal use of the open space areas to allow these areas to recover as soon as possible to their pre-burn conditions. This includes signage (both interpretive and cautionary), education, patrolling public use, and law enforcement. In addition, efforts to
6
remove garbage in existing preserve systems to allow habitat areas to recover would also be eligible activities.
Land management activities will be determined based on the needs of each property within the preserve. Projects that are not ready to start within 12 months of submission of the application to SANDAG would not be eligible for this funding cycle. A resolution from the applicant authorizing the grant application and committing to the proposed level of matching funds will be required or the proposed grant project will be dropped from consideration. Projects not started within 12 months of submission of the application will also lose funding.
How Much Funding Is Available?
On September 25, 2009, the SANDAG Board of Directors approved $2,085,000 for FY 2010 land management activities. Additional funding may be available in FY 2011 pending approval by the SANDAG Board.
Process for Allocating the Funds
SANDAG will accept project proposals from land managers in San Diego County that will benefit regional conservation planning under the Natural Communities Conservation Planning Program. The applicant must own the land, or be designated to manage the land by the land owner by contract or other written form of legal documentation. The land must be conserved as open space for natural resources. Representatives of the land owner and land manager must be identified on the application form and be authorized in writing to enter into a contract agreement with SANDAG.
Applicants must complete a project submission form that will be posted on the SANDAG website and/or mailed with the Call for Projects. The form will provide uniformed applications length and format when submitted to SANDAG.
All project proposals will be reviewed for eligibility, ranked, and prioritized using the criteria listed below. A list of recommended projects will be submitted for consideration to the EMP Working Group and the Regional Planning Committee (RPC), and the projects are subject to approval by the SANDAG Board of Directors.
Successful applicants will then be eligible to enter into a contract with SANDAG for grant funding. Successful applicants would be required to submit quarterly reports on their progress and a final summary report of the project’s contribution to promote habitat conservation in the region along with the final invoice.
Who Will Score The Projects?
An evaluation committee will be made up of EMP Working Group members and/or other qualified individuals who do not have an affiliation with any of the proposed projects. The committee will include people with knowledge of the regional preserve system and land management.
7
Proposed Schedule
October 15, 2009 – A call for projects is provided to EMP Working Group members and other interested stakeholders. A call for projects also will be posted on the SANDAG Web site.
January 15, 2009 – Applications are due to SANDAG.
February 2009 – The evaluation committee will review and rank projects following the criteria in Attachments 3 and 4, and forward the proposals to the EMP Working Group for consideration.
April 2009 – The Environmental Mitigation Program Working Group will be providing a recommendation to Regional Planning Committee who will be asked to recommend a list of land management projects. The list of projects will be subject to approval by the SANDAG Board of Directors.
8
PROJECT SUBMISSION FORM For Consideration for TransNet Environmental Mitigation Program (EMP) Funding for Land Management (FY 2010 Funding Only)
General Information on the Property (Click on the fields below to begin typing. Please use as much space as is needed. Attach to front of Proposal).
Applicant Name:
Address:
Name of Property:
General Location:
Jurisdiction:
Total Acres:
Acres Requiring Management:
Owner(s) of Property:
Land Manager(s) of Property (include name(s), years of experience managing habitat lands, existing land management responsibilities, and references):
** If the applicant is not the landowner, please submit a letter or right-of-entry permit from the land owner granting permission to perform the land management duties as outlined in the application. Failure to provide the letter or right-of-entry permit will lead to disqualification of the application.
9
Funding Needs 1. How much money is being requested for this funding cycle? $
Budget Item Requested Funding Amount Description Non-personnel Expenses $ Includes all equipment and supplies. Personnel Expenses Staff $ Includes all staff time for work on the project Consultant Expensive $ Includes all cost for consultant services Administrative Expensive $ All cost to administer the contract Overhead $ All indirect charges for overhead on the project
2. Are there matching funds available? Yes or No If yes, please provide the source of funds and dollar amount: $ If yes, how are the matching funds assured?
Budget Item Proposed Matching Funding Description Non-personnel Expenses $ Includes all equipment and supplies. Personnel Expenses Staff $ Includes all staff time for work on the project Consultant Expensive $ Includes all cost for consultant services Administrative Expensive $ All cost to administer the contract Overhead $ All indirect charges for overhead on the project
3. What management activities will be done on the property? Please list each activity and its associated cost, and an implementation schedule including time frames for each activity (you may reference the project’s scope of work):
4. Are there any federal or state permits required for these activities? Yes or No If so, are there associated costs for these permits? Yes or No If so, are the permit costs included in the request? Yes or No
Biological Significance
1. Does the property support or did it support natural vegetation in a core area? Yes or No If yes, list the habitats contained on the property:
2. Does the property contribute to the Natural Communities Conservation Program regional preserve system? Yes or No
10
3. Is the property a linkage or regional wildlife corridor? Yes or No 4. Are there, or were there, significant populations of covered species or species proposed for coverage by a habitat conservation plan? Yes or No If yes, please list the species:
Risk
1. Does the site suffer from natural, human, or domestic animal disturbance (e.g., off-road vehicle use, grazing, fire, flooding, and/or feral cats)? Yes or No If yes, list the type(s) of disturbance:
2. Do exotic, invasive species threaten the preserve? Yes or No If yes, list the species:
3. Is there uncontrolled erosion? Uncontrolled access? Yes or No If yes, identify the source if possible: 4. Is immediate action needed to address a problem, or else the site would degrade further? Would the further degradation potential affect covered species? Yes or No If yes, explain:
Cost-Effectiveness
1. Does the proposal use efficient and proven methods and/or strategies to address the land management needs that would result in a high likelihood of success and reduce future land management costs? (e.g., control of small outbreak of aggressive exotic species, fencing to prevent damage to rare plant populations) Yes or No If yes, explain: 2. Does the proposal implement a strategic approach which covers large geographic areas (e.g., watershed or subwatershed extent) involving multiple partners and providing multiple benefits (e.g., part of a larger coordinated effort) (i.e., High Economy-of-Scale)? Yes or No
If yes, explain:
3. How would the project result in measurable biological success to implement the Natural Communities Conservation Program regional preserve system? What measurable results would be used to determine success of the project? explain:
Outreach and Public Education 4. Would the project involve the public outreach/public participation to identify the land management activities being funded and promote awareness of grant funded project? Yes or No If yes, please explain and include the following in your explanation
11
a. Estimated number of public to benefit from the project, b. Number and proposed volunteer hours proposed on project, c. Use of signage and interpretation features to be use to educate public on purpose of project and the funding source(s) used,
d. An access plan, for public use if applicable. : Note: All grant applications would be required to provide a press release and incorporation into any newletters they create once the project is completed.
PROJECT PROPOSAL (not to exceed 10 pages when combined with (Project Submission Form) The proposal will include the purpose of the project, the scope of work, timeline, and costs. Applicants must clearly identify their proposed tasks in the scope of work, funding requested for each task (please identify staff hours and cost separately from consultant costs), start and end dates of the tasks, and deliverables. The first page of the proposal needs to include an Executive Summary of the project. Applicants are encouraged to identify phasing in their proposal in case full-funding for the project is not available.
REVIEW OF THE CONSERVED LANDS DATABASE All proposed projects should be on lands that are conserved for the primary purpose of protecting open space and natural resources. Lands not conserved as open space for natural resources are not eligible for this grant funding. Applicants should ensure that their property(ies) are in the conserved lands database and are accurately portrayed. This database can be accessed at http://gis.sandag.org/ConservedLand. If your property is not included in the database or is not accurately shown in the database, please contact SANDAG to add, correct, or update the information. SANDAG will use this database (including any revisions by applicants) to determine if the land is conserved as open space and is warranted consideration to receive grant funds. Projects proposed for consideration that are not in the conserved lands database will not be eligible to receive grant funds.
12
13
Project Eligibility Evaluation and Ranking Note: Do not fill out this section. This section is to be used by the project evaluation committee. The total scores for all the submitted projects will be converted to a rank value for each of the evaluation members.
Name of Property:
Name of Reviewer:
Maximum Point Score Total Project Evaluation Criteria Range Weight Possible Score Lack of management on site may affect coverage of species. 0-5 5 25 Site supports rare vegetation types, populations of narrow endemics or species at risk of extirpation (e.g., Tier 1 habitat, vernal pools, cactus wren). 0-5 4 20 Critical linkage parcels or in regional wildlife corridor. 0-5 4 20 Long term success of management activities is likely with clear measurable positive results which will reduce future land management costs. High Cost-Effectiveness 0-5 4 20 Urgent action is needed to address a problem or else the site would degrade further. 0-5 4 20 Dedicated staff (agency, jurisdiction, non-government organization) willing to assume long-term management. 0-5 3 15 Project part of a larger strategic effort which covers a large area with multiple partners and multiple benefits? High Economy-of-Scale. 0-5 3 15 Sufficient matching funds available to complete the project. 0-5 2 10 Project promotes public awareness of sustainable land management through public outreach and participation. 0-5 2 10 Total 155
14 San Diego Association of Governments REGIONAL PLANNING COMMITTEE
July 31, 2009 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 6
Action Requested: RECOMMEND
FINAL VERSION OF THE REGIONAL ALTERNATIVE FUELS, VEHICLES, AND INFRASTRUCTURE REPORT File Number 3200300
Introduction Recommendation
Increasing the use of alternative fuels and vehicles in The Regional Planning Committee is the San Diego region can help contribute to federal asked to recommend that the Board of and state goals for decreasing reliance on petroleum- Directors accept the Final Version of the based transportation fuels, reducing greenhouse gas Regional Alternative Fuels, Vehicles, and (GHG) emissions, improving air quality, and promoting Infrastructure Report for distribution. clean economic development. In addition, the SANDAG Regional Energy Working Group (EWG) has recommended guiding principles for both the draft Regional Energy Strategy Update and the draft Regional Climate Action Plan that explicitly address the linkages between increasing alternative fuel and vehicle deployment and achieving regional goals for reducing petroleum consumption and GHG emissions.
SANDAG has developed the Regional Alternative Fuels, Vehicles, and Infrastructure Report as part of the California Energy Commission partnership. The purpose of the report is to increase the use of alternative fuels and vehicles in fleets, particularly for local governments and their franchisees (e.g., refuse haulers). Toward this end, the report identifies existing and proven alternative fuel and vehicle options that fleet operators could choose to deploy. Moreover, the report addresses how a strategic regional approach to the initial deployment of vehicles and infrastructure to fleets can facilitate and lay the groundwork for a wider rollout of alternative fuel vehicles to the general public.
Development of the draft report included input from a variety of stakeholders including the EWG, Regional Planning Technical Working Group (TWG), and Transportation Committee. At its June 12, 2009, meeting the Board of Directors accepted the recommendation of the Regional Planning Committee (RPC) to release the draft report for public distribution and comment, and make it available on the SANDAG Web site. In addition, Energy Commission staff provided comments based on an internal staff review of the draft report and the San Diego Regional Fuels Coalition (member of the U.S. Department of Energy Clean Cities Coalition) provided input at its June 24, 2009, meeting.
Staff has reviewed all comments and input and incorporated them into the final version of the report as appropriate. This item presents an overview of the final version of the report (Attachment 1). The Regional Planning Committee is asked to recommend that the Board of Directors accept the Final Version of the Regional Alternative Fuels, Vehicles, and Infrastructure Report for distribution.
Discussion
Alternative fuel vehicles operate fully or in part on fuels other than gasoline or petroleum diesel, and include biofuels (i.e., ethanol and biomass-based diesels), electricity, hydrogen, natural gas, and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG or propane). These fuels can be used in a variety of fleet applications that range from light-duty passenger cars to heavy-duty vehicles like refuse haulers and sweepers to nonroad applications such as forklifts.
The report identifies and recommends regional and local government actions to increase the deployment of alternative fuels and vehicles in the San Diego region. While primarily focused on helping to identify opportunities for the fleets of local governments and their franchisees, the draft report also provides analysis, tools, and recommendations to help enable SANDAG, its member agencies, and other regional stakeholders facilitate a wider rollout of alternative fuels, vehicles, and infrastructure to private fleets to the general public. The major components of the report include:
• Federal and state policies and funding opportunities;
• Detailed assessment and comparison of alternative fuels and vehicle technologies, including key assessment criteria such as levels of petroleum and GHG emissions reduction, fuel economy, fuel price, and availability and cost of vehicles and infrastructure;
• Analysis of opportunities for the integration of alternative fuel vehicles and infrastructure considerations with the core SANDAG function of regional transportation planning; and
• Tools to help local governments, including sample fleet and procurement policies, alternative fuel and vehicle cost calculators, and alternative fuel vehicle case studies for government fleets.
The report concludes with four sets of recommendations to increase the use of alternative fuels and vehicles and develop the supportive infrastructure:
1. Priorities and recommendations for alternative fuels and vehicles in different vehicle classes tied to available funding opportunities and the unique characteristics of the region. This information is provided to help local governments, public agencies, and other fleet operators make decisions regarding alternative fuel purchases, new vehicle purchases, and/or vehicle retrofits;
2. Potential types of transportation projects and investments that could be augmented to include an alternative fuels component;
3. Possible collaborative approaches and measures to prepare the region for the rollout of alternative fuels and vehicles to the general public; and
4. Potential measures that SANDAG could undertake as follow-up to this report to facilitate a regional transition, particularly the identification of suitable locations for alternative fueling infrastructure. SANDAG can help ensure that alternative fuel, vehicle, and infrastructure considerations are integrated with development of the regional transportation network and regional plans for future growth.
2
The report also discusses existing efforts to increase the use of alternative fuels, including SANDAG participation in an effort to introduce electric vehicles to fleets and support development of a regional electric vehicle charging network. Also discussed is SANDAG’s coordination of public and private efforts to apply for federal economic stimulus funding for alternative fuels, vehicles, and infrastructure. The report can serve as a resource for SANDAG to continue providing guidance and coordination of the regional transition to alternative transportation fuels.
Next Steps
Pending the RPC’s recommendation, the Board of Directors will be asked to accept the final version of the report in September 2009. Upon the Board’s acceptance of the report for distribution, the final report will be submitted to the Energy Commission, which will use it as an example for how other metropolitan planning organizations in the state can support deployment of alternative fuels, vehicles, and infrastructure.
BOB LEITER Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning
Attachment: 1. Final Draft Regional Alternative Fuels, Vehicles, and Infrastructure Report
Key Staff Contact: Andrew Martin, (619) 699-7319, [email protected]
3
FINAL DRAFT Regional Alternative Fuels, Vehicles, and Infrastructure Report
CEC Agreement Number: 160‐06‐002 SANDAG OWP: 3200300
Submitted by the San Diego Association of Governments to the California Energy Commission
July 2009
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This Draft Report was prepared by SANDAG staff with the assistance of the SANDAG Regional Energy Working Group and the San Diego Regional Clean Cities Coalition. It was developed with assistance from the California Energy Commission, as part of a regional energy strategies partnership. BOARD OF DIRECTORS
The 18 cities and county government are SANDAG serving as the forum for regional decision-making. SANDAG builds consensus; plans, engineers, and builds public transit; makes strategic plans; obtains and allocates resources; and provides information on a broad range of topics pertinent to the region’s quality of life.
CHAIR FIRST VICE CHAIR SECOND VICE CHAIR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Hon. Lori Holt Pfeiler Hon. Jerome Stocks Hon. Jack Dale Gary L. Gallegos
CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF SANTEE Hon. Matt Hall, Councilmember Hon. Jack Dale, Councilmember (A) Hon. Bud Lewis, Mayor (A) Hon. Hal Ryan, Councilmember (A) Hon. Ann Kulchin, Mayor Pro Tem (A) Hon. John Minto, Councilmember
CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY OF SOLANA BEACH Hon. Cheryl Cox, Mayor Hon. Lesa Heebner, Councilmember (A) Hon. John McCann, Deputy Mayor (A) Hon. Dave Roberts, Councilmember (A) Hon. Steve Castaneda, Councilmember (A) Hon. Mike Nichols, Mayor
CITY OF CORONADO CITY OF VISTA Hon. Carrie Downey, Councilmember Hon. Judy Ritter, Councilmember (A) Hon. Al Ovrom, Councilmember (A) Hon. Bob Campbell, Mayor Pro Tem (A) Hon. Michael Woiwode, Councilmember (A) Hon. Steve Gronke, Councilmember
CITY OF DEL MAR COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO Hon. Crystal Crawford, Mayor Hon. Dianne Jacob, Chairwoman (A) Hon. Carl Hilliard, Councilmember (A) Hon. Bill Horn, Chair Pro Tem (A) Hon. Richard Earnest, Deputy Mayor (A) Hon. Ron Roberts, Supervisor Hon. Pam Slater-Price, Vice Chairwoman CITY OF EL CAJON (A) Hon. Greg Cox, Supervisor Hon. Mark Lewis, Mayor (A) Hon. Jillian Hanson-Cox, Councilmember IMPERIAL COUNTY (Advisory Member) CITY OF ENCINITAS Hon. Victor Carrillo, Supervisor Hon. Jerome Stocks, Councilmember (A) Hon. David Ouzan, Councilmember (A) Hon. Teresa Barth, Councilmember (A) Hon. Dan Dalager, Deputy Mayor CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (Advisory Member) CITY OF ESCONDIDO Will Kempton, Director Hon. Lori Holt Pfeiler, Mayor (A) Pedro Orso-Delgado, District 11 Director (A) Hon. Sam Abed, Councilmember METROPOLITAN TRANSIT SYSTEM CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH (Advisory Member) Hon. Jim Janney, Mayor Harry Mathis, Chairman (A) Hon. Patricia McCoy, Mayor Pro Tem (A) Hon. Ron Roberts (A) Hon. Jim King, Councilmember (A) Hon. Ernest Ewin
CITY OF LA MESA NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT Hon. Art Madrid, Mayor (Advisory Member) (A) Hon. Mark Arapostathis, Councilmember Hon. Bob Campbell, Chairman (A) Hon. David Allan, Councilmember (A) Hon. Jerome Stocks, Planning Committee Chair (A) Hon. Dave Roberts, Monitoring Committee Chair CITY OF LEMON GROVE Hon. Mary Teresa Sessom, Mayor U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (A) Hon. Jerry Jones, Mayor Pro Tem (Advisory Member) (A) Hon. Jerry Selby, Councilmember CAPT Steve Wirsching, USN, CEC, Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command CITY OF NATIONAL CITY (A) CAPT Robert Fahey, USN, CEC Hon. Ron Morrison, Mayor Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command (A) Hon. Frank Parra, Vice Mayor (A) Hon. Rosalie Zarate, Councilmember SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT (Advisory Member) CITY OF OCEANSIDE Scott Peters, Commissioner Hon. Jim Wood, Mayor (A) Vacant (A) Hon. Jerry Kern, Councilmember (A) Hon. Jack Feller, Councilmember SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY (Advisory Member) CITY OF POWAY Mark Muir, Director Hon. Don Higginson, Mayor (A) Howard Williams, Director (A) Gary Croucher, Director (A) Vacant (A) Hon. Betty Rexford, Councilmember SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TRIBAL CHAIRMEN’S ASSOCIATION CITY OF SAN DIEGO (Advisory Member) Hon. Jerry Sanders, Mayor Chairman Robert Smith (Pala), SCTCA Chair (A) Hon. Anthony Young, Councilmember (A) Chairman Allen Lawson (San Pasqual) (A) Hon. Sherri Lightner, Councilmember Hon. Ben Hueso, Council President MEXICO (A) Hon. Marti Emerald, Councilmember (Advisory Member) (A) Hon. Todd Gloria, Councilmember Hon. Remedios Gómez-Arnau Cónsul General of Mexico CITY OF SAN MARCOS Hon. Martha E. Rosas, Hon. Jim Desmond, Mayor Deputy Cónsul General of Mexico (A) Hon. Hal Martin, Vice Mayor As of May 1, 2009 (A) Hon. Rebecca Jones, Councilmember Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
Executive Summary ...... 1 1. Introduction...... 1‐1 2. Federal and State Resources for Local and Regional Governments ...... 2‐1 3. Alternative Fuels Overview...... 3‐1 4. Vehicle Availability and Fleet Applications ...... 4‐1 5. Fuel and Vehicle Characteristics and Performance ...... 5‐1 6. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Petroleum Reduction...... 6‐1 7. Alternative Fuel Availability and Infrastructure...... 7‐1 8. Integrating Alternative Fuels into Regional Infrastructure Projects...... 8‐1 9. Recommendations...... 9‐1
APPENDICES
A. Federal and State Alternative Fuels, Vehicles, and Infrastructure Laws And Incentives ...... A‐1 B. Alternative Fuel Vehicle Availability ...... B‐1 C. State of California Alternative Fuel Vehicle Purchases...... C‐1 D. Sample Alternative Fuel and Vehicle Purchase Contracts, Policies, and Case Studies...... D‐1 E. Tools and Calculators...... E‐1 F. San Diego Regional Alternative Fuels Facility Locations ...... F‐1 G. Regional Alternative Transportation Resources...... G‐1
FIGURES
1. San Diego Region: Existing Alternative Fuel Infrastructure ...... 7‐8 2. San Diego North Subregion: Existing Alternative Fuel Infrastructure...... 7‐9 3. San Diego North City Subregion: Existing Alternative Fuel Infrastructure...... 7‐10 4. San Diego Mid‐City and East County Subregion: Existing Alternative Fuel Infrastructure ...... 7‐11 5. San Diego South Subregion: Existing Alternative Fuel Infrastructure...... 7‐12 6. SANDAG Regional Transportation Plan Goals...... 8‐1 7. Regional Transportation Plan Four Components...... 8‐1
TABLES
1. California Transportation‐Fuel Policies and the San Diego Regional Impact...... ES1 2. California Transportation‐Fuel Policies and the San Diego Regional Impact...... 1‐2 3. California AB 118 Funded Programs...... 2‐4 4. Sustainability Criteria for Funding Alternative Fuel Projects through AB 118...... 2‐5 5. California Energy Commission Funding Allocation Summary for Alternative & Renewable Fuel & Vehicle Technology Program...... 2‐6 6. Projects Proposed for AQIP Funding in FY 2009‐10...... 2‐7 7. San Diego County Estimated Vehicles Fuel Consumption (gallons)...... 3‐1 8. Summary of Potential Alternative Fuel Fleet Applications...... 4‐1
i Table of Contents
TABLES (continued)
9. Light‐Duty Vehicle Incremental Cost Comparison to Standard Gasoline Vehicles ...... 4‐3 10. General Alternative Fuel Characteristics Comparison with Gasoline and Diesel ...... 5‐1 11. Passenger Car Fuel Economy...... 5‐2 12. Alternative Fuel Price Comparison with Gasoline and Diesel...... 5‐4 13. The Advantages of Plug‐in Hybrid Electric Vehicle Retrofits versus Standard Hybrid Electric and Gasoline Vehicles...... 5‐4 14. Alternative Fuel Passenger Car Cost Comparison to Gasoline ...... 5‐5 15. Full Fuel Cycle Comparison of Alternative Fuels to Standard Gasoline Vehicles...... 6‐1 16. Summary of Alternative Fuel Availability and Infrastructure ...... 7‐1 17. Current Cost Estimates for Electric Charging Points...... 7‐4 18. Current Cost Estimates for Natural Gas Infrastructure ...... 7‐6 19. RTIP Projects with Potential to Accommodate Alternative Fuels, Vehicles, or Infrastructure...... 9‐6
ii Executive Summary
Executive Summary: Final Draft Regional Alternative Fuels, Vehicles, and Infrastructure Report
The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) has developed this regional assessment of alternative fuels, vehicles, and infrastructure to identify and recommend regional and local government actions that will expand the deployment of alternative fuel vehicles in the San Diego region. The scope of this report includes policy and program opportunities, fleet and franchisee applications, infrastructure options, and strategic regional collaboration. The report objective is to increase alternative fuel vehicle use and infrastructure availability by providing useful information and tools that will enable SANDAG, its member agencies and other regional stakeholders to take action. Increasing alternative fuel vehicle and infrastructure deployment in the San Diego region will contribute to federal, state, and regional goals for petroleum reduction, climate stabilization, improved air quality, and clean economic development. To accomplish this, the report focuses on the following areas:
Federal and state funding opportunities and incentives for alternative fuels, vehicles, and infrastructure. A detailed assessment of available alternative fuels, vehicle technologies, and infrastructure. Recommended alternative fuels for the San Diego region for different vehicle classes and fleet applications tied to the funding opportunities. Opportunities to integrate alternative fuel vehicles and/or infrastructure components into budgeted near‐ term regional transportation projects. Regional alternative fuel, vehicle or infrastructure efforts underway. Tools to help local governments, including sample fleet and procurement policies, alternative fuel and vehicle cost calculators, and alternative fuel vehicle case studies for government fleets. Report recommendations and next steps.
Alternative Fuel Vehicles (AFV) operate fully or in part on fuels other than gasoline or petroleum diesel, such as electricity, ethanol, hydrogen, natural gas, biomass‐based diesels, and propane. These fuels can be used in a variety of fleet applications that range from light‐duty passenger cars to heavy‐duty vehicles like refuse haulers, buses, and sweepers. Alternative fuels also can be used in off‐road applications such as forklifts, and agricultural and construction equipment.
State and federal energy policy provides significant opportunities for the San Diego region to increase the deployment of alternative fuel vehicles and infrastructure. Although petroleum fuels will play a decreasing but significant role in the region’s transportation fuel portfolio for the foreseeable future, a move away from petroleum to alternative fuels would provide several benefits to the region and state:
Table 1. California Transportation‐Fuel Policies and the San Diego Regional Impact Objectives State Goals and Milestones San Diego Regional Impact* GHG Reduction Reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by Regional targets for GHG reduction from 2020 and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 passenger cars and light‐trucks in 2020 and 2035 are currently under development Petroleum Reduce petroleum fuel use to 15% below 38% reduction below expected 2020 levels Reduction 2003 levels by 2020 Alternative Fuel Increase alternative fuel use to 20% of on‐ 398 million gallons by 2020 Use road fuel demand by 2020, 30% by 2030 713 million gallons by 2030 In‐State Biofuels Increase biofuel use to one billon gasoline 5% of fuels in 2010, 6.5% of fuels in 2020, Use gallons equivalent (gge) by 2010, 1.6 billion 2050 tbd. gge by 2020, two billion gge by 2050 In‐State Biofuels In‐state production of 20% of biofuels used 16 million gallons by 2010, 51 million gallons Production in state by 2010, 40% by 2020, 75% by 2050 by 2020, 2050 tbd. *No regional requirements exist for these policies. The targets are theoretical and based on San Diego Region population and fuel data and forecasts
ES‐1 Executive Summary
Regional Benefits of Alternative Fuel Vehicles Protection against petroleum price volatility and supply uncertainty, Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions causing global climate change, Reduction of local air pollutant emissions that result in adverse public health impacts, Lessening of dependence on foreign petroleum imports, and Creation of economic benefits in California by replacing imported petroleum fuels with alternative fuels and vehicle technologies produced in the state.
Over the course of developing this report, SANDAG has worked with the California Energy Commission (Energy Commission), local governments, public agencies, and regional stakeholders including the San Diego Regional Clean Cities Coalition, the Air Pollution Control District, San Diego Gas and Electric, the San Diego Regional Airport Authority, Port Authority, regional transit agencies, universities, and industry. Several positive results already have accrued from the undertaking of this regional alternative fuels assessment:
SANDAG has served as facilitator for developing a San Diego regional strategic alliance on alternative fuels, SDG&E and a major auto manufacturer have asked SANDAG to be a partner to facilitate widespread introduction of electric vehicles (and associated infrastructure) to the San Diego region, SANDAG has facilitated public and private stakeholder meetings with the Energy Commission on potential AB 118 projects in the region, SANDAG has been invited to join the Board of the region’s Clean Cities Coalition and work with the Coalition to implement report recommendations. SANDAG is serving as the lead applicant for a comprehensive regional, public‐private alternative fuels proposal to the U.S. Department of Energy and Energy Commission.
The report concludes with four sets of recommendations that if carried out will help prepare the region for wide‐ scale use of alternative fuels, vehicles and infrastructure.
The first prioritizes alternative fuels for different vehicle classes. This information can help local governments, public agencies and other fleet operators in making decisions regarding new vehicle purchases and/or vehicle retrofits. The second identifies potential regional, near‐term budgeted transportation projects that could be expanded to include an alternative fuels component. The third focuses on collaborative approaches and measure to prepare the region as a whole for alternative fuel vehicles. The fourth comprises measures that SANDAG could undertake as follow‐up to this report and that are not addressed in earlier recommendations.
In general, the information provided in this report can assist local governments and fleet owners in the San Diego region and all of California in the deployment of alternative fuels, vehicles, and infrastructure.
ES‐2 Section 1
SECTION 1. Introduction
California has adopted aggressive policies to increase the use of alternative fuels to power vehicles and off‐road equipment, as well as address air quality and climate change concerns. The San Diego region is well‐positioned to establish a robust alternative fueling network that will enable local fleet operators, and the general public, to select alternative fuel vehicles to replace traditional gasoline or diesel‐fueled vehicles.
The choice of which alternative fuel will vary based on vehicle class and customer needs. The region will utilize alternative fuels that meet the state’s low carbon fuel standard (LCFS), which is determined by a full fuel cycle analysis (“well to wheels”). Fuels with lower carbon intensities than conventional gasoline and diesel qualify for the LCFS and are eligible for state aid to increase their deployment. The significant financial and technical resources of the state and federal government will be critical to increasing alternative fuels, vehicles and infrastructure in the San Diego region. The state has enacted several laws that create a framework for lessening consumption of petroleum‐based transportation fuels and reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector. In general, California employs a three‐pronged approach to implement this framework:
Improve the fuel efficiency and lower greenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehicles (e.g., Pavley Standards, zero‐emission vehicle [ZEV] program) Reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels (Low Carbon Fuel Standard); and Integrate regional land use and transportation planning to reduce emissions from vehicle travel (Senate Bill 375).
This report focuses on the first two approaches by examining how SANDAG can help local governments in the region accelerate the deployment of highly fuel efficient alternative fuel vehicles and develop the supportive infrastructure. SANDAG recognizes the critical importance of siting fueling stations, charging points, vehicle maintenance facilities, and other infrastructure necessary to support alternative fuel vehicles in coordination with vehicle purchases. Such regional coordination is needed to provide customers (e.g., fleet managers and the general public) with a level of certainty and dependability that infrastructure will be available to support their investment in an alternative fuel vehicle. Deployment of alternative fuel vehicles and development of supportive infrastructure, initially for local government fleets, will help the region lay the groundwork for a wider rollout of alternative fuel vehicles to the general public. State and federal energy policy Regional Alternative Fuels‐Related Businesses provides significant opportunities for Aptera Motors – Two‐wheel electric cars the San Diego region to increase the New Leaf Biofuel – Biodiesel production from restaurant waste oil deployment of alternative fuel ISE Corporation – Hybrid electric system manufacturing vehicles and infrastructure. Although Synthetic Genomics – Biofuel research using photosynthetic algae petroleum fuels will play a decreasing General Atomics – Algae‐based biodiesel production but significant role in the region’s Kai BioEnergy Corp – Bio Crude Oil from microalgae transportation fuel portfolio for the foreseeable future, a move away from Carbon Capture Corporation – Algae derived from CO2 capture to development biofuels petroleum to alternative fuels would provide the following benefits to the Sapphire Energy ‐ Renewable gasoline from microorganisms region and state:
Protection against petroleum price volatility and supply uncertainty, Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions causing global climate change, Reduction of local air pollutant emissions that cause adverse public health impacts, Lessening of dependence on foreign petroleum imports, Creation of economic benefits in California by replacing imported petroleum fuels with alternative fuels and vehicle technologies produced in the state, and Economic and workforce development in the clean energy sector by building new infrastructure to accommodate the development, production, and use alternative fuels.
1‐1 Section 1
Accelerating the transition of local government fleets to alternative fuel vehicles is an important initial step to achieving these benefits in the San Diego region. Table 2 identifies key quantitative policy objectives for climate change, petroleum reduction, and alternative fuel use in the state and the San Diego region’s estimated per‐capita portion based on forecasts of population and fuel consumption.
Table 2. California Transportation‐Fuel Policies and the San Diego Regional Impact Objectives State Goals and Milestones San Diego Regional Impact* GHG Reduction Reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by Regional targets for GHG reduction from 2020 and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 passenger cars and light‐trucks in 2020 and 2035 are currently under development Petroleum Reduction Reduce petroleum fuel use to 15% below 38% (756 million gallons) reduction 2003 levels by 2020 below expected 2020 levels Alternative Fuel Use Increase alternative fuel use to 20% of on‐ 398 million gallons by 2020 road fuel demand by 2020 and 30% by 713 million gallons by 2030 2030 In‐State Biofuels Use Increase biofuel use to one billon gasoline 5% (82 million gallons) of fuel in 2010 gallons equivalent (gge) by 2010, 1.6 6.5% (129 million gallons) of fuel in 2020 billion gge by 2020, and two billion gge by 2050 tbd. 2050 In‐State Biofuels Produce in California 20% of biofuels used 16 million gallons by 2010 Production in state by 2010, 40% by 2020, and 75% by 51 million gallons by 2020 2050 2050 tbd. *No regional requirements exist for these policies. Theoretical targets are based on San Diego Region’s population and fuel data and forecasts; targets not estimated for 2050 because population and fuel consumption data forecasts are not yet available for that year.
In preparation of this report, SANDAG worked with local governments, public agencies, and regional stakeholders including the San Diego Regional Clean Cities Coalition, the Air Pollution Control District, San Diego Gas and Electric, the San Diego Regional Airport Authority, the Port Authority, regional transit agencies, universities, and private industry. As a result, SANDAG has: served as facilitator for developing a regional strategic alliance for alternative fuels, been asked by SDG&E and a major auto manufacturer to help facilitate widespread introduction of electric vehicles and supporting infrastructure in the region, facilitated public and private stakeholder meetings with the Energy Commission on potential AB 118‐funded projects, been invited to join the Board of the San Diego Clean Cities Coalition and work with them on report implementation, and served as the lead applicant for a comprehensive public‐private funding proposal to the U.S. Department of Energy and California Energy Commission.
Regional Planning Efforts
As the region’s Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), SANDAG is a logical entity for identifying locations for alternative fuel infrastructure that meets regional needs. Also serving as the regional transportation planning agency, SANDAG can ensure that alternative fuel, vehicle, and infrastructure considerations are integrated with development of the regional transportation network. SANDAG can recommend specific alternative fuel and vehicle technologies to local governments and regional stakeholders that are tailored to the unique characteristics of the San Diego region. Lastly, SANDAG can facilitate a regional alternative fuel deployment by local governments and regional stakeholders through development of a unified regional vision, consistent programs, coordination of funding applications, and development of standardized guidelines for infrastructure siting, permitting, and education. Over the course of developing this assessment, SANDAG has become identified as a leading source for information on policies, programs, funding opportunities, public and private partnerships, and other aspects related to alternative fuels. The agency also has facilitated several regional clean transportation efforts. As a result, SANDAG has been asked to help facilitate the introduction of battery electric vehicles to public fleets and support a regional recharging network. The agency also has been asked to serve on several clean transportation committees including
1‐2 Section 1 the San Diego Clean Cities Coalition Board, the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority’s Fly Green Task Force, and the San Diego Regional Sustainability Partnership.
Two plans currently under development in partnership with the Energy Commission address transportation energy issues: the Regional Energy Strategy (RES) Update and the Regional Climate Action Plan (RCAP). Both are scheduled for consideration by the SANDAG Board of Directors in late 2009. These plans, among others, will serve as foundations for addressing greenhouse gas reductions in the next update of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), which is scheduled for adoption in fall 2011.
The RES Update and RCAP recognize that energy use is responsible for more than 90 percent of GHG emissions in the San Diego Region. The largest contributors are on‐road transportation (46 percent), electricity generation (25 percent) and natural gas end use (9 percent). Adopting energy efficiency measures for buildings, accelerating the deployment of alternative fuel vehicles, and considering the energy impacts of land use and transportation planning decisions, all contribute to meeting the state law to reduce GHG emissions economy‐wide to 1990 levels by 2020 and the long‐term goal of reducing GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. As of this writing, supporting the deployment of alternative fuel vehicles is central to the 2030 vision of the RES Update.
The RCAP will provide a framework in which the region can make decisions regarding greenhouse gas emission reductions and adapting to climate change. The primary purpose of the plan is to analyze and recommend policies that can help the next update of the RTP achieve the soon to be established regional targets for GHG emission reductions from passenger cars and light trucks required by SB 375. In addition to improving land use and transportation planning coordination, SANDAG will examine the acceleration of alternative fuel vehicle deployment above and beyond state mandates as part of the climate change strategy for the region.
Transportation Fuels: Petroleum and Alternatives
The following section briefly explains the reasons for focusing on alternative fuels in the context of existing petroleum‐based transportation fuels, expansion of alternatives, regional impacts and opportunities. Petroleum is a fossil fuel derived from the remains of plants and animals that died millions of years ago, were buried, and compressed. Petroleum is a nonrenewable energy source because it takes millions of years to form. Oil is the raw material that petroleum products are made from and petroleum generally refers to crude oil or the refined products obtained from the processing of crude oil (gasoline, diesel fuel, heating oil, etc.)
The amount of crude oil produced domestically in the United States has been decreasing each year since the 1970s. However, the use of products made from crude oil has been growing, making it necessary to bring more oil from other countries. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), about 58 percent of the crude oil and petroleum products used in the United States are imported from other countries. The world's top five crude oil‐producing countries are Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, China and the United States. Domestic offshore drilling accounts for about 24 percent of the nation’s oil production.
After crude oil is removed from the ground, it is sent to a refinery by pipeline, ship or barge. At a refinery, different parts of the crude oil are separated into useable petroleum products. Crude oil is measured in barrels. A 42‐U.S. gallon barrel of crude oil provides slightly more than 44 gallons of petroleum products including 20 gallons of motor gasoline and 7 gallons of diesel.
1‐3 Section 1
Gasoline and diesel are nonrenewable fuels made from petroleum. Gasoline is used in most U.S. passenger vehicles with internal combustion engines. According to EIA, Americans use about 385 million gallons of gasoline every day. Diesel can only be used in a diesel engine, a type of internal combustion engine used in many cars, boats, trucks, trains, buses, and farm and construction vehicles. Diesel fuel contains about 14 percent more energy per gallon than gasoline. Diesel technology also offers a greater power density than other fuels, which is discussed in Section 5. When petroleum products are burned as fuel, they give off carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary greenhouse gas causing global climate change. The use of petroleum products also emits other pollutants ‐ carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and unburned hydrocarbons ‐ that help form air pollution and at certain concentrations are harmful to human health.
According to the 2007 RTP, daily travel demand in the region was about 16.7 million daily trips and 85 million vehicles miles traveled (VMT) as of 2006. Nearly 100 percent of these trips and vehicle miles are made with gasoline and diesel vehicles, and account for about 1.5 billion gallons of gasoline and diesel consumption. The RTP forecasts that under a business‐as‐usual scenario, there will be 111 million VMT daily in 2030. Without efforts to increase deployment of alternative fuel or more fuel efficient vehicles, forecasted regional travel demand equates to annual gasoline and diesel consumption of 2.4 billion gallons by 2030. Avoiding the outcomes of this business‐ as‐usual scenario and achieving petroleum reduction, climate stabilization, air quality, and green economy goals require the region to quickly and carefully undertake a new approach to transportation planning, which includes the deployment of alternative fuels, vehicles, and infrastructure.
Report Components
To initiate the transition to alternative fuel vehicles, this report aims to identify and recommend regional and local government actions that will expand their deployment in the San Diego region. To help the region accelerate the deployment of highly fuel efficient alternative fuel vehicles and develop the supportive infrastructure, the report addresses the following areas:
Section 2. Federal and State Resources Section 3. Alternative Fuels Overview Section 4. Vehicle Availability and Fleet Applications Section 5. Fuel and Vehicle Characteristics and Performance Section 6. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Petroleum Reduction Section 7. Alternative Fuel Availability and Infrastructure Section 8. Alternative Fuel Considerations for Regional Transportation Projects Section 9. Recommendations o Recommended alternative fuels for different vehicle classes and fleet applications; o Recommended transportation project types that could potentially be enhanced to include an alternative fuels component; o Recommended regional and local government planning measures focused on preparing for wide‐ scale deployment of alternative fuels, vehicles and infrastructure. o Additional recommended measures that SANDAG could undertake as follow‐up to this report.
The report also features appendices with more detailed information on alternative fuels including: important federal and state incentives for alternative fuels, links to learn more about alternative fuel vehicle availability, detailed listing of alternative fuel vehicle models and prices for multiple vehicles classes that are purchased by the state of California, sample fleet and procurement policies including explanation of the process to participate in state of California vehicle contracts, alternative fuel and vehicle cost calculators, alternative fuel vehicle case studies for government fleets, address locations of existing alternative fuel infrastructure, and regional resources for more information on the topic of alternative fuels.
1‐4 Section 2
SECTION 2. Federal and State Resources
Significant resources exist at the federal and state levels to help direct the increased development and deployment of alternative fuels across California. California is a leader in this area and several laws are key policy drivers for the growth in alternative fuels, vehicles and infrastructure. This section summarizes the main policies, programs and financial and technical assistance. For a more substantial list of federal and state tax incentives and programs, see Appendix A.
Due to the current economic recession, most governments are facing serious economic constraints. Even so, a window of opportunity exists for the region to take advantage of financial resources offered by the federal government (primarily through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) and state government (through the Alternative and Renewable Fuel, Vehicle Technology, Clean Air, and Carbon Reduction Act of 2007).
By adopting a strategic regional approach, the San Diego region can promote a comprehensive approach to investment and deployment in alternative fuels, vehicles, and infrastructure. SANDAG identified regional projects and opportunities to potentially take advantage of new federal, state, and local funding sources, and public‐private partnerships. SANDAG also investigated its existing local, state and federal funding and resources to identify what might be leveraged. In particular, the Regional Transportation Investment Plan (RTIP) –budgeted transportation‐ related capital improvements projects for the next five years (2009‐2013) – was reviewed to identify project types that could potentially be augmented with an alternative fuel vehicle and/or infrastructure component. The RTIP includes projects to be undertaken by the California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS), SANDAG, the region’s transit agencies, and local jurisdictions.
Funding Allocations for Alternative Fuels in the United States
As part of the AB 118 Investment Plan, the Energy Commission performed a gap analysis to help determine where best to apply state funding for alternative fuels. They found that overall funding from federal, state and private sources totaled about $35 billion per year and that biofuels was the most funded fuel category. Of the $35 billion, research and development (R&D) expenditures totaled about $11 billion per year with most funding focused on biofuels, followed by fuel cells and batteries.
Overall, federal funding for alternative fuels has focused on three primary areas: next generation biofuels processes and pilot‐plant construction; energy storage; and plug‐in hybrid electric vehicles. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (federal stimulus bill) allocates $3 billion for transportation programs and an additional $2 billion to transportation‐related tax incentives. The Energy Commission has stated it will work with the Department of Energy (DOE) to leverage AB 118 funds and support projects in the clean energy sector that provide long‐term economic benefits and promote sustainability.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, P.L. 111‐5) was signed into law by President Obama on February 17, 2009. The stated purposes of the law include the following:
1. To preserve and create jobs and promote economic recovery. 2. To assist those most impacted by the recession. 3. To provide investments needed to increase economic efficiency by spurring technological advances in science and health. 4. To invest in transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure that will provide long‐term economic benefits. 5. To stabilize state and local government budgets, in order to minimize and avoid reductions in essential services and counterproductive state and local tax increases.
2‐1 Section 2
Energy provisions are a featured part of ARRA. More than $42 billion is provided in appropriations for energy programs, mainly for energy efficiency and renewable energy. ARRA also provides more than $21 billion in energy tax incentives, primarily for energy efficiency and renewable energy. More than $11 billion is provided in grants for state and local governments through three DOE programs:
The Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP); The State Energy Program (SEP), which provides states with discretionary funding for various energy efficiency and renewable energy purposes; and The new Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program (EECBG), which helps reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.
New transportation‐related grant programs support state and local government and transit agency purchases of alternative fuel and advanced technology vehicles, multi‐modal use of transportation electrification, and manufacturers’ development of facilities for advanced battery production. DOE ARRA funds for alternative transportation fuels include:
$1.5 billion in grants for U.S. manufacturers to produce high‐efficiency batteries and their components; $500 million in grants for U.S. manufacturers to produce other components needed for electric vehicles, such as electric motors; and $400 million for projects that demonstrate and evaluate plug‐in hybrids and other electric infrastructure concepts.
Of the $21 billion in tax incentives, $14.1 billion is directed to renewable energy, $2.3 billion to energy efficiency, $2.2 billion for transportation, $1.6 billion for manufacturing, and $1.4 billion for state and local government energy bonds. When electric vehicles are purchased by U.S. residents, they can claim a tax credit of up to $7,500. Federal tax incentives are further addressed after the ARRA discussion.
ARRA’s Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants
On March 26, 2009, the DOE released guidelines and funding allocations for the EECBG segment of ARRA. DOE allocated $351.5 million to the State of California for local governments to use for projects and programs to reduce total energy use.
The purpose of the EECBG Program is to assist local governments in creating and implementing strategies to:
Reduce fossil fuel emissions in a manner that is environmentally sustainable and, to the maximum extent practicable, maximizes benefits for local and regional communities; Reduce the total energy use of the eligible entities; and Improve energy efficiency in the building, transportation, and other appropriate sectors.
In keeping with the agenda of the ARRA, and supporting the goal of immediate investment in the economy, funding recipients are required to commit all funds within eighteen (18) months from the effective date of the award. One EECBG area of emphasis is the development and implementation of transportation programs including:
State, local and regionally‐integrated planning activities like that in Senate Bill 375 (Statutes of 2008), that coordinates transportation, housing, environmental, energy, and land use planning with the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and vehicle miles traveled. Idle‐reduction technologies and/or facilities to conserve energy, reduce harmful air pollutants, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from freight movement.
2‐2 Section 2
The Energy Commission will distribute EECBG funds for smaller cities and counties. Large municipalities (i.e., Cities with populations greater than 35,000 and Counties populations greater than 200,000) apply directly to DOE for block grant funding. For the San Diego region, the following cities will need to apply for funding directly through the Energy Commission:
City of Del Mar City of Lemon Grove City of Solana Beach City of Imperial Beach City of Coronado
The Energy Commission anticipates receiving at least $33.6 million through the federal ARRA EECBG program and is waiting for guidelines from DOE for qualification requirements. They will hold workshops and conduct outreach on program requirements and the application process. Small cities and counties can sign up for updates and developments through the Energy Commission Block Grant Listserv.
Federal Tax Incentives for Alternative Fuels
The federal government provides tax incentives for alternative fuels, vehicles, and infrastructure. There are three key tax credits for the retail sale of alternative fuels:
Conventional ethanol: $0.45 per gallon, Biodiesel and renewable diesel: $1.00 per gallon, and Alternative fuels other than ethanol and biodiesel (e.g., LPG): $0.50 per gallon.
In addition, there are tax credits for small ethanol and biodiesel producers ($0.10 per gallon), and a tax credit for the production of cellulosic biofuels (up to $1.01 per gallon, depending on the fuel). There also is a vehicle purchase tax incentive, established through the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. The act established a tax credit for the purchase of plug‐in vehicles, including battery‐electric vehicles (BEVs) and plug‐in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). For passenger vehicles, the credit is a maximum of $7,500, depending on the vehicle’s battery capacity. After 250,000 vehicles are sold, the credit is to be phased out.
Tax credits are also available for natural gas vehicles, the value of which varies depending on vehicle characteristics including size, incremental cost, and emissions performance. If a natural gas vehicle is sold to a tax‐exempt entity, the seller may claim the credit or pass along savings from the credit to the purchases, although the latter option is not required. Incentives are also available to certain mix‐fuel or dual‐fuel vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 14,000 pounds that operate on at least 90 percent alternative fuels and those that operate on at least 75 percent alternative fuel. In general, the tax credit values range from a low of $2,500 to a high of $32,000. More information on incentives for natural gas vehicles is available on the website for Natural Gas Vehicles for America.
An alternative fuel infrastructure tax credit is available for the cost of installing alternative fueling equipment placed into service after December 31, 2005. Qualified alternative fuels are natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas (propane), hydrogen, electricity, E85, or biodiesel blends containing a minimum of 20% biodiesel. The tax credit amount is 30 percent, not to exceed $30,000 for equipment placed into service before January 1, 2009; and a maximum of 50 percent, not to exceed $50,000, for equipment placed into service on or after January 1, 2009. Consumers who purchase residential fueling equipment may receive a tax credit of up to $2,000 for equipment placed into service after December 31, 2008. The maximum credit amount for hydrogen fueling equipment placed into service after December 31, 2008, and before January 1, 2015, is $200,000. The credit expires December 31, 2010, for all other eligible fuel types.
2‐3 Section 2
State Resources for Local and Regional Governments
In addition to federal policies and programs that provide financial assistance, California is dedicating significant resources to accelerate deployment of alternative fuels across the state. Key policy drivers related to transportation‐energy include:
Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) o Reduce GHG emissions to the 1990 level by 2020 Motor Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Regulations (AB 1493) o Reduce GHG emissions from light‐duty vehicles by 18% by 2020 and 27% by 2030 Reduce Petroleum Dependency (AB 2076) o Reduce on‐road gasoline and diesel demand To 15% Below 2003 levels by 2020 o Increase Use of Non Non‐Petroleum Fuels To 20% of On Road Fuel Consumption by 2020 and 30% by 2030 State Alternative Fuels Plan (AB 1007) o Increase the use of alternative fuels in 2012, 2017 and 2022 Bioenergy Action Plan (Executive Order) o Increase in‐state biofuel production to 20% by 2010, 40% by 2020 and 75% by 2050 Carl Moyer Program and Proposition 1B incentives for Clean Diesel and Alternative Fuels and Technologies Low Carbon Fuel Standard o Reduce carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by at least 10% by 2020 Alternative and Renewable Fuel, Vehicle Technology, Clean Air, and Carbon Reduction Act (AB 118), which is detailed below.
Alternative and Renewable Fuel, Vehicle Technology, Clean Air, and Carbon Reduction Act of 2007
The Alternative and Renewable Fuel, Vehicle Technology, Clean Air, and Carbon Reduction Act, also known as Assembly Bill (AB) 118, provides approximately $200 million in annual incentive funding to promote alternative fuel and vehicle technologies and infrastructure. The purpose is to help develop and deploy innovative technologies that transform California’s fuel and vehicle types to help reduce petroleum demand and attain state air quality and climate change policies. AB 118 should help create the impetus for the long‐term transition to alternative fuels. The incentive funding will be provided by three state agencies: the Energy Commission, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) and the Bureau of Automotive Repair (Table 3).
Table 3. California AB 118 Funded Programs State Agency Program Name Annual Funding Energy Commission Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle $120 million Technology Program Air Resources Board Air Quality Improvement Program $50 million Bureau of Automotive Repair Enhanced Fleet Modernization Program $30 million
Energy Commission and ARB projects will be funded beginning in 2009 while the Bureau of Automotive Repair program will begin January 1, 2010. While furthering California’s petroleum reduction and climate change goals, the programs cannot hinder implementation of other regulations or interfere with efforts to achieve and maintain ambient air quality standards and reduce emissions of toxic air contaminants. There is an economic development component to these programs to ensure that education, outreach and workforce training is provided to:
Attract and retain clean technology businesses; Fund financial incentives and private investment; Encourage market creation and informed consumer choice; and Leverage innovation and use renewable and waste resources.
2‐2 Section 2
The San Diego region is already taking steps to promote a clean energy sector. State and federal resources available could provide the extra leverage to cultivate this burgeoning economic cluster.
California Sustainability Goals for Alternative Fuel Projects
The Energy Commission established sustainability goals and criteria to ensure that alternative and renewable fuel and vehicle deployment projects, on a full fuel‐cycle assessment basis (explained in Section 6 of this report) will not adversely impact natural resources, especially state and federal lands. The recommendations in this San Diego regional assessment are consistent with the state’s sustainability goals and criteria, as shown in Table 4. Local alternative fuel projects in the San Diego region seeking state funding will use the criteria and the full fuel‐cycle analysis as guides.
Table 4. Sustainability Criteria for Funding Alternative Fuel Projects through AB 118 Strong preference for projects with substantial reductions in GHG emissions Strong preference to projects demonstrating environmental protection, natural resource preservation and superior environmental performance o Projects that maximize use of waste streams as feedstocks o Use of existing best management practices (BMPs) from natural resource and pollution control agencies o For purpose‐grown energy crops: Sustainability best management practices plan for specific bio‐energy crops Use of lands historically used for agricultural purposes Use of marginal crop lands not used for food and that do not displace food crops Use of crops uniquely suited to climate, water and natural resource constraints in California o Projects that 1) use water efficiency and water use reduction measures, 2) use recycled or reclaimed water, and 3) reduce / eliminate point and nonpoint source wastewater discharge o Projects that use 1) renewable energy or 2) cogeneration in production, processing or distribution o Projects that use forest biomass resources collected or harvested in a manner that does not diminish ecological values & that are consistent with restoration, fire risk management & ecosystem management goals o Projects that create benefits to state natural resources or ameliorate degraded resources o Alternative fuel infrastructure projects that use 1) low carbon intensity fuels, 2) fuels produced in accordance with natural resource and superior environmental performance goals, or 3) fuels produced in accordance with a certified sustainability protocol Preference to projects that 1) produce certified sustainable feedstocks, or 2) produce or distribute alternative fuels, in accordance sustainability certification standards Source: CEC Investment Plan, Sustainability Evaluation Criteria for Funding Projects through AB 118
The Energy Commission Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program
The Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program (ARFVTP) will award approximately $120 million per year through 2015 to develop innovative technologies and alternative fuels and to deploy them into the marketplace. Eligible project types include:
Improvements to the characteristics of alternative and renewable low‐carbon fuels, In‐state production and infrastructure for alternative and renewable low‐carbon fuels, Improvements to light‐duty, medium‐duty, and heavy‐duty vehicle technologies to lower greenhouse gas emissions, Acceleration of the commercialization of vehicles and alternative and renewable fuels, and Related workforce training, and program promotion and education.
2‐3 Section 2
The program will provide grants, loans, loan guarantees, revolving loans, and other appropriate measures to further the goals of AB 118. The Energy Commission will provide funding to entities, including public agencies, private businesses, public‐private partnerships, vehicle and technology consortia, workforce training programs, fleet owners, consumers, recreational boaters, and academic institutions. On April 22, 2009, the Energy Commission adopted the Investment Plan for the Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program. The Investment Plan set funding allocations for alternative fuel types that will be re‐evaluated on an annual basis. Allocations are based on a scenario of alternative and renewable fuels and advanced vehicle technology deployment, potential greenhouse gas reductions, the level of current public and private funding, and feedback received from stakeholders. The first funding allocations total $176 million for fiscal year (FY) 2008‐2009 and FY 2009‐2010 as shown in Table 5.
Table 5. California Energy Commission Funding Allocation Summary for Alternative & Renewable Fuel & Vehicle Technology Program Category Investments Total Electric Drive Convert hybrid electric vehicles to plug‐in hybrid vehicles $ 46 million Electrify operations at the state’s major ports and truck stops Develop & demonstrate advanced hybrid electric technologies for medium‐ and heavy‐duty trucks Increase the number of electric charging stations Provide incentives to locate manufacturing facilities for electric vehicles and components in the state Hydrogen Increase the number of hydrogen fueling stations $ 40 million Ethanol Develop fuel production facilities that use waste material as feed $ 12 million stocks Increase the number of E‐85 fueling stations Renewable Diesel/ Develop fuel production facilities that use waste material as feed $ 6 million Biodiesel stocks Construct blending and storage terminal facilities Natural Gas Purchase medium‐ and heavy‐duty vehicles for ports, school $43 million districts, and public fleets Purchase light‐duty vehicles for public fleets Increase the number of fueling stations Develop biomethane production plants Propane Purchase school buses and light‐duty vehicles for public fleets $ 2 million Non‐GHG Establish workforce training programs $ 27 million Continue research into sustainability issues Conduct a public outreach and education Provide program technical assistance Conduct environmental/market/technology assessments Develop standards and certifications TOTAL for FY 2008‐09 and FY 2009‐10 allocations: $ 176 million
2‐4 Section 2
Air Quality Improvement Program
The Air Quality Improvement Program (AQIP), a voluntary incentive program to implement AB 118, is administered by the ARB to fund clean vehicle and equipment projects, research on biofuels production and the air quality impacts of alternative fuels, and workforce training. The AQIP is funded through 2015 and the proposed budget for fiscal year (FY) 2009‐10 is $42.3 million, as shown in Table 6. AQIP FY 2009‐10 project solicitations are expected during Summer/Fall 2009. Project selection and funding is expected during Fall/Winter 2009 for the following areas:
Vehicle and equipment projects (accelerated deployment, technology demonstration) Research to determine the air quality impacts of alternative fuels Advanced technology workforce training
The AQIP will compliment other ARB incentive programs, including the Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program, Goods Movement Emission Reduction Program and Lower‐Emission School Bus Program. AQIP can provide incentives to projects that do not fit within the statutory framework of these existing incentive programs, which focus on reducing near‐term ozone and particulate matter pollution and exposure to toxics.
Table 6. Projects Proposed for AQIP Funding in FY 2009‐10 Project Description Funding Target Deployment/Commercialization Projects Hybrid Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project $25 million Zero‐Emission and Plug‐In Hybrid Light‐Duty Vehicle Rebate Project $5 million Lawn and Garden Equipment Replacement Project $2 million Zero‐Emission All‐Terrain Agricultural Work Vehicle Rebate Project $1.3 million Advanced Technology Demonstration Projects Locomotives $2 million Marine Vessels $1 million Transit and School Buses $3 million Off‐Road Equipment $2 million Agricultural Equipment $1 million TOTAL PROPOSED FUNDING $42.3 million* *Available AQIP funding based on the proposed FY 2009‐10 State Budget.
The Bureau of Automotive Repair Enhanced Fleet Modernization Program
The third AB 118 incentive program is the Enhanced Fleet Modernization Program (EFMP), which will be administered by the Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR) to provide approximately $30 million in annual funding to retire the highest polluting vehicles in the areas of the state with the greatest air quality problems. EFMP will expand the BAR Consumer Assistance Program (CAP). The state provides up to $1,000 per vehicle through CAP for the retirement or repair of vehicles that fail their most recent Smog Check. BAR will administer the EFMP when it begins January 2010, but first ARB is required to establish the guidelines for its implementation.
2‐5 Section 3
SECTION 3. Alternative Fuels Overview
Alternative Fuel Vehicles (AFV) can operate on fuel other than gasoline or petroleum‐based diesel. The primary alternative transportation fuels include electricity, ethanol, hydrogen, natural gas, biomass‐based diesels, and propane. Other potential transportation fuel sources, such as ammonia, may hold promise in the future but are not addressed in this report. These fuels can be used in a variety of fleet applications that range from light‐duty passenger cars to heavy‐duty vehicles like refuse haulers and sweepers. Alternative fuels can also be used in off‐ road applications such as forklifts, and agricultural and construction equipment. The various alternative fuels are briefly described below. The following section evaluates the origins and current use of fuel in the region and identifies existing distribution and fueling infrastructure.
Regional Gasoline and Diesel Consumption
Gasoline and diesel provide the vast majority of transportation energy in the region. In 2007, the region consumed approximately 1.5 billion gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel in on‐road vehicle transportation. Under a business‐as‐ usual scenario, annual gasoline and diesel consumption would increase to almost 2.4 billion gallons in 2030. Actual vehicle fuel consumption data and future projections for select years from 2000 to 2030 are provided below in Table 7.
Table 7. San Diego County Past and Projected Vehicle Fuel Consumption (gallons) Year Gasoline Diesel Total 2000 1,222,122,000 154,059,000 1,376,181,000 2003 1,283,877,000 170,721,600 1,454,598,600 2005 1,325,047,000 181,830,000 1,506,877,000 2006 1,301,605,000 180,726,000 1,482,331,000 2007 1,309,422,000 185,695,000 1,495,117,000 2010 1,401,166,000 200,479,000 1,601,645,000 2015 1,581,563,000 223,177,000 1,804,740,000 2020 1,745,982,000 246,121,000 1,992,103,000 2025 1,906,105,000 268,083,000 2,174,188,000 2030 2,082,980,000 294,032,000 2,377,012,000 Source: 2007 California Motor Vehicle Stock, Travel and Fuel Forecast. May 2008.
Petroleum Origin and Distribution
United States petroleum production peaked in 1970 at around 11.6 million barrels per day (mmbd), and domestic production has since declined steadily, to approximately 8.3 mmbd in 2006. The gap between domestic supply and demand has been increasingly filled by imports. In 2005, approximately 60 percent of California’s supply was produced in the United States, with 20 percent of the total supply originating in Alaska and 40 percent in California. Of the remaining 40 percent that was imported from abroad, the most significant sources were Saudi Arabia (14 percent of total supply), Ecuador (10 percent), Iraq (5 percent), and Mexico (3 percent). The San Diego region does not produce any significant quantity of petroleum and, therefore, must rely on imports.
San Diego County is part of a larger fuel distribution region in the southwestern United States, centered on the Los Angeles refinery center. The region—which includes counties in Southern California, as well as exports to Arizona, New Mexico, and parts of Nevada—is supplied by refineries in Los Angeles and by imports of finished gasoline and blending components received at the Port of Los Angeles. Gasoline is imported from Washington State, Gulf of Mexico states, and foreign sources, predominately in East Asia and Western Europe. California is not connected by pipeline to other oil refining centers, so all imports must arrive by ship. Out‐of‐state imports account for approximately ten percent of gasoline consumed in California, with the remaining 90 percent refined in‐state.
3‐1 Section 3
There are no refineries in the San Diego region. All gasoline delivered to the San Diego region arrives through one Kinder Morgan pipeline that originates in the Los Angeles refinery center and ends at the Kinder Morgan terminal in Mission Valley.
Alternative Fuels Overview
Electricity
Battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and plug‐in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) are powered by a source of electricity external to the vehicle, such as the electricity grid or a distributed energy source. As opposed to conventional vehicles powered by the internal combustion engine (ICE), BEVs run on electric motors powered by rechargeable battery packs. The BEV stores electricity in an energy storage device such as rechargeable battery packs. Electricity powers the vehicle’s wheels via an electric motor. BEVs have a limited energy storage capacity, which must be replenished by plugging into an electrical source external to the vehicle.
PHEVs are powered by an ICE and a rechargeable battery, which displaces the need for some or all of the need for ICE power and gasoline consumption. In both BEV and PHEV technologies the batteries must be charged externally (i.e., plugged‐in). A plug‐in is similar to a standard hybrid but is equipped with a battery that can be recharged by connecting a plug to an electric power source. Most PHEVs are passenger cars, but commercial passenger vans, utility trucks, school buses, and motorcycles also are available in plug‐in versions. Standard hybrids are considered a vehicle efficiency improvement rather than an alternative fuel vehicle technology. Medium‐ and heavy‐duty trucks, buses, and non‐road vehicles can saturate market niches earlier than passenger vehicles at a much lower level of manufacturing (3,000 to 5,000 vehicles per year) to achieve cost competitiveness with diesel vehicles. Hybrid hydraulic trucks use hydraulics, charged by the engine, to offer power boost to the engine and auxiliary functions. Electric hybrid trucks use the engine to recharge the batteries which assist the engine and auxiliary functions.
Biofuels: Biomass‐based Diesel
Biomass‐based diesel is a new broad term that includes biodiesel and renewable diesel, as well as specific feedstock‐ and process‐based diesels such as algae‐based diesel, biomass‐to‐diesel, and diesel from thermal depolymerization of industrial and processing waste. Of these fuels, only biodiesel is commercially available in California and the United States today. Biodiesel is simple to use, biodegradable, nontoxic, and essentially free of sulfur and aromatics.
Biodiesel refers to a non‐petroleum‐based diesel made from vegetable oils or animal fats using a process called transesterification, which produces a glycerol as a byproduct which remains mixed in with the biodiesel. Pure biodiesel contains no petroleum, but it can be blended at any level with petroleum diesel to create a biodiesel blend. Typical biodiesel blends range from 5 to 99 percent. Biodiesel can be legally blended with petroleum diesel in any percentage. Pure biodiesel (B100) or higher‐level biodiesel blends with petroleum diesel can be used in a standard diesel engine. However, as discussed later in the report, blends greater than B20 are not typically recommended for use without at least some engine modifications, and may void the engine warranty. B100 and blends of B20 (20 percent biodiesel, 80 percent petroleum diesel) or higher are typically considered biodiesel fuel. Lower level blends (below B20) are considered diesel fuel.
Renewable diesel fuel can be made from similar feedstocks and can be used directly in an oil refinery, where the feedstocks are transformed into a diesel fuel through hydrocracking and hydrogenation. The refinery‐based process produces no glycerol and the renewable diesel product is chemically identical to ideal diesel fuel, requiring no modifications for any diesel engine. Biodiesel works in any diesel engine with few or no modifications to the engine or the fuel system. All diesel vehicles, new and old, can use B5 blends. The United States Navy and Marine Corps are two of the largest users of biodiesel in the San Diego region. Biodiesel blends are used in the City of Carlsbad vehicle fleet, UCSD bus fleet, and Hornblower Cruises marine vessels. The City of Chula Vista is planning to switch its diesel‐based fleet to biodiesel in the near term. UCSD imports approximately 10,000 gallons of biodiesel monthly from an Orange County distributor, while other fleets are served by Soco Group, which sells approximately 25,000 gallons monthly in the region. Biodiesel is locally produced by New Leaf Biofuels.
3‐2 Section 3
Biofuels: Ethanol
Ethanol is an alcohol‐based fuel derived from various plant materials (i.e., biomass feedstocks) including corn, sugar cane, barley, and wheat. Ethanol is produced by fermenting and distilling starch crops that have been converted into simple sugars. Ethanol can also be produced from cellulosic biomass such as trees and grasses and is called bioethanol.
Ethanol is most commonly used to increase octane and improve the emissions quality of gasoline. More than 95 percent of the gasoline in California contains a low‐level blend of ethanol (about 6%) to oxygenate the fuel and reduce air pollution. E85 (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline) is considered an alternative fuel that can be used in flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs). FFVs are capable of operating on gasoline, E85 (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline), or a mixture of both. Despite the limited availability of E85, the state features many flex‐fuel vehicles, which are capable of running on either gasoline or E85. Energy Commission staff estimate that one to two percent of the California passenger vehicle fleet consists of FFVs, most of which are American‐made light‐duty trucks and sport utility vehicles.
Hydrogen
Hydrogen is not naturally occurring and must be produced from an energy source, such as natural gas or water. Hydrogen can be produced for use as a transportation fuel in fuel‐cell vehicles, which generate electricity from hydrogen. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) are zero‐emission vehicles that produce no tailpipe GHG emissions. Fuel cells generate electricity through an electrochemical process, using hydrogen as the fuel, to power an electric motor which drives the vehicle. When the hydrogen is used in a fuel cell, only water and heat are produced. Hydrogen can be produced at a central station either through reforming hydrocarbon fuels like natural gas or electrolyzing water. In either case, the produced hydrogen is then delivered to fueling stations by truck or hydrogen pipeline to be pumped into vehicles’ hydrogen tanks. Hydrogen can also be produced by reformation or electrolysis at the fueling station itself.
Today, very little hydrogen is produced for use as a vehicle fuel, and hydrogen for industrial purposes is produced through the reformation of natural gas. Hydrogen has the potential to be produced from low‐carbon renewable resources, providing significant GHG benefits from well to wheels when used in a fuel cell vehicle.
Natural Gas
Natural gas has a high octane rating and excellent properties for spark‐ignited internal combustion engines. It is non‐toxic, non‐corrosive, and non‐carcinogenic. It presents no threat to soil, surface water, or groundwater. More than 99 percent of the natural gas used in the U.S. comes from domestic or other North American sources. However, increasing demand for natural gas in power plants will require new supplies from non‐North American countries, increasing our dependence on foreign sources of energy. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) predicts that by 2025, more than 15 percent U.S. natural gas supplies will be imported from countries other than Canada and Mexico.
The vast majority of natural gas is a non‐renewable fossil fuel extracted from gas and oil wells. Much smaller amounts are derived from supplemental sources such as synthetic gas, landfill gas and other biogas resources, and coal‐derived gas. Because of the gaseous nature of this fuel, it must be stored onboard a vehicle in either a compressed gaseous (compressed natural gas, or CNG) or liquefied (liquefied natural gas, or LNG) state. Compressed natural gas, or CNG, is a mixture of hydrocarbons, mainly methane. Found in gas wells or produced in conjunction with crude oil, natural gas is a clean‐burning, domestically produced fuel that generates significantly fewer emissions than conventional gasoline or diesel when used to power vehicles. Although vehicles can use natural gas as either a liquid or a gas, most vehicles use the gaseous form. Compressed at pressures of 3,000 pounds to 3,600 pounds per square inch, the natural gas is stored on‐board a vehicle in specially designed and constructed cylinders. Vehicles that run on CNG have engines and fuel systems that are optimized for gaseous fuel use.
3‐3 Section 3
To store more energy onboard a vehicle in a smaller volume, natural gas can be liquefied. To produce Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), natural gas is purified and condensed into liquid by cooling to ‐260°F (‐162°C). At atmospheric pressure, LNG occupies only 1/600 the volume of natural gas in compressed gaseous form. Because it must be kept at such cold temperatures, LNG is stored in double‐wall, vacuum‐insulated pressure vessels. LNG fuel systems typically are used only with heavy‐duty vehicles. LNG is clear, colorless, odorless, non‐corrosive, and non‐toxic.
Propane
Propane, also known as liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), is produced as part of natural gas processing and crude oil refining. Propane can be turned into a liquid at a moderate pressure (160 pounds per square inch [psi]) and is stored in pressure tanks at about 200 psi at 100 degrees Fahrenheit. When propane is drawn from a tank, it changes to a gas before it is burned in the engine. It is non‐toxic and presents no threat to soil, surface water, or groundwater. Dedicated propane vehicles are designed to run only on propane; bi‐fuel propane vehicles have two separate fueling systems that allow the vehicle to be powered by either propane or gasoline.
Definitions
Definitions for alternative fuel vehicle and engine types are provided below.
Biofuel: A solid, liquid or gaseous fuel obtained from relatively recently lifeless biological material and is different from fossil fuels, which are derived from long dead biological material. Also, various plants and plant‐derived materials are used for biofuel manufacturing. The two most common types of biofuels are ethanol and biodiesel.
Flex‐fuel: A flexible fueled vehicle has a single fuel tank, fuel system, and engine. The vehicle is designed to run on unleaded gasoline and an alcohol fuel (usually ethanol) in any mixture. These engines have sensors to analyze the fuel mixture, and adjust the fuel injection and timing. Since fuel composition and engine controls vary widely from one car to the next, flex‐fuel vehicles do not ensure fewer emissions than dedicated gas‐powered vehicles.
Bi‐fuel: A bi‐fuel vehicle has two separate fuel systems, one for gasoline or diesel and another for propane, natural gas, or hydrogen. Because these fuels are stored in pressurized tanks, they cannot be simply pumped into the gasoline tank. Like flex‐fuel vehicles, bi‐fuel vehicle emissions vary from car to car depending on engine controls and the fuel chosen ‐ making them not necessarily cleaner than a dedicated gas vehicle.
Dedicated: A dedicated alternative fuel vehicle has only one fuel system. Unlike flex‐fuel or bi‐fuel vehicles, the vehicle only uses the alternative fuel.
3‐4 Section 4
SECTION 4. Vehicle Availability and Fleet Applications
Alternative fuel vehicles are available for use in light‐duty, medium/heavy‐duty, and non‐road applications. This section describes vehicle availability and fleet applications for these vehicle classes. The commercial availability of factory‐made alternative fuel vehicles or retrofit technologies and their incremental costs compared to standard gasoline and diesel vehicles are also discussed. A summary of potential alternative fuel fleet applications is provided in Table 8. A listing of websites providing information about alternative fuel vehicle availability is provided in Appendix B. Information regarding alternative fuel vehicles and standard hybrid electric vehicles purchased by the state of California, including purchase price, is provided in Appendix C. Appendix D provides information on state of California vehicle purchase contracts, including explanation of how local governments can use the contracts and take advantage of the negotiated purchase prices, sample local government alternative fuel vehicle policies, and a listing of case studies on alternative fuel vehicles in government fleets. Links to tools and calculators for alternative fuel vehicles are provided in Appendix E.
Table 8. Summary of Potential Alternative Fuel Fleet Applications Fleet Application Biodiesel* Electricity Ethanol (E85) Hydrogen Natural Gas Propane Passenger Vehicle ‐‐ PHEV, BEV FFV FCV CNG LPG Taxicab ‐‐ HEV ‐‐ ‐‐ CNG LPG Vanpool‐Shuttle B20 n/a FFV ‐‐ CNG ‐‐ Refuse Hauler B20 HEV ‐‐ ‐‐ CNG, LNG ‐‐ Sweeper B20 n/a ‐‐ ‐‐ CNG, LNG ‐‐ Other Medium/ B20 HEV ‐‐ ‐‐ CNG, LNG ‐‐ Heavy‐Duty Forklift ‐‐ BEV ‐‐ ‐‐ CNG LPG Low‐speed ‐‐ NEV ‐‐ ‐‐ CNG LPG Vehicle** *Blends up to B20 **E.g., traffic checker, neighborhood vehicle, other off‐road vehicle)
Light‐Duty Vehicles
A variety of alternative fuel vehicles are available for light‐duty fleet applications or will be in the near‐future, including biodiesel (B5) passenger cars, battery electric vehicles (BEV), plug‐in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV), flex‐ fuel vehicles (FFV), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (FCV), compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles, and propane vehicles using liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). Some of these vehicles are factory‐made and available commercially or will be in the near‐future while others are available through after‐market retrofits or conversions. Potential fleet applications include light‐duty passenger cars, pick‐up trucks, and sport utility vehicles (SUVs), vanpools, and taxicabs. A brief discussion of alternative fuel vehicles for light‐duty applications is provided below.
Only one Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) produces a factory‐made light‐duty natural gas passenger vehicle (NGV): the Honda Civic GX. Several European auto manufacturers are interested in introducing NGVs into the US market, and are seeking regulatory support for bringing Euro‐certified vehicles to the US market. Two firms are certified by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to provide dedicated NGV retrofits in California. Baytech Corporation retrofits many 2009 model year vehicles certified by CARB, and BAF Technologies retrofits two Ford 2006 model‐year engine families that include the Crown Victoria, F‐Series Pickup, E‐350 Van, and E‐450 Shuttle. Light‐duty CNG applications include passenger cars, vanpools, taxicabs, and traffic checkers. These companies should be contacted to obtain information about the cost of NGV retrofits. The cost of the light‐and heavy‐duty vehicles is substantially more than their gasoline and diesel counterparts. Factory‐made light‐duty NGVs have a cost premium of about $7,000.
4‐1 Section 4
Several OEMs offer Flex Fuel Vehicles (FFVs) capable of running on E85, gasoline, or some combination thereof, in the light‐duty vehicle category, primarily Chrysler, Ford, and GM. For model year 2009, there are approximately three dozen models available, including eight sedans, 14 SUVs, nine pick‐up trucks, and five vans. OEMs typically offer FFVs at the same price as comparable gasoline vehicles. Manufacturers of light‐duty passenger vehicles, of which there is only one in California in 2009, do not currently accept biodiesel blends of B6‐B20.
With the exception of a small number of BEVs available from Tesla Motors for a price of over $100,000, BEVs and PHEVs are not currently available commercially in California or the United States, but several are expected to become available in the near future. Nissan plans to introduce its BEV in a small number of early markets, including the San Diego region, starting in 2010. Factory‐made BEVs and PHEVs will be appropriate for many light‐duty vehicle fleet applications once they become available. Retrofit of standard hybrid vehicles to PHEVs is an existing option for light‐duty fleet applications. After‐market companies employ existing technology to convert standard hybrid electric vehicles to PHEVs. In a typical conversion, a larger battery pack that can be charged by regular electrical outlets is added to the existing vehicle’s battery configuration.
Factory‐made PHEVs are expected to provide greater efficiency than converted PHEVs. A number of automakers are planning to introduce PHEVs in California beginning in 2010, including Toyota, General Motors, Ford, Volkswagen, Chevrolet, and a couple of California startup companies.1 In the meantime, retrofit vehicles provide an opportunity for the region to secure early GHG reductions and prepare the market for the introduction of new production PHEVs. Plug‐in hybrid electric vehicles are expected to cost between $6,000 and $12,000 more than comparable gasoline vehicles and battery electric vehicles and $8,000 to $15,000 more than gasoline vehicles. According to the Energy Commission, conversion costs for PHEVs are estimated at $11,000 per vehicle. Calcars.org estimates the following conversion costs by battery type: $6,000 to $10,000 for lead‐acid, $8,000 and up for nickel‐metal, and $10,000 and up for lithium chemistries.
According to the Energy Commission, mass market availability of light‐duty electric drive passenger vehicles at affordable prices will require several automakers to manufacture vehicles in high volume assembly lines approaching 50,000 to 100,000 vehicles per year. It is likely that small commuter size battery electric vehicles, once produced in large volume, will be attractive in the market place and volume may grow to significant market share in this segment. Retrofitting hybrid vehicles as plug‐in hybrids can help condition the market for future electric vehicle sales by familiarizing consumers with the technology, thereby creating demand for batteries and vehicle components that could lead to cost reductions, design improvements, and development of a skill base for the maintenance of these vehicles. One company, A123 Systems, has received a waiver from ARB to retrofit up to 500 Toyota Prius vehicles to plug‐in hybrid configuration.
There are currently no new light‐duty propane vehicles available in California. Most propane vehicles are retrofits. The Roush F‐150 is certified for retrofit applications by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board. Roush Industries is developing a dedicated propane pickup truck to meet OEM‐like standards.2 The California state fleet operates nearly 1,600 bi‐fuel propane Ford F‐150 pickup trucks. Las Vegas, Nevada operates propane taxicabs.3
The average cost of converting a light‐duty gasoline vehicle to a dedicated propane fuel vehicle ranges from $4,000 to $12,000. Retrofits for medium‐duty applications cost between $7,000 and $12,000. Converting diesel engines to propane operation is possible, but not economically practical. The cost of a propane forklift is usually between $16,000 and $24,000, which is comparable to a gasoline‐powered forklift and approximately $10,000 less than a diesel forklift. The initial cost of a propane vehicle is significantly more than a gasoline vehicle. The upfront costs of propane fleet vehicles can be offset by lower operating and maintenance costs over vehicles’ lifespan. Payback period varies based on vehicle usage. Payback period will be the shortest for vehicles that travel long distances and have high fuel consumption.
1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug‐in_hybrid 2 http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/vehicles/propane_availability.html 3 http://www.ycstrans.com/profile.html
4‐2 Section 4
Hydrogen FCVs are significantly more expensive than other vehicles, and only available to a few demonstration fleets in the United States. Honda is leasing its fuel cell vehicle – the FCX Clarity – to customers for a price of $600 per month. However, the price of production of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles is not widely reported. Fuel cells are very expensive to manufacture and costs must decrease sizably in order to be cost‐effective for mass production and competitive with other vehicle technologies. Since fuel cells contain water, they experience significant problems in cold weather (i.e., temperature at which water freezes).
Table 9. Light‐Duty Vehicle Incremental Cost Comparison to Standard Gasoline Vehicles Vehicle Purchase Price Retrofit Price Biodiesel (B20 or above) n/a n/a Plug‐in Hybrid $6,000 to $12,000 $11,000 Battery Electric* $8,000 to $15,000 n/a Flex Fuel Comparable n/a Hydrogen Significantly Higher n/a Natural Gas $7,000 Contact Retrofit Companies Propane Not for sale $4,000 to $12,000 *The Nissan EV available to fleets in the San Diego region is expected to be available for an incremental cost of $10,000.
Medium‐ and Heavy‐Duty Vehicles
Most major heavy‐duty diesel engine vehicle manufacturers state that using biodiesel blends of up to B20 will not void their parts and workmanship warranties.4 A few heavy‐duty manufacturers accept blends higher than B20. Several fleets in the Bay Area have been using B50 to B99 blends for over five years. If biodiesel fuels are standardized and accepted by all vehicle and engine manufacturers for all concentration levels and feedstocks, biodiesel blends could be used in up to one million diesel vehicles operating in California today. Heavy‐duty fleet applications for biodiesel blends include diesel‐powered work trucks, buses, refuse haulers, and non‐road equipment.
The natural gas industry estimates that there are approximately 300 street sweepers and 1,900 refuse trucks fueled by natural gas in California. Medium‐ and heavy‐duty vehicles powered by CNG or LNG are currently available from several manufacturers, including at least five refuse haulers and three sweepers.5 The most likely future markets for medium‐ and heavy‐duty NGVs are short‐ and medium‐haul applications. CNG will be the fuel choice for most applications – except for long‐haul – when the price of CNG is competitive with diesel. LNG is preferable for long‐haul applications (class 8 trucks). At least three to four companies producing natural gas engines abroad are expected to enter the California market with existing or new engines for heavy‐duty applications.6 Medium/heavy‐duty fleet applications for CNG include shuttle buses, refuse haulers, sweepers, and work trucks. LNG also is used for refuse haulers and sweepers. In the San Diego region, CNG currently fuels a large number of transit buses while LNG fuels refuse hauler fleets such as those of Waste Management (located in the City of El Cajon) and the City of San Diego. Incremental costs for heavy duty NGVs are about $40,000 to $50,000 (e.g., refuse haulers, transit buses) and up to $70,000 to $80,000 for class 8 vehicles. With diesel trucks likely requiring additional improvements (therefore costs) to achieve 2010 CARB emissions standards, the cost differential between CNG and diesel is expected to decrease.
Propane engines and fueling systems are available for medium‐ and heavy‐duty vehicles like school buses and street sweepers. Propane is viewed as an economical retrofit option for such fleet applications. Three companies currently offer propane conversions for gasoline engines; all are retrofits to medium‐duty GM engines (6.0 and 8.1 L models). Cummins offers a propane‐fueled version of its 5.9 L engine (B propane Plus). This engine is available new vehicles from multiple manufacturers including El Dorado National, Elgin Sweeper Company, Ottawa Truck, and Freightliner Custom Chassis Corporation.
4 AB 118 Investment Plan, April 2009 Draft. P. 24. 5 http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/vehicles/natural_gas_availability.html 6 AB 118 Investment Plan. P. 28
4‐3 Section 4
Refuse haulers, transit and school buses, and utility trucks are all good candidates for hybrid electric and hydraulic hybrid applications. ISE Corporation, located in the City of Poway, produces both gasoline and fuel cell hybrid electric systems for heavy‐duty applications. No factory‐made battery electric or plug‐in medium‐ or heavy‐duty vehicles are currently available in California. E85 is not typically used in heavy‐ or medium‐duty fleet applications, due in part to its relatively lower energy intensity compared to other fuels.
Non‐Road Vehicles
Electricity has the potential to replace diesel fuel in a number of non‐road markets, including neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs) and fleet applications like forklifts. Currently, these vehicles are limited in number, but there is room for growth. Several factory‐made low‐speed NEVs are available for non‐road applications, including passenger and cargo vans, crew and extended cab trucks, and passenger vehicles.7 Propane and CNG have also been successfully used in off‐road applications like forklifts. There are currently several thousand propane forklifts in California. There is technical potential to use hydrogen in several non‐road applications, but none are commercially produced or available today, and there is no available timeline for when such technologies may become available to fleets or commercially.
Maintenance Issues
Propane engines have up to twice the lifespan of gasoline engines due to the high octane rating and low carbon and oil contamination characteristics. For these reasons propane vehicles have relatively lower maintenance costs ‐ a primary advantage of propane vehicles in fleet applications. Spark plugs in propane engines can last 80,000 to 100,000 miles, while spark plugs in unleaded gasoline engines last around 30,000 miles. Forklifts powered by propane require less maintenance than gasoline and diesel forklifts.
Biodiesel blends result in a marked improvement in lubricity compared to petroleum diesel. Blends as low as one percent can provide up to a 65 percent increase in lubricity, which means biodiesel results in less engine wear than petroleum diesel. In general, blends greater than B20 can impact fuel system components such as natural rubber compounds that are incompatible with biodiesel. Manufacturers recommend that natural or butyl rubbers not be allowed to come in contact with pure biodiesel. Blends of B20 or lower do not typically exhibit degradation or need changes. If a vehicle’s fuel system contains these materials and users wish to fuel with blends greater than B20, replacement with compatible components is recommended. Lower level biodiesel blends are recommended in very cold climates, but in most of California’s moderate climate regions higher blends (B20 and above) can be used year‐round without the problems associated with low temperatures. Automakers and engine manufacturers will need to show widespread acceptance of all biodiesel/renewable diesel blend concentrations for use in all diesel vehicles.
Other than lower gas mileage, drivers see little difference when using E85 versus gasoline. When considering total costs for electric vehicles, include the cost battery replacement at about 20,000 miles ($1,000 or $2,000) against the cost of tune‐ups, oil changes, mufflers, starters, water pumps, etc during the same 20,000 miles for a standard gasoline or diesel vehicle. Electric motors require less maintenance than gasoline engines.
7 http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/progs/vehicles_search.php
4‐4 Section 5
SECTION 5. Fuel and Vehicle Characteristics and Performance
This section compares the performance of alternative fuels and vehicles to standard gasoline and diesel fuels and vehicles. Fuel energy content, fuel economy, and fuel prices for alternative fuels and vehicles are discussed in this section.
In general, alternative fuels and vehicles provide horsepower, acceleration, levels of safety and a cruising speed similar to gasoline and diesel vehicles. In some instances, BEVs have smoother operation and better acceleration than standard vehicles. Pure biodiesel and blends have somewhat less power than petroleum diesel fuel. Table 10 describes energy content of alternative fuels compared to the amount of energy in a gallon of a gasoline and diesel. Fuel energy content is an important determinant of vehicle performance measures such as fuel economy and driving range.
Generally, alternative fuels have lower energy contents than an equivalent amount of gasoline. Pure biodiesel and blends have higher energy content than gasoline, but lower energy content than petroleum diesel. Reformulated California gasoline (5.7% ethanol) has an energy content of about 111,836 British Thermal Units (BTUs) per gallon; one gallon of petroleum diesel contains about 129,000 BTUs. An alternative fuel, E85 for example, contains about 81,800 BTUs per gallon, about 72‐77% of the energy in one gallon of gasoline. This means that approximately 1.39 gallons of E85 are needed to provide the same amount of energy as one gallon of gasoline. Thus, gallons of gasoline equivalent (GGE) for E85 would be 1.39. Please refer to the following table for the energy content for other alternative fuels.
Table 10. General Alternative Fuel Characteristics Comparison with Gasoline and Diesel Energy Content (low Energy Comparison (% Gallons of Gasoline Fuel or net value) of gasoline energy) Equivalent (GGE) Gasoline 115,000 BTU/gal 100% 1.0 gallon Gasoline (reformulated, 111,800 BTU/gal 97% 1.03 gallons 5.7% ethanol) Petroleum Diesel 129,000 BTU/gal 112% 0.89 gallons B100 118,000 BTU/gal 103% (91% of diesel) 0.97 gallons B20 127,000 BTU/gal 110% (98% of diesel) 0.91 gallons CNG 112,000 BTU/gal 97% (87% of diesel) 1.03 gallons Electricity 3,413 BTU/kwh 3% (1 kwh) 33.4 kwh Ethanol (E85) 81,800 BTU/gal 71% 1.41 gallons Hydrogen 30,500 BTU/gal 27% 3.8 gallons LNG 75,000 BTU/gal 65% 1.53 gallons Propane 84,000 BTU/gal 73% 1.39 gallons Sources: http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/fuels/properties.html, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_per_gallon_gasoline_equivalent, http://www‐cta.ornl.gov/data/download27.shtml, http://hydrogen.pnl.gov/cocoon/morf/hydrogen/article/401 Notes: Kwh = kilowatt‐hour, lb(s) = pound(s), BTU = British Thermal Unit, Energy content can be expressed in high (gross) or low (net) heating values. For the high heating value, the water produced by the combustion is assumed to be recondensed to a liquid. For the low heating value, the water remains as a gas. Since engines exhaust water as a gas, the low heating value is the appropriate value for comparing fuels.
Fuel Economy
Miles per gallon of gasoline equivalent (MPGGE) is a metric used to allow for fuel economy performance comparisons among various alternative fuels and vehicles. MPGGE is based on the amount of heat energy in one gallon of gasoline. The equivalent fuel economy of an alternative fuel is equal to the amount of that fuel required to produce the same amount of heat energy and the distance the vehicle can travel on that same amount of energy. MPGGE is a measure of the distance vehicles can travel on an equal amount of heat energy.
5‐1 Section 5
Standard gasoline passenger cars have a range of about 300‐400 miles and fuel economy of 21‐22 miles per gallon. As shown in Table 11 below, standard hybrids, plug‐in hybrids, and battery electric vehicles can travel about 40 percent to 250 percent farther than standard gasoline passenger cars using the same amount of energy. These alternative fuel vehicle technologies are more energy efficient than standard gasoline cars. CNG, propane, and E85 provide fuel economy performance similar to a standard passenger car running on gasoline. B20 provides similar fuel economy to a standard diesel passenger car, while B100 provides somewhat lower fuel economy.
Table 11. Passenger Car Fuel Economy Alternative Fuel/Vehicle Technology Fuel Economy (mpgge) Gasoline internal combustion engine vehicle (ICEV), 2005 light‐duty auto (LDA) mix 20.8 Gasoline, ICEV 22.33 CNG, ICEV 22.33* Propane, ICEV 22.33 E85, Flex Fuel Vehicle (FFV) 23.00 E85, dedicated ICEV 23.89 B100, Diesel ICEV 26.31 ULSD, Diesel ICEV 28.80 B20, Diesel ICEV 28.80 Hydrogen, ICEV/Internal Combustion‐Hybrid Electric Vehicle 29.02 Gasoline, hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) 30.14 Gasoline, plug‐in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) 31.26 Hydrogen, Full Cell Vehicle (FCV) /Fuel Cell‐Hybrid Electric 44.65 PHEV Grid Mode 80.38 Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV) 80.38 Source: Full Fuel Cycle Assessment Tank to Wheels Emissions and Energy Consumption. TIAX LLC, February 2007. Notes: *ACEEE reports that the Honda Civic GX, the only CNG passenger car for‐sale in California, achieves 24 mpgge with city driving, and 36 mpgge with highway driving. MPGGE = miles per gallon of gasoline equivalent
The lower fuel economy of E85 is due to the lower energy content of E85. As a result, about 1.39 gallons of ethanol are required to transport a vehicle the same distance as one gallon of gasoline. When accounting for the energy content of E85, costs are generally higher than gasoline on an energy equivalent basis.8,9 As a result, E85 will provide less range than the same FFV running on gasoline.
Internal combustion engines convert less than 20% of gasoline energy into power that moves the vehicles. Vehicles using electric motors powered by hydrogen fuel cells are much more energy efficient. The energy in 2.2 lb (1 kg) of hydrogen gas is about the same as the energy in 1 gallon of gasoline. A light‐duty fuel cell vehicle must store 11‐29 lb (5‐13 kg) of hydrogen to enable an adequate driving range of 300 miles or more. Because hydrogen has a low volumetric energy density (a small amount of energy by volume compared with fuels such as gasoline), storing this much hydrogen on a vehicle using currently available technology would require a very large tank—larger than the trunk of a typical car. Advanced technologies are needed to reduce the required storage space and weight. Because of its low energy content, it is difficult to store enough hydrogen on a vehicle to get it to travel more than 200 miles.
A CNG‐powered vehicle gets about the same fuel economy as a conventional gasoline vehicle on a gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE) basis. A GGE equals about 5.7 lb (2.6 kg) of CNG. The driving range of a Honda Civic GX dedicated CNG sedan with a full tank filled at a pressure of 3,600 pounds per square inch (psi) is 200 to 225 miles. Most CNG stations fill at 3,600 psi, but if filled at 3,000 psi the vehicle’s range will decrease proportionately. Natural gas
8http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/transportation/afvs/ethanol.html 9 http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/ethanol/e85_specs.html
5‐2 Section 5 trucks, like many other alternative fueled vehicles, typically have a shorter driving range than their diesel counterparts. This shorter range is a result of natural gas having a lower energy content and difficulty in packaging the high‐pressure storage cylinders on the truck. Adding additional storage cylinders can increase the truck's driving range, but the added weight will reduce the amount of weight the vehicle can carry. LNG has a higher storage density than CNG, and therefore provides longer‐range than CNG, which makes it a more viable alternative to diesel fuel than CNG for long‐haul heavy‐duty vehicle applications.
An electric motor is much more efficient than an ICE. Electric motors convert about 75% of battery energy to power the vehicle; an ICE converts about 20% of gasoline energy to power the vehicle. Range for BEVs is more limited than for conventional vehicles, and spans from 50 to 130 miles. The Nissan BEV offers a range of about 100 miles. Although there are different PHEV formats, in general, a PHEV conversion can only run on battery power at lower speeds (e.g., below 35 miles per hour for a Prius conversion). At present, converted PHEVs can travel approximately 30‐40 miles before the battery will be fully discharged. The combination of an electric battery with an ICE affords PHEVs comparable or even superior range to a standard gasoline vehicle, as opposed to the more limited range of a BEV. PHEVs feature higher fuel economy than standard hybrids because the vehicles use electricity to run in electric‐mode longer and more often than standard hybrid cars, which offsets use of the ICE and gasoline consumption.
Dedicated propane engines typically have a shorter driving range than their gasoline and diesel counterparts. More propane is required to drive an equivalent range to a gasoline vehicle. Shorter range is the result of propane’s lower energy density and difficulty in packaging the high‐pressure storage cylinders on the truck. A gallon of propane contains about 14‐2510 percent less energy than a gallon of gasoline, and dedicated gas‐injection propane vehicles have lower efficiency than gasoline engines. Hence the lower range than comparable gasoline engines. Bi‐ fuel propane engines offer similar range to gasoline engines. Driving range can be increased by adding additional storage tanks to the vehicle, but the extra weight will reduce the amount of weight the vehicle can carry.
Biodiesel blends perform very similar to low sulfur diesel in terms of power, torque, and fuel without major modification of engines or infrastructure. One of the major advantages of biodiesel is that it can be used in existing engines and fuel injection equipment with little impact to operating performance. Biodiesel shows similar horsepower, torque, and haulage rates as conventional diesel fuel. B20 has similar heat content to that of petroleum diesel fuel (about 98 percent), which means a vehicle fueled with B20 will have about 99 percent of the driving range as when fueled with petroleum diesel. A gallon of B100 has about 91 percent of the heat content as a gallon of petroleum diesel.
Fuel Price
In addition to characteristics like energy content and fuel efficiency, fuel price is an important consideration in an analysis of alternative fuels and vehicles. Table 12 below provides the average price for gasoline, petroleum diesel, and alternative fuels tracked in the Clean Cities Alternative Fuel Price Report. The data provided is based on data collected from the West Coast of the U.S. in January 2009, the most recent date for which the information is available. The data is reported in average price per gallon and converted to average price per gallon of gasoline (GGE) and diesel gallon equivalent (DGE). As of January 2009, the price of CNG was lower than both gasoline and petroleum diesel on a GGE and DGE basis. The cost of other fuels was greater than gasoline and petroleum diesel.
Prices of CNG fuel are generally less than gasoline and diesel fuel, on an equivalent energy basis. The average price of CNG on the west coast is $1.81 per GGE. Federal excise tax for CNG is $0.183 per GGE while state tax is $0.0875 per GGE, compared to the state tax of $0.18 per gallon for gasoline. Fleets can apply for a California Fuel Use Permit and receive an exemption from state tax on CNG for $168 per vehicle per year. CNG fuel is comparatively less expensive than gasoline and diesel. Only in a minimal number of high‐mileage fleet vehicle applications are the fuel cost savings adequate to amortize the CNG vehicle capital costs. LNG Price information was not able to be obtained for this report.
10 http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/transportation/afvs/lpg_propane.html
5‐3 Section 5
Table 12. Alternative Fuel Price Comparison with Gasoline and Diesel Average Fuel Price/Standard Average Price ($/gge) Average Price ($/dge) Deviation ($/gal) Gasoline $2.04 / 0.26 $2.04 n/a Petroleum Diesel $2.36 / 0.37 n/a $2.36 B100 $3.48 / 0.89 $2.34 $2.57 B20 $2.72 / 0.47 $2.48 $2.53 CNG* $1.81 / 0.54 $1.81 $2.03 Ethanol (E85) $2.19 / 0.58 $3.09 $3.46 Propane $2.50 / 1.05 $3.45 $3.85 Sources: Clean Cities Alternative Fuel Price Report. January 2009. Notes: Dge = diesel gallon equivalent *CNG price is reported per gge so no additional conversion is required. ** Electricity is reported in price per kilowatt‐hour (kwh).
On average, a gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE) of propane is more expensive than gasoline. Federal excise taxes for propane (13.6 cents per gallon) are lower than for gasoline (18.4 cents) and diesel fuel (24.4 cents per gallon). There is limited information available on the cost of hydrogen as a transportation fuel. However, the cost is considered uneconomically high at present relative to alternative and conventional transportation fuels.
There are significant cost savings when you evaluate the cost to charge an electric vehicle versus the cost of gasoline. Electric vehicles with direct current (DC) electric systems get about 0.4 kilowatt‐hours (kWh) per mile, while those with more efficient alternating current (AC) systems get about 0.174 to 0.288 kWh per mile. At an electricity rate of $0.13 per kWh11, it would cost about $0.05 per mile for DC operation and $0.03 cents per mile for AC operation. The per‐mile costs of a gasoline vehicle with a fuel economy of 25 miles per gallon would vary depending on the price of gasoline:
• $0.04/mile when gasoline is $1.00/gallon; • $0.12/mile when gasoline is $3.00/gallon; and • $0.08/mile when gasoline is $2.00/gallon; • $0.16/mile when gasoline is $4.00/gallon.
The cost of charging an electric vehicle is lower than the cost of fueling a standard gasoline vehicle when the price of gasoline remains above about $1.25 per gallon. A study by San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) confirmed the advantages that PHEVs offer over standard hybrids and gasoline vehicles in terms of improved fuel economy and fuel costs, as well as tailpipe carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. SDG&E tested the performance of two 2007‐model standard hybrid vehicles and then converted them into plug‐in hybrid electric vehicles using a lithium‐ion battery conversion kit. The results are shown in Table 13.
Table 13. Advantages of Plug‐in Hybrid Electric Vehicle Retrofits versus Standard Hybrid and Gasoline Vehicles Advantages of Plug‐in Hybrid Retrofit Compared to Performance Measures Standard Hybrid2 Standard Gasoline Fuel Economy 60% improvement 205% improvement 1 Tailpipe CO2 Emissions 37% reduction 67% reduction Fuel Costs 18% reduction 57% reduction Source: SDG&E Clean Transportation Program. Notes: 1. PHEVs also would indirectly generate GHG emissions associated with the generation of electricity used to charge the battery. 2. Standard hybrid represents performance by the same vehicle prior to the plug‐in conversion.
11 SDG&E time‐of‐use tariff for electric vehicles ranges from $0.12 ‐ $0.15 per kWh during off‐peak period.
5‐4 Section 5
Controlled experiments conducted by Recharge IT, an initiative of Google.org, also demonstrate that converted PHEVs achieve better fuel efficiency, lower CO2 emissions, and cheaper fuel costs when compared with standard hybrid and gasoline vehicles.
The following table uses the average fuel price and fuel efficiency information to determine the price per distance and price differentials that alternative fuels require to cost‐effectively compete with gasoline (Table 14). The analysis shows that per‐mile costs for fuel are lower than standard gasoline vehicles for vehicles running on B20, CNG, standard hybrid and plug‐in hybrid engines, and battery electric motors. The price differential column shows the price difference between a fuel and gasoline required for that fuel to be a cost‐effective alternative. The price differential is provided as a percentage for gasoline at any price, and as the per‐gallon cost at existing gasoline prices. For example, the results for E85 indicate that this fuel must be priced at least 27 percent lower than gasoline in order to be cost‐effective. At the current gasoline price this translates into a maximum cost for E85 of $1.49 per gallon. The table also shows that battery electric vehicles are more cost‐effective to fuel than standard gasoline vehicles as long as the price of electricity is at or below $0.22 per kilowatt‐hour (kWh).
Table 14. Alternative Fuel Passenger Car Cost Comparison to Gasoline Fuel Price Differential to Compete with Average Price Price Per Mile Economy Gasoline 1 100 Any Gasoline Current Gasoline Fuel Per Unit Per GGE MPGGE mile miles Price Price Gasoline $2.04 gal $2.04 22.33 $0.09 $9.14 n/a n/a Petroleum $2.36 gal $2.08 28.8 $0.07 $7.21 Max. 47% higher up to $2.99 gal Diesel B100 $3.48 gal $3.45 26.31 $0.13 $13.09 Max. 19% higher at most $2.43 gal B20 $2.72 gal $2.48 28.8 $0.09 $8.59 Max. 42% higher up to $2.89 gal CNG $1.81 gge $1.81 22.33 $0.08 $8.11 Equal Price up to $2.04 gge E85 (FFV) $2.19 gal $3.09 23 $0.13 $13.43 Min. 27% lower at most $1.49 gal Propane $2.50 gal $3.45 22.33 $0.15 $15.45 Min. ‐28% lower at most $1.48 gal HEV $2.04 gal $2.04 30.14 $0.07 $6.77 n/a n/a PHEV, $2.04 gal $2.04 31.26 $0.07 $6.53 n/a n/a Gasoline Mode Electric/PHEV See above $0.13 kWh $4.34 80.38 $0.05 $5.40 up to $0.22 kWh Grid Mode discussion Notes Based on average fuel prices as reported in the Clean Cities Alternative Fuels Price Report, January 2009. Prices may not add due to rounding
5‐5 Section 6
SECTION 6. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Petroleum Reduction
Alternative fuels and vehicle technologies will be need to achieve the state’s goals for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction, petroleum reduction, and climate stabilization. The potential GHG emission reductions, and petroleum and fossil fuel savings of alternative fuels compared to standard gasoline and diesel vehicles on a full fuel cycle basis is discussed below and summarized in Table 15.
Table 15. Full Fuel Cycle Comparison of Alternative Fuels to Standard Gasoline Vehicles Alternative Fuel Full Fuel Cycle Analysis GHG Reduction Petroleum Reduction Fossil Fuel Reduction Biomass‐based Diesel Biodiesel (B20) 10‐13% 15‐17% n/a Renewable Diesel (RD30) 20% 29% n/a Electricity Hybrid Electric 25% 25% 25% Plug‐in Hybrid 48% 60% 46% Battery Electric 72% 99.8% 65% Ethanol (E85) Midwest Corn 15‐28% 70‐73% 27‐45% California Corn 36% 70‐73% 27‐45% Sugar Cane 68% 73‐75% 72‐80% Cellulose 60‐72% 73‐75% 72‐80% Hydrogen Electrolysis 26% 99.7% 13% Natural Gas 54% 99.7% 41% Biomass 91% 99.7% 89% Natural Gas CNG – light‐duty vehicle 20‐30% >99% 4‐13% CNG – heavy‐duty vehicle 11‐23% >99% 2‐8% LNG – heavy‐duty vehicle 11‐16% >99% 3‐7% Propane Light‐duty 18‐20% 5% (from petroleum) 9‐12% 98% (from natural gas) Medium/Heavy‐duty12 2.3% higher than n/a n/a diesel; 18.6% lower than gasoline Non‐road (forklift)13 2.7% lower than diesel; n/a n/a 19% lower than gasoline Source: Full Fuel Cycle Assessment: Well‐to‐Wheels Energy Inputs, Emissions, and Water Impacts, TIAX LLC. Prepared for the California Energy Commission, June 2007 Energy Commission‐600‐2007‐004‐F
Plug‐in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) retrofits offer the opportunity to obtain approximately 40‐70 percent GHG emission reductions (depending on the electricity mix) compared to a gasoline vehicle and 15‐30 percent GHG emission reductions compared to a gasoline hybrid Toyota Prius. PHEVs demonstrate significant potential to reduce GHG emissions and petroleum and fossil fuel consumption.
12 http://www.propanecouncil.org/uploadedFiles/Propane_Reduces_GHG_Emissions_(2007).pdf 13 http://www.propanecouncil.org/uploadedFiles/Propane_Reduces_GHG_Emissions_(2007).pdf
6‐1 Section 6
BEVs do not produce any GHG or criteria air pollutant emissions at the tailpipe. Emissions attributed to the electricity powering the vehicle are those attributed to electricity generation or distributed energy sources. Full fuel‐cycle emissions of BEVs using today’s electricity grid are as much as 70 percent lower than the emissions of conventional gasoline vehicles.
Electrification of non‐road applications offers similar GHG emission reduction benefits to electric passenger vehicles: minimum 30 percent fuel savings, efficiency improvements, and GHG emission reductions. GHG emissions and petroleum consumption from medium‐ and heavy‐duty truck applications can be reduced through hybrid electric and hydraulic hybrid technologies. Electric vehicles will become even cleaner on a full fuel‐cycle basis as California continues to shift to renewable electricity generation systems and increases installation of renewable and clean non‐renewable distributed generation.
Generally, the higher the biofuel concentration of the biofuel blend, the greater the potential GHG emission reductions. Depending on the feedstock, fuel production process, blend concentration and vehicle type, the various biodiesel and renewable diesel fuels could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 61 to 94 percent compared to conventional diesel fuel.
Ethanol can achieve modest to substantial GHG emission reduction depending upon the type and location of the feedstock. According to the most recent analysis by the California Air Resources Board, the GHG emissions of corn‐ based ethanol produced in the Midwest and delivered to California, on average, slightly exceed the emissions of gasoline when indirect land use effects are taken into account. Corn‐based ethanol produced in California can achieve GHG emissions reductions relative to gasoline, while alternate feedstocks like sugarcane and cellulosic ethanol can achieve much larger GHG emission reductions compared to corn‐based ethanol and gasoline.
Vehicles operating on natural gas can reduce GHG emissions by as much as 30 percent compared to gasoline and diesel vehicles on a full fuel cycle basis. However, the use of biomethane in the same vehicles has a much greater greenhouse gas benefit, reducing emissions by as much as 97 percent.
Like BEVs, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles do not produce GHG emissions at the tailpipe. On a full fuel cycle basis, hydrogen can reduce GHG emissions by 26% to 91% depending on the method of producing hydrogen. Although on‐site steam reformation of natural gas is not the ultimate goal, it does provide a number of near‐term benefits such as a 50 percent “source‐to‐wheel” reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and a 40‐90% reduction in emissions of smog forming and toxic emissions compared to today’s gasoline‐powered cars. Hardly any petroleum is consumed in the full fuel cycle of hydrogen.
For the production of hydrogen by electrolysis, how the electricity is generated determines the amount of greenhouse gas emissions because it can be produced using fossil resources (i.e., natural gas and coal) or renewable resources like solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, and, biomass. When using renewable resources the emissions can be zero. However, when hydrogen is produced using the current mix of sources on the California grid, particulate matter (PM) emissions and the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions can be greater than those associated with gasoline on a well to wheels basis. The state has set goals to use renewable resources to produce hydrogen that exceed the state’s 20% Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) requirement. For electrolysis to be a viable and sustainable method of producing hydrogen, it must employ more clean renewable electricity than what the grid alone currently provides.
Propane offers moderate GHG emission reductions. When produced along with natural gas, propane reduces GHG emissions by 9 to 19 percent compared to gasoline, slightly better than propane derived from petroleum. Emissions reductions are substantial when an engine, such as in a forklift, is replaced by propane.14
14 http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/vehicles/emissions_propane.html
6‐2 Section 7
SECTION 7. Alternative Fuel Availability and Infrastructure
Widespread use of alternative fuels and deployment of alternative fuel vehicle technologies is contingent upon critical issues like the source and available supply of the fuel, capability to produce the fuel at a commercial scale, availability of infrastructure to distribute the fuel to the region, and facilities for vehicle fueling or charging. A discussion of these issues as they relate to the deployment of alternative fuels and vehicles in the San Diego region is provided below. The address and type of access for existing alternative fueling and charging infrastructure in the region is provided in Appendix F. See Figures 1‐5 at the end of Section 7 for the distribution of existing alternative fueling infrastructure in the region, and by the following subregions: South County, Mid‐City and East County, North City, and North County.
Table 16. Summary of Alternative Fuel Availability and Infrastructure Availability of Existing Fueling‐ Cost of Additional Fueling‐ Fuel Production‐Distribution Charging Infrastructure Charging Infrastructure Infrastructure Biodiesel Fueling 2 public, 5 private Information not available Storage and blending terminals, port off‐ loading sites needed E85 Fueling 3 public $100,000 to $250,000 Storage and distribution facilities needed in order to scale‐up consumption Electric Charging 19 public, 15 private or Upgrade existing: $200 to Existing Electricity Grid unknown* $3,000 and Distributed Energy New Public: $2,500 to $5,000 Sources New Residential: $1,300 to $1,500 CNG Fueling 7 public, 15 private Home Refueling: $4,750 Existing Natural Gas Small Station: $350,000 Pipeline Network Medium Station: $500,000 Large Station: $950,000 Add Public Fast Fill Dispenser: $125,000 LNG Fueling 2 private Large Station: $1,200,000 Existing, but West Coast Combined: LCNG and LNG off‐shore LNG terminals Station: $1,600,000 also needed Hydrogen Fueling 1 public, 1 private $500,000 to $5,000,000 Significant investment required Propane Fueling 19 public $65,000 Existing Notes: *All existing electric charging points must be upgraded for compliance with SAE standards; some existing charging points may have been removed or damaged or otherwise no longer exist as noted in Appendix F.
Biofuel: Biomass‐based Diesel
Biomass‐based diesel refers to biodiesel and renewable diesel, including diesel derived from algae, biomass, and industrial and processing waste. Only biodiesel is commercially available today. Additional progress is needed to produce biomass‐based diesel fuels from renewable feedstocks low in GHG emissions, including waste sources and algae, and to demonstrate the viability of these sources. Moving beyond these oils and into “second generation” feed sources and plants are necessary to reach higher blend levels and deeper GHG emission reductions. Biomass‐ based cellulose, waste, and algae are likely second generation feed sources.
7‐1 Section 7
California has 11 biodiesel plants with a combined 2009 theoretical capacity of 87 million gallons, although these plants will likely produce less than 25 million gallons in 2009 due to the relatively lower price of petroleum‐based diesel. A change in the price disparity between biodiesel and petroleum diesel will be needed to improve the economics of commercial biodiesel production and its availability to local government fleets in the San Diego region.
The region currently features one biodiesel production facility operated by New Leaf Biofuel, which collects waste oil from restaurants for processing into pure biodiesel (B100). According to the Energy Commission, recycled cooking oil is the lowest‐cost feedstock for biodiesel production. As of 2008, production was approximately 13,000 gallons per month. The company is developing a new processing facility with maximum production capacity of 140,000 gallons per month, the equivalent of about 1.68 million gallons of B100 per year.
Longer‐term, deployment of blending and storage terminals is needed to increase the availability of biodiesel and renewable diesel to customers in the region as well as the state. California lacks bulk terminal, bulk storage, and terminal blending facilities for biodiesel. Moreover, a minimum of two deepwater port access offloading sites are needed for the state to access foreign supplies at a competitive economic level with petroleum. The Energy Commission is providing funding for blending and storage terminal projects to facilitate infrastructure development in the state.
Buying directly from biodiesel producers is the most likely method of purchase for fuel distributors and bulk B100 purchasers of biodiesel. Some individual consumers may also buy biodiesel directly from producers by the drum. Distributors will typically deliver or fill large quantities of fuel in pure form (B100) or other common mixtures like B20. A list from the National Biodiesel Board (NBB) of NBB biodiesel producers and marketers is available online.
Development of new technology or new types of infrastructure is not required for biodiesel fueling. Existing petroleum diesel fueling stations can dispense biomass‐based diesels and biodiesel. Where new fueling pumps or stations are required to support biodiesel use by local government fleets, installation costs would be comparable to those for petroleum diesel fueling infrastructure. In general, the standard storage and handling procedures used for petroleum diesel can be used for biodiesel. The fuel should be stored in a clean, dry, dark environment. Acceptable storage tank materials include aluminum, steel, fluorinated polyethylene, fluorinated polypropylene, and Teflon. Copper, brass, lead, tin, and zinc should be avoided.
Existing public fueling pumps or stations in the San Diego region are located at Pearson Fuels in the City Heights community of the City of San Diego and at the Soco Group petroleum distribution facility in the City of El Cajon. Private biodiesel fueling stations are located at military installations throughout the region. The statewide and local production of B100 provides a near‐term opportunity for local governments in the San Diego region to employ blends of biodiesel in existing diesel vehicles and applications. Investments in biodiesel fueling infrastructure would be needed to support biodiesel use in fleet applications.
Biofuel: Ethanol (E85)
Over 90% of ethanol used in California is imported from outside the State. About 80% is produced from corn in the Midwest United States and transported to California by rail. Another 12% is comprised of foreign imports primarily from Brazil via marine transport. The approximately 8% produced in‐state comes from three plants, none of which are located in the San Diego region. Two more plants are under construction and 14 are in the active development stages. California plants are idle as of April 2009 due to the relatively low price of oil and refined petroleum products like gasoline relative to ethanol blends of E8515. A change in the price disparity between E85 and gasoline will be needed to improve the economics of commercial ethanol production and its availability to local government fleets in the San Diego region. Moreover, the Energy Commission reports that new storage and distribution facilities would be needed in the state to scale‐up E85 consumption.
15 California Energy Commission 2009 Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR) Transportation Workshop, 14 April, 2009.
7‐2 Section 7
There are no fleet‐based E85 fueling stations in the region, and public access to fueling stations is limited. E85 is currently available at Pearson Fuels in the City Heights community of the City of San Diego, Bressi Ranch Shell in the City of Carlsbad, and Oceanside Texaco in the City of Oceanside. New fueling stations would be needed to support the use of E85 in local government fleets in the region. The Energy Commission estimates the cost of new E85 fueling capacity at an existing or new station at $100,000 to $250,000. There are factors hindering a transition to E85 in California and the San Diego region. One is the limited number of facilities dispensing E85. In addition, it is difficult for local government fleets to justify investments in expansion of E85 infrastructure with the current price differential between E85 and gasoline. Because one gallon of E85 has roughly three‐quarters the energy content of one gallon of gasoline, vehicles running on E85 achieve lower fuel economy than gasoline. Therefore, the price of E85 must be proportionately lower than gasoline in order for fleet mangers to economically justify a transition.
In addition, the Energy Commission reports that the most recent calculations from the California Air Resources Board indicate that corn‐based ethanol produced in the Midwest results, on average, in higher GHG emissions on a full fuel cycle basis than gasoline. As a result, it would appear that E85 will only help the region contribute to GHG reduction targets if derived from corn ethanol produced in California or ethanol from lower carbon feedstocks other than corn. Additional investment in the production and distribution infrastructure to support large‐scale ethanol production from such lower carbon sources is likely needed before local government fleets in the San Diego region can justify commitment of resources to E85 fueling infrastructure and vehicles.
Electricity
Unlike some alternative fuels, the infrastructure for the production and distribution of electricity to power battery electric and plug‐in hybrid vehicles is already in place in the form of the existing power grid and distributed energy sources like photovoltaic solar panels. According to the Electric Power Research Institute, California’s existing electricity capacity could recharge as many as 4‐million plug‐in hybrids if charged during off‐peak hours when electricity use is relatively low. However, the existing electric charging infrastructure in the San Diego region is inadequate in numbers and will be incompatible with new charging connection formats to support forthcoming BEVs and PHEVs.
For some early release BEVs and PHEVs, recharging is as simple as plugging them into an electric outlet. Currently available converted plug‐in hybrids can recharge their batteries through a standard household outlet (110/120‐ volt) and charge in five to six hours with a 5‐kwh lithium‐ion battery. OEM production plug‐in hybrids are anticipated to recharge in as little as three hours using a 220/240‐volt wall unit for an 8‐kilowatt‐hour battery. Nissan reports that the BEV they will introduce in the San Diego region in 2010 will charge in eight hours using a 220/240‐volt wall unit and improvements by 2012 are expected to reduce the charge time to 4 hours by increasing the charging amperage.
There are approximately 32 existing electric charging stations remaining in the San Diego region. Most if not all of these facilities were constructed in the late 1990s and early 2000s when first generation electric vehicles were sold in California. Locations include San Diego International Airport, Saturn dealerships, UCSD, Scripps medical facilities, and regional shopping center locations (e.g., Costco stores). With the phase out of electric vehicles, these stations do not receive much use. These sites feature various types of charging technology and are in various states of disrepair. As noted in Appendix F, chargers have been removed at some locations. Existing sites will need to be upgraded or replaced to support the next generation of battery electric and plug‐in hybrid vehicles. The sites must be upgraded and new sites installed to meet the standards established by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) for electric vehicle connections. Existing public access charge points need to be upgraded to include Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) 1772 Level I (110V) and Level II (220V) compliant connectors to charge new OEM battery electric and plug‐in electric vehicles. The SAE standards have been crafted to be compatible with electric vehicles from all manufacturers.
In addition to upgrading existing charge points, a much larger, strategic and more comprehensive regional network of new electric charging stations will be needed to support the thousands of battery electric and plug‐in hybrid vehicles expected in the next few years. Installation of new charging sites will need to reflect the amount and
7‐3 Section 7 location of local government fleet purchases. Moreover, installation of electric charge infrastructure in the San Diego region also will need to keep up with the broader roll‐out of electric drive vehicles to the general public. Level I and II connectors installed at fleet yards or locations where fleet vehicles are parked or stored when not in use should be adequate to support the integration of battery electric and plug‐in hybrid vehicles into local government fleets. A comprehensive regional network of charging stations will need to consist of Level I and II16 connectors at residential and publicly accessible locations as well as infrastructure capable of quickly charging battery electric vehicles to facilitate longer‐distance travel (i.e., trip distances equal to or greater than the approximately 100‐mile range of battery electric vehicles). SAE Standards for Level III (440V) “fast‐charging” are under‐development and expected to be finalized in the near‐future. Fast‐chargers would charge battery electric vehicles to 80 percent capacity in an estimated 26 minutes in the case of the forthcoming Nissan EV.
In addition, companies like Better Place have proposed “battery exchange” stations in which, instead of re‐ charging a vehicle’s battery, a vehicle’s depleted battery is exchanged for a fully‐charged battery. Whatever the means or technology, substantial deployment of electric vehicles in the San Diego region will require installation of re‐charging infrastructure that is time‐competitive with standard vehicle re‐fueling at gasoline and diesel service stations. The following ratios are recommended for the initial installation of electric charging points to support the initial rollout of electric vehicles in the region:
• 1 charge point per vehicle to be installed at home base charging location • 1 – 1.5 charge points per vehicle in a public access location (this ratio will decrease in the future as the number of installed chargers increases; recommended ratios for the mid‐ and long‐term as still under review) • Level III connectors, battery‐exchange facilities, or a comparable technology to support long‐distance battery electric vehicle travel should be sited along major regional and interregional corridors. At a minimum, such facilities will need to be sited at a ratio of one every 100 miles.
Although upgrade costs to existing infrastructure will range from $200 to $3,000 per site, future costs to expand the number of charge outlets at upgraded sites will be minimal.
Table 17. Current Cost Estimates for Electric Charging Points Type of Charging Point Estimated Cost Upgrade Existing Charge Point $200 ‐ $3,000 Install New Public Charge Point $2,500 ‐ $3,500 $3,000 ‐ $5,000 (SDG&E) Install New Residential Charge Point $1,300‐$1,500 Source: Draft AB 118 Investment Plan; SDG&E.
More detailed regional analysis of electric charging infrastructure to support the deployment of electric vehicles to the general public is outside the scope of this effort but will be performed by SANDAG at a future date.
Natural Gas
California produces 15.4 percent of its natural gas, and the rest is imported by pipeline from Canada and the Rocky Mountain and Southwestern states. To meet growing demand, California needs to develop additional supplies of natural gas. Because North American supply basins are maturing, additional reliance on imported supplies is needed, including liquefied natural gas (LNG). Since natural gas is already widely used in electricity generation and residential, commercial and industrial end‐uses, substantial use of natural gas as a transportation fuel would create additional demand for new supplies of natural gas from imported or renewable sources, as discussed below.
16 It is currently anticipated that the preferred level for charging on BEVs and PHEVs will be Level II (220V) charging due to the increased charging time for the larger sized batteries being proposed for these vehicles (battery sizes ranging from16‐30 kWh). Level I (110V) charging will also be compatible with larger sized batteries, but will provide relatively slower charging time. Level I charging may be preferred for vehicles with smaller battery sizes, such as electric scooters.
7‐4 Section 7
Development of biomethane as a transportation fuel is a major part of the natural gas vehicle (NGV) industry’s long‐term plan for viability. Biomethane from landfill gas has an extremely low carbon intensity compared to diesel, gasoline, and North American natural gas. Feasibly recoverable biogas from landfills, wastewater treatment, and dairy waste, if used to produce biomethane transportation fuel, could displace virtually all diesel used for transportation purposes and reduce GHG emissions by more than 24 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) per year in California. The Energy Commission has allocated funding incentives to support up to ten biomethane production plants in California.
LNG is produced both world‐wide and domestically at a relatively low cost. Existing use of LNG for transportation purposes is derived from domestic sources. However, a majority of the world's LNG supply comes from countries with the largest natural gas reserves: Algeria, Australia, Brunei, Indonesia, Libya, Malaysia, Nigeria, Oman, Qatar, Trinidad, and Tobago. LNG is transported in double‐hulled ships specifically designed to handle the low temperature of LNG. These carriers are insulated to limit the amount of LNG that evaporates. LNG carriers are up to 1,000 feet long, and require a minimum water depth of 40 feet when fully loaded. Currently there are approximately 140 LNG ships world‐wide. LNG terminals in the United States are located along the East Coast and Gulf of Mexico. There are plans to construct two offshore LNG terminals along the west coast of the United States.17 When LNG is received at most terminals, it is transferred to insulated storage tanks specifically built to hold LNG. These tanks can be found above or below ground and keep the liquid at low temperature to avoid evaporation. Clean Energy operates an LNG plant in Boron, California that can produce up to 160,000 gallons of LNG per day and is designed to be upgraded to a maximum production capacity of up to 240,000 gallons of LNG per day. In addition to the Boron plant, two plants in Arizona serve LNG vehicles in Southern California.
Natural gas is readily available to end users through existing utility infrastructure. San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) distributes natural gas to end‐use customers for various non‐transportation purposes. Natural gas fueling infrastructure can be linked to this existing regional network to provide natural gas as a transportation fuel for potential local government fleet applications. Significant financial and time investments in infrastructure to transport and distribute natural gas to end users have already been made. This gives fuels like CNG an advantage over other alternatives such as hydrogen, ethanol, and biodiesel, which require significant time and financial investments in infrastructure that would be needed to scale up production and distribution of those fuels to end users.
With the consumption of CNG increasing nationwide 145 percent during the past six years, the fueling infrastructure has also grown. California has more than 200 CNG fueling stations. In Southern California alone, there are more than 100 public fueling stations in major metropolitan areas from Los Angeles to the Mexican border. Another 50 stations are now under construction. There are approximately 22 existing locations in the San Diego region offering CNG, with another two locations offering LNG. These facilities primarily support CNG and LNG use in public and private fleet applications including the region’s two primary transit agencies, multiple school districts, military facilities, refuse hauler Waste Management (LNG), and the City of Chula Vista. In addition, UCSD has plans to construct a new CNG station and is actively seeking Federal Stimulus funding to support their efforts. Fueling infrastructure for natural gas consists of the following seven types of facilities:
• CNG home refueling appliances • Large‐capacity LNG stations • Small‐capacity CNG stations • CNG dispensers added to existing gasoline • Medium‐capacity CNG stations stations • Large‐capacity CNG station • Combined CNG and LNG stations (LCNG)
Large amounts of capital are required to expand infrastructure. For the fleet operator, the overall economics are favorable if the fuel cost savings can amortize the additional equipment costs. This equation favors high fuel use applications, which is one reason why heavy duty vehicles are the fastest growing natural gas vehicle segment in California. Current cost estimates for natural gas infrastructure are provided in Table 18.
17 http://www.energy.ca.gov/lng/documents/4_WEST_COAST_PROJECTS_PROPOSALS_STATUS_UPDATE.PDF
7‐5 Section 7
Table 18. Current Cost Estimates for Natural Gas Infrastructure Type of Infrastructure Estimated Cost Home Refueling Appliance $4,750 Small Station $350,000 Medium Station $500,000 Large CNG Station $950,000 Large LNG Station $1,200,000 Add Public Fast Fill Dispenser $125,000 Combined LCNG & LNG Station $1,600,000 Source: AB 118 Investment Plan
Small, medium, and large CNG stations can be added to existing gasoline stations or built as “stand alone” CNG stations. It is also possible for a single station to dispense both CNG and LNG, and in fact LNG can be gasified to CNG with conventional pumps with less energy than it takes to compress pipeline gas to CNG, though CNG from LNG is more expensive than CNG from pipeline gas. The state of natural gas infrastructure and supply would appear adequate to support deployment of CNG and LNG as fuels in appropriate local government fleet applications. The potential for growth in the regional use of LNG over the longer‐term may be contingent upon the construction of West Coast LNG terminals or additional in‐state LNG plants.
Connection with Hydrogen
Natural gas could also play a role in a hydrogen fuel future. Because natural gas and hydrogen are similar fuels with similar properties, lessons learned with NGVs can be applied to the development of hydrogen transportation systems. Moreover, natural gas fueling infrastructure can be used to dispense hydrogen. Use of hydrogen enriched natural gas (e.g., 20% hydrogen and 80% natural gas) in heavy‐duty vehicles can reduce emissions from pure natural gas by about 50 percent.
Hydrogen
There are a number of ways that hydrogen can be produced including electrolysis of water, steam reformation of natural gas, biomass gasification and coal gasification to name a few. The two most common ways to produce hydrogen are steam reformation of natural gas and electrolysis of water at a central station. It is important to note that unlike other fuels, hydrogen is not an energy source but an energy carrier. Energy is required to create hydrogen fuel. After hydrogen is produced, it would be delivered to fueling stations by truck or pipeline for pumping into vehicles’ hydrogen tanks. Another option is for hydrogen to be produced by reformation or electrolysis at the fueling station.
Currently, most hydrogen is produced by steam reformation of natural gas, one of the cheapest methods. This process lays a foundation for increasing the use of renewable feed stocks because hydrogen stations that are constructed initially using natural gas could be modified to accept fuels derived from renewable and other sources of energy as they become available. Additionally, the experience gained and improvements made at stations using natural gas reformation could be applied to new reformation stations sited where renewable fuels such as biomass, municipal solid waste, and landfill gas can be used as the fuel source.
In addition to the infrastructure investments required to produce hydrogen, delivery of hydrogen to end users would require the building of an extensive system for transporting, distributing, and storing hydrogen. Significant investment of money and time would be required to deliver hydrogen to end‐users. Currently, very little hydrogen is produced for use as a transportation fuel. Moreover, the cost of production is currently expensive. With respect to fueling infrastructure, the San Diego region contains two hydrogen fueling stations: one publicly accessible station at the City of Chula Vista Corporation Yard and a private station located on the Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base. The cost of additional hydrogen stations is estimated by the Energy Commission to range from $500,000 ‐ $5,000,000 depending on the size.
7‐6 Section 7
Propane
The infrastructure of the propane distribution system is well‐established. Propane is shipped from the point of production (natural gas or oil well) to bulk distribution terminals via pipeline, railroad, barge, truck, or tanker ship. Propane dealers fill trucks at terminals and distribute propane to end users, including retail fueling stations. Most propane consumed in the U.S. is produced domestically. Very little new infrastructure is needed to support propane forklifts; propane suppliers can maintain on‐site storage tanks for fleets or have cylinder exchange programs.
Propane is widely available and its use could easily be expanded if demand for propane as a transportation fuel increases. There are currently 19 stations in the San Diego region that supply propane. There is potential to quickly expand the infrastructure for propane vehicle fueling, as existing propane stations can be used for vehicle fueling through the addition of fuel capacity, a tank pump, and metering equipment. Additional fueling infrastructure for propane can be installed at low cost at for publicly accessible stations, and upgrading existing propane infrastructure for vehicle fueling is cost effective as well. There is potential to quickly expand the infrastructure for propane vehicle fueling, as existing propane stations can be used for vehicle fueling through the addition of fuel capacity, a tank pump, and metering equipment.
Refueling of a propane vehicle involves filling the vehicle's on‐board storage cylinder from a dispenser connected to a storage tank. Just as propane is stored in the engine fuel tank as a liquid, it is stored and handled as a liquid at the fuel dispenser. Propane is pumped from the dispenser storage tank into the vehicle tank. Propane refueling is comparable to the amount of time needed to refuel a gasoline or diesel vehicle (about 10‐12 gallons per minute). The Energy Commission estimates that the average cost of a propane fueling station is $65,000.
New supplies of propane may become available with advancements in processes that derive propane from renewable sources. Bio‐propane could give propane an additional advantage as a transitional fuel that will be beneficial economically and environmentally in the coming years. Although renewable sources of propane are not currently available commercially, they have potential as an alternative fuel option in the future. Renewable propane can be derived from several feedstocks such as algae, row crops, and wood. The derivation of renewable propane requires little additional energy use and results in a product that contains the same energy content as propane derived from petroleum. However, renewable sources of propane are not available in large quantities or commercially and would be unable to support a large vehicle population or fleet. At this time, renewable propane appears unlikely to play a large role as a transportation fuel in local government fleets in the San Diego region.
7‐7 !"a$ Figure 1
NORTH COUNTY SUBREGION Aª Camp Pendleton A¨
!"^$
A¨ A¨
Vista
Oceanside A©
NORTH CITY SUBREGION San Escondido Marcos
Carlsbad !"a$ A©
!"^$ Encinitas A©
PowayPo Solana Beach County of San Diego Del Mar ?t ?z MID-CITY AND EAST COUNTY SUBREGION
San Diego Region: !"a$ Existing Alternative %&(s Santee !"^$ San Diego h Fuel Infrastructure ? ?z
Infrastructure Type A× )" Biodiesel Production El Cajon Aù !"_$ )" Biodiesel Fueling La Mesa ?j
)" E85 Fueling AÀLemon Grove (! CNG Fueling ?Þ A× %&(s (! Propane Fueling A§ National (! LNG Fueling Coronado City AÀ ?j XW Hydrogen Fueling *# Chula Electric Charging Vista A× 0 7 Miles !"^$ %&(s Imperial 0 2.5 5 7.5 Kilometers Beach AÛ UNITED STATES April MEXICO ¯ 2009 SOUTH SUBREGION Tijuana
7-8 Figure 2
Camp Pendleton
San Diego North Subregion: Existing Alternative!"^$ !"a$ Fuel Infrastructure County of San Diego Infrastructure Type )" Biodiesel Production )" Biodiesel Fueling A¨ )" E85 Fueling (! CNG Fueling (! Propane Fueling
(! LNG Fueling Oceanside Vista XW Hydrogen Fueling !"^$ *# Electric Charging
0 1 2 Miles
0 1 2 3 Kilometers A©
April Carlsbad ¯ 2009 San Marcos
7-9 Figure 3
Vista San Marcos
A© Carlsbad Escondido
San Diego North City Subregion: Existing Alternative Fuel Infrastructure !"^$ !"a$ County of San Diego Infrastructure Type Encinitas )" Biodiesel Production )" Biodiesel Fueling )" E85 Fueling (! CNG Fueling (! Propane Fueling
(! LNG Fueling Solana Beach XW Hydrogen Fueling Poway San Diego *# Electric Charging
0 1 2 Miles Del Mar 0 1 2 3 Kilometers
April ?t ¯ 2009
7-10 Figure 4 ?z ?t San Diego Mid-City and East County Subregion: !"_$ Existing Alternative Fuel Infrastructure
Infrastructure Type County of San Diego )" Biodiesel Production (! Propane Fueling )" Biodiesel Fueling (! LNG Fueling )" E85 Fueling XW Hydrogen Fueling (! CNG Fueling *# Electric Charging
0 1 2 Miles
0 1 2 3 Kilometers ¯ April 2009 !"a$ %&(s Santee See Inset !"^$ ?h ?z Above
San Diego A×
El Cajon Aù !"_$
La Mesa ?j
County of San Diego
AÀLemon Grove
?Þ A×
7-11 %&(s Figure 5 AÀ Lemon San Diego Grove ?Þ A×
%&(s County of San Diego
Coronado A§
National City ?j
San Diego South Subregion: Existing Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Chula Infrastructure Type Vista )" Biodiesel Production )" Biodiesel Fueling A× )" E85 Fueling (! CNG Fueling !"^$ %&(s (! Propane Fueling San Diego (! LNG Fueling Imperial AÛ XW Hydrogen Fueling Beach *# Electric Charging
0 1 2 Miles UNITED STATES MEXICO 0 1 2 3 Kilometers
April ¯ 2009 Tijuana 7-12 Section 8
SECTION 8. Alternative Fuel Considerations for Regional Transportation Projects
Regional Areas of Emphasis
One objective of this study was to identify how a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) like SANDAG or other regional body can facilitate the increased use of alternative fuels and vehicles. One potential approach would involve the integration of alternative fuel vehicles and infrastructure considerations with the core SANDAG functions of regional transportation planning. This report takes a broad view of its core transportation planning and implementation areas to determine project types potentially suitable for integration of alternative fuel vehicle considerations. Importantly, increased use of alternative fuels would advance the goals of the San Diego Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) (Figure 6.). Further analysis was undertaken to determine how the increased use alternative fuels and vehicles could be integrated into the four main components of the RTP (Figure 7.).
Figure 6. SANDAG RTP Goals Figure 7. RTP Four Components
RTP Components
Land Use – Transportation Connection Transportation Systems Development Connecting land use and transportation Implementing the regional transit plan and o Smart growth concept map network o Smart growth and public health Flexible roadway system o Air quality Goods movement and intermodal facilities o Better urban design for a healthier lifestyle Aviation and ground access Using land use and transportation plans to guide Enhanced smart growth land use alternative other plans and investments Planning across borders Incentives and collaboration
Transportation Demand Management Transportation Systems Management RideLink Congestion management program o Park and ride lots High occupancy toll lanes o Vanpools Advanced technologies and innovative services o Carpools (smart parking) o Transit o Guaranteed ride home
Using the four RTP components as a guide, a list of potential regional transportation program areas warranting further investigation was developed. The program area analysis focused on the identification of possible “shovel‐ ready” projects that could be enhanced with an alternative fuels or vehicles component and the identification of funding to support implementation of that enhancement. Focus areas for the San Diego region that could be analyzed further include:
8‐1 Section 8
Transit stations accessible from the managed lanes on Interstates 15, 805, and 5. Potential for priority parking, charging stations, fueling stations on‐site or in the vicinity: o Bus Rapid Transit centers are under construction or planned every 3 miles on the I‐15 corridor, then the I‐805 and I‐5 corridors. o Federal and state funds could enable alternative fuel infrastructure enhancements during construction. Establishing public access electric charging stations in opportune locations throughout the region: o Partner with SDG&E to plan region‐wide public charging network. o Address permitting or other municipal barriers to siting infrastructure in a regionally consistent manner. o Provide consistent outreach and information to local governments and regional stakeholders to integrate electric vehicles and infrastructure in local government fleets. Bus rapid transit circulator routes, stations, infrastructure, vehicles: o Purchase of alternative fuel buses with performance above and beyond existing state requirements. o Projects under construction that could be augmented include: Super Loop, Mid‐City Rapid Bus and Escondido Rapid Bus. Vanpools and other rideshare options: o Retrofit vanpools from gasoline to CNG. SANDAG has over 650 vanpools and must purchase approximately100 new vans annually due to new vanpool start‐ups and turn‐over of existing vans with high mileage. o In phases, converted compressed natural gas (CNG) vans can be purchased in public‐private partnership through entities like the University of California San Diego (UCSD), Enterprise and VPSI (vanpool vendors) and natural gas‐supplier Clean Energy. o Strategically identify vanpool vehicles for CNG conversion based on proximity of vanpool route to CNG fueling infrastructure. Goods movement projects to reduce idling, petroleum consumption, and GHG emissions: o Truck stop electrification (TSE) at the US‐Mexico Ports of Entry (POE). o Conduct feasibility study of TSE at Otay Mesa crossing and third border crossing under development. Concept developed with EPA Region 9. o Identify alternative fuel infrastructure (stations and maintenance facilities) that could be incorporated into or in vicinity of the San Ysidro‐Tijuana POE under redevelopment. Airport transportation coordination o Destination Lindbergh project to optimize San Diego International Airport. o Multi‐modal transit station planned for airport reconfiguration. o Airport shuttle bus and taxi retrofits and new purchases. o Airport CNG fueling station and electric charging infrastructure.
Since many of these transportation areas are addressed by multiple regional, state, federal and even international entities, SANDAG considered a collaborative approach to benefit the region. Concurrently, state (such as AB 118) and federal (such as the stimulus) funding opportunities were under development. Regional discussions on alternative fuels transformed into strategies to fund and implement projects ready in the near‐term. To aid in the identification of potential project types, near‐term (i.e., in or before 2013) budgeted infrastructure projects included in SANDAG’s adopted 2008 Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP) were analyzed. RTIP projects include capital improvements, engineering and planning studies conducted by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), regional transit agencies, local governments and SANDAG. From these regional transportation program reviews, several project types have been identified and recommended for potential further study as described in Section 9. Report Recommendations.
8‐2 Section 9
SECTION 9. Recommendations
This section provides recommendations to maximize the economic, environmental, and social benefits of the transition to alternative fuels, vehicles, and supporting infrastructure in the San Diego region. Four types of recommendations are provided. In many cases, implementation of the recommendations and progress toward a regional transition to alternative fuels, vehicles, and infrastructure will be contingent upon the availability of funding to the region.
The first recommendations prioritize alternative fuels and vehicles for different vehicle classes. This information can help local governments, public agencies and other fleet operators navigate the various alternative fuel and vehicle options and make decisions regarding new vehicle purchases, retrofits, and fuels that meet regional as well as their own objectives. The second set of recommendations identifies potential regional, near‐term budgeted transportation projects that could be enhanced to include an alternative fuels component. The third set of report recommendations focus on preparing the region for a wider rollout of alternative fuel vehicles to the general public. The fourth series of recommendations are additional measures that SANDAG could undertake as follow‐ up to this report.
Part 1: Vehicle and Fuel Recommendations
Light‐Duty Vehicle Applications: Passenger Cars and Light‐Trucks
The following vehicle and fuel recommendations for light‐duty vehicle applications are presented in order of priority.
Recommendation #1: Electricity For vehicles with limited range requirements (about 100 miles per day), battery‐electric vehicles are recommended. For vehicles with longer range requirements (greater than 100 miles per day), use of plug‐in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV) is recommended. At present time, standard hybrid electric vehicles must be converted to PHEV, although PHEVs produced by OEMS are expected to become available in the marketplace in late 2010. Install Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Level I (110/120v) and Level II (220/240v) compliant electric charging points proportionate with vehicle conversions and purchases at a ratio of 1.5 charging points per vehicle to support initial introduction of BEV and PHEV vehicles (1 vehicle = 1 charging point at vehicle home base + 0.5 charging at public access location). The charging point‐to‐vehicle ratio can be lowered in the future as electric vehicles becomes more common. Coordinate vehicle conversions, purchases, and electric charging point installation with state and federal funding opportunities.
Pros At present, electricity is the best available option for GHG reductions at the tailpipe and on a full fuel cycle basis. Opportunity for even greater full fuel cycle GHG reductions with anticipated increases in the state renewable portfolio standard (RPS) and distributed generation at charging point. Nearly 100 percent petroleum reduction. Best available fuel economy rating of 80 miles per gallon of gasoline equivalent (mpgge) according to the Energy Commission (some BEVs achieve significantly higher mpgge). In general, electricity is cheaper fuel than gasoline as long as gasoline is priced above approximately $1.25 per gallon. Infrastructure to distribute electricity to end‐users – the existing electric grid – is already in place.
9‐1 Section 9
Electric charging points are substantially less expensive to install than fueling stations for conventional and alternative fuels. Costs to expand the number of charge outlets at upgraded sites will be cost‐ effective. Battery electric vehicles will be available to public fleets in the San Diego region in 2010 at a price of approximately $27‐$30,000. Battery electric vehicles will be available to the general public by 2012 Government funding and incentives are available to cover the incremental costs of new and retrofitted battery electric and plug‐in hybrid vehicles: o Federal tax credit of $7,500 per vehicle for battery electric, o A 10 percent federal tax credit is available for electric drive retrofits, o For FY08‐FY10, an average of $10,000 per plug‐in hybrid retrofit from the Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program administered by the Energy Commission, o Up to $5,000 per vehicle rebate for battery electric vehicles (only $3,000 for battery electric vehicles with a range of 50 to 100 miles) and up to a $3,000 per vehicle rebate for plug‐in hybrid vehicles from the Air Quality Improvement Program administered by the California Air Resources Board, and o If federal ARRA awards are received, vehicle and infrastructure costs may be reduced further.
Cons Vehicle/retrofit cost is greater than the cost of a standard gasoline vehicle. Battery electric vehicles may have limited range of about 100 miles. Large‐scale production and commercial availability of battery electric and plug‐in hybrid vehicles does not exist at present (but is expected in the near‐term [1‐3 years] future). Without proper planning, a significant market penetration of battery electric and plug‐in hybrid vehicles could negatively impact the region’s electricity grid, including increased peak demand and increased minimum load demand.
Recommendation #2: Compressed Natural Gas Where electric vehicles are not an option, purchase new compressed natural gas (CNG) passenger vehicles. Consider retrofitting standard passenger vehicles to CNG vehicles. Consider deploying CNG vehicles in taxicab fleets. Take advantage of existing CNG fueling infrastructure where available, and construct and/or support construction of new CNG fueling infrastructure when needed to support vehicle purchase and/or retrofit. Coordinate vehicle conversions, purchases, and fueling station installation with state and federal funding opportunities.
Pros Full fuel cycle GHG emission reductions of 20‐30 percent relative to standard gasoline vehicles. Nearly 100 percent petroleum reduction. CNG is cheaper than gasoline on a per‐gallon‐equivalent basis. Regional infrastructure to distribute natural gas to end‐users – the existing natural gas pipeline network – is already in place. Approximately 22 existing CNG fueling stations in the region. Biomethane, if and when commercially available in the region, provides opportunity to achieve further GHG emission reductions (up to 97 percent compared to gasoline) using the same natural gas infrastructure, fueling stations, and vehicles. Government funding and incentives are available: o For FY08‐FY10, an average of $6,667 per vehicle for the purchase of light‐duty vehicles (the Energy Commission will consider funding vehicle retrofits to CNG) and $400,000 per fueling station from the Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program administered by the Energy Commission, o Federal ARRA funding available to further offset costs of vehicles and infrastructure Can serve as transitional fuel to achieve early GHG reductions until other lower‐carbon fuel options become commercially viable.
9‐2 Section 9
Cons Natural gas supplies are finite and non‐renewable. Natural gas is heavily relied upon in non‐transportation sectors, particularly electricity generation. Only one Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) offers a light‐duty CNG passenger vehicle in California, which is more expensive (about $10,000) than a comparable gasoline vehicle. Fueling infrastructure to support rollout of CNG passenger vehicles to the general public would involve significant financial investment.
Recommendation #3: Ethanol (E85) Where fleets own Flexible Fuel Vehicles (FFV) and E85 is available, establish policies that require fueling with E85. If previous recommendations are not achievable, purchase FFVs for light‐truck and sport utility vehicle applications. As stated above, establish policies that require fueling with E85 when fueling infrastructure is available. Install E85 fueling infrastructure to support FFV and any dedicated E85 vehicles. Take advantage of state funding for E85 fueling stations. Improve regional access to E85 fueling stations by siting new fueling infrastructure in currently under‐ served areas. Routinely monitor the in‐state ethanol production industry, including the types of feedstocks. E85 will provide substantial benefits when feedstocks from biomass waste streams and bioenergy crops within California are used to produce ethanol at a commercial scale.
Pros Vehicle purchase price is similar to a comparable gasoline vehicle. E85 fueling infrastructure and vehicles for current generation ethanol also will be able to accommodate next generation ethanol produced from feedstocks with greater benefits. Fueling stations already installed in the region. Full fuel cycle petroleum reduction of 70‐75 percent relative to a standard gasoline vehicle. Government funding and incentives are available: For FY08‐FY10, an average of $100,000 per fueling station from the Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program administered by the Energy Commission, and additional funds will be allocated to support low‐carbon ethanol productions plant in California. Cons Price of E85 is less economical than gasoline and other alternative fuels on a gallon of gasoline equivalent basis. Current generation of feedstocks has minimal or possibly negative GHG emissions performance, and the timing for commercial availability of next generation feedstocks is uncertain. Fueling infrastructure to support rollout of E85 to the general public would involve significant financial investment. FFVs are typically only available in the light‐duty truck category (e.g., sport utility vehicles and pick‐up trucks).
Recommendation #4: Propane Retrofit existing or newly purchased light‐trucks Take advantage of existing propane fueling infrastructure in the region, where possible. Construct new fueling infrastructure to support vehicle retrofits.
Pros Infrastructure to support propane distribution to end‐users is already in place. Potential for renewable propane to compete with other alternative fuels in future years. Full fuel cycle GHG reduction of 18‐20 percent compared to standard gasoline vehicle. Nearly 100 percent of U.S. propane consumption is derived from domestic sources. Relatively lower fueling infrastructure costs ($65,000) than other alternative fuels.
9‐3 Section 9
Government funding and incentives are available: o For FY08‐FY10, a total of $1 million for light‐duty vehicles in public fleets from the Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program administered by the Energy Commission. o Federal incentives available to support propane fueling stations. Can serve as transitional fuel to achieve early GHG reductions until other lower‐carbon fuel options become commercially viable.
Cons New OEM propane passenger cars or light trucks are not available for‐sale in California. Propane retrofits are not available for passenger cars in California. Minimal petroleum reduction (5 percent) when propane is derived from petroleum. Lower GHG reduction that other alternative fuel options. Price of propane is less economical than gasoline and other alternative fuels on a gallon of gasoline equivalent basis.
Recommendation #5: Biodiesel Manufacturers of light‐duty diesel vehicles do not currently except biodiesel blends greater than B5. Therefore, the purchase of light‐duty diesel vehicles and fueling with B5 would provide relatively minimal benefit compared to other alternative fuels in terms of increasing alternative fuel use, lessening petroleum dependence, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. If and when light‐duty diesel vehicle manufacturers accept biodiesel blends of B20 and higher, this recommendation and the role of biodiesel in light‐duty vehicles will be re‐evaluated.
Recommendation #6: Hydrogen The cost and availability of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and infrastructure currently makes them uncompetitive. Regional investment in this technology is not recommended at this time. As the vehicles, production, distribution and fueling infrastructure become more available, this will be re‐evaluated.
Medium and Heavy‐Duty Vehicle Applications
Alternative fuel and vehicle selection is dependent on several factors including cost and availability of vehicles and fuel supply (including grant and tax credits available), whether franchisee is considering purchase of new vehicles or retrofits/conversions of existing fleet vehicles, and level of comfort with addressing maintenance and changing from standard practice. Therefore, recommendations are provided, but not prioritized, regarding each fuel.
Biodiesel Use biodiesel blends up to B20 in existing diesel vehicles and equipment (when consistent with manufacturer warranty). Make a priority of contracting with in‐region and in‐state biodiesel producers.
Natural Gas CNG is a recommended option for medium‐duty applications such as vans and shuttle buses. Both CNG and LNG are recommended options for heavy‐duty applications like refuse haulers and street sweepers. CNG is best suited to short‐ and medium‐haul applications, while LNG is better suited for long‐haul applications. In FY08‐FY10, an allocation of $23 million will be made available for medium‐ and heavy‐duty natural gas vehicle rebates through the Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program administered by the Energy Commission.
Propane Propane retrofits are an option in the medium‐duty vehicle class for application such as vans and cargo trucks (heavy‐duty propane engines and vehicles are not available). Three companies in California provide propane retrofits for gasoline engines, and all apply to medium‐duty GM engines (6.0 and 8.1 L models). Funding is available to support propane retrofits through the Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program administered by the Energy Commission.
9‐4 Section 9
Hybrid Electric and Hydraulic Hybrid Although not alternative fuels, hybrid electric and hydraulic hybrid technologies are viable options for medium‐ and heavy‐duty application such as refuse trucks, drayage trucks, utility trucks, as well as transit and school buses. Cost differentials compared to diesel trucks range from $35,000 for retrofits to $80,000 for new vehicles. The differential cost of a gasoline hybrid electric bus is about $150,000 compared to a CNG bus. In FY08‐ FY10, the ARB will offer $25 million in incentives for the purchase of new medium‐ and heavy‐duty diesel hybrid vehicles through its Air Quality Improvement Program.
Non‐Road Applications (Neighborhood electric vehicles, forklifts)
Electricity and propane are recommended as viable options to gasoline‐ and diesel‐powered non‐road vehicles as described below:
Electricity Battery electric non‐road vehicles such as forklifts and neighborhood electric vehicles provide opportunities to reduce GHG emissions and petroleum consumption associated with non‐road movement of people and cargo. Funding for non‐road applications will be available through the Air Quality Improvement Program administered by the ARB.
Propane The purchase and maintenance costs of propane forklift are comparable to a gasoline‐powered forklift. Fueling infrastructure costs are minimal to support propane forklifts. As described above, the full fuel cycle GHG and petroleum reduction benefits of propane are superior to gasoline.
Fueling Infrastructure
Coordinate alternative fuel and/or vehicle purchase with fueling/charging infrastructure siting. When siting fueling infrastructure to support fleet vehicles, consider locations that can be leveraged or expanded to allow public access (at the same time or at a future date). Consider state and federal funding opportunities, public and private partnerships or private industry making entire investment to address infrastructure costs
Part 2: Transportation Project Recommendations
Using the approach described in Section 8, staff reviewed RTIP projects for the potential to accommodate an alternative fuels, vehicles, or infrastructure component. Nineteen potential projects were identified for further investigation, as shown in Table 19.
Additional meetings with regional stakeholders included local governments, alternative fuel distributors, a local refinery owner, fueling station owners, public agencies, transit agencies, APCD, goods movement and cross‐border players, vanpool vendors, major universities, businesses, CCSE and SDG&E. These meetings generated strong interest in a coordinated regional approach for the expansion of alternative fuels, vehicles and infrastructure in the San Diego region.
9‐5 Section 9
Table 19. RTIP Projects with Potential to Accommodate Alternative Fuels, Vehicles, or Infrastructure RTIP Project Description I‐15 BRT Transit Stations From SR 163 to SR 78 ‐ construct transit stations along the I‐15 corridor including Project stations at Mira Mesa Blvd, SR 56, Rancho Bernardo Road, and Del Lago Blvd; modify Escondido Transit Station. [designated parking, charging potential and siting of alternative fueling infrastructure in vicinity] Metropolitan Planning Countywide ‐ ongoing regional transportation planning including the regional vanpool program and survey and inventory of bridges [include alternative fuels and vehicles questions] Mid‐Coast Super Loop University City in San Diego ‐ design and construction of transit priority treatments queue jumper lanes, street modifications, new and modified transit stations, and acquisition of 12 expansion shuttles [designated parking, charging and potential alternative fuel shuttles] Regional Rideshare Countywide ‐ Component of overall regional Transportation Demand Management Program [Integration of CNG retrofit vans for vanpool; EV or PHEV sedans for 1st/ last mile for rideshare program] San Diego Smart Parking Selected Coaster Stations ‐ provide access to real‐time parking availability, conduct Pilot Project evaluations, analysis of parking strategies and pricing [designated alternative fuel vehicle parking, charging, monitor smart parking results for GHG reductions] I‐5/805 Port of Entry On I‐5 US/Mexico Border to Willow Road and On I‐805 from Border to San Ysidro Blvd ‐ modify port of entry [plan for role of alternative fuels, stations, maintenance facilities] San Ysidro Intermodal From Commercial St. to International Border ‐ SD&AE Freight Yard & South Line Freight Facility Mainline in San Ysidro‐ environmental studies, design, site planning, & construction for an international freight facility; signal installation for track & rail cars [Opportunity to include refueling for buses and trucks] I‐15 BRT Downtown Downtown San Diego (East Village and financial core area) ‐ construct transit stations Transit Stations and transit lanes [designated alternative fuel vehicle parking and charging] I‐15 BRT Mid‐City Transit At University Avenue & at El Cajon Blvd. (mid‐city area of San Diego) ‐ construct Stations transit stations & transit lanes [designated alternative fuel vehicles parking and charging] Escondido Maintenance Escondido at Washington and Centre City ‐ improvements to maintenance facility Facility including electronic gates, surveillance systems, video cameras, security [Bus refueling option] East County Bus New bus facility in the City of El Cajon to provide capacity for operation and Maintenance Facility maintenance for 100‐150 vehicles [Bus refueling option] South Bay Bus In City of Chula Vista – expand existing facility from 4 to 9 acres to permit up to 150 Maintenance Facility buses [Bus refueling option] South Bay BRT From Otay Ranch to downtown San Diego ‐ plan, design, and construct transit stations, transit way, local street and road modifications, freeway modifications [designated alternative fuel vehicle parking and charging] Oceanside‐Escondido Rail From Oceanside to Escondido ‐ design & construct 22 mile light rail (Sprinter) Project including 15 stations and maintenance facility –maybe completed [stations completed, but designate alternative fuel vehicle parking, add charging. Possible for maintenance facility to include alternative fuel component] Solana Beach Inter‐modal Solana Beach train station ‐ construct parking structure, part of mixed‐use transit Transit Station oriented development [designated alternative fuel vehicle parking and charging] San Luis Rey Transit In Oceanside ‐ construct new multi‐modal transit center as a component of a transit‐ Center oriented, mixed‐use development which would include retail, commercial, residential and office space [designated alternative fuel vehicle parking and charging]
9‐6 Section 9
I‐15 BRT Operations and From Escondido to San Diego ‐ planning, operations and vehicle acquisition for BRT Vehicles service along I‐15 corridor [include alternative fuel component to planning going forward] Rail Vehicles & Related NCTD service area ‐ locomotive purchase/overhaul, revenue vehicles, misc. support Equipment equipment including vehicles, spare components and signal equipment upgrade/replacement. Exempt Cat: Mass Transit ‐ Purchase new buses and rail cars to replace existing vehicles or minor expansions of fleet. [SANDAG staff provided ARRA transit grant information for use (TIGGER)] Bus & Rail Rolling Stock MTS service area ‐ purchase replacement buses (9 mid‐size CNG, 141 ADA small, 11 medium, 83 40‐foot CNG, 10 high capacity) and Light Rail Vehicle rehabilitation, LRV Tires, rehabilitation of electronic control circuit for U2s and LRV HVAC retrofit [SANDAG staff provided ARRA transit grant information for use (TIGGER)]
Part 3: Planning Recommendations
The third set of report recommendations focus on preparing the region as a whole for alternative fuel vehicles. A concerted regional approach to addressing infrastructure needs for alternative fuels is one of the foundations to successfully implementing several interrelated state and regional goals including climate change, petroleum dependence, economic prosperity, and air quality. A coordinated infrastructure strategy, by a regional entity like an MPO or APCD, is necessary to provide customers (e.g., fleet managers and the general public) with a level of certainty that infrastructure will be available to support their investment in an alternative fuel or vehicle. Deployment of alternative fuel vehicles and development of supportive infrastructure, initially for local government and public agency fleets, will help the region lay the groundwork for a wider rollout of alternative fuel vehicles that the general public can embrace.
Support a Regional Approach to Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Planning: Continue Development of a Regional Strategic Alliance
SANDAG has proposed to the Energy Commission the idea of forming a regional strategic alliance consisting of a regionally‐planned approach to increasing alternative fuel use, availability, and production. SANDAG could facilitate collaboration with other regional agencies and organizations18 working toward state and regional goals for reducing GHG emissions, lessening petroleum dependence, and advancing the use of alternative fuel sources. In a letter to the Energy Commission in November 2008, SANDAG provided the concept and framework for a regionally‐coordinated approach. Early agency buy‐in came from:
San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD) Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) North County Transit District (NCTD) San Diego County Regional Airport Authority San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) California Center for Sustainable Energy (CCSE) University of California, San Diego (UCSD) Other public agencies and private companies
18 See Appendix G for a listing of regional alternative fuel resources.
9‐7 Section 9
The purpose of a strategic alliance is to ensure that regional infrastructure needs are identified and met in an orchestrated and timely manner that provides convenient and safe public access to refueling and recharging sites in line with demand. Whether for local government fleets or the general public use, the transition to alternative fuel vehicles will not reach a critical mass without a strong regional (as well as interregional) emphasis on providing for the necessary infrastructure. Regional coordination of the transition to alternative fuels from an agency like SANDAG communicates to the market (e.g., fuel producers and suppliers, vehicle manufacturers, potential customers, and others) that the San Diego region is committed to, and seeks to attract, investment in alternative fuels, vehicles, and infrastructure.
In response to early federal ARRA funding opportunities and state AB 118 opportunities, entities in the region have been coordinating efforts to submit regional, multi‐stakeholder proposals. SANDAG is facilitating this effort with the San Diego Regional Strategic Alliance in mind. Additionally, the Alliance would be able to leverage existing regional partnerships, funding mechanisms and transportation investments. Possible actions include SANDAG regionally administering federal and/or state alternative transportation funds. This effort could be done in coordination with or similar to funds allocated through TransNet, a regional half‐cent sales tax measure for transportation improvements and smart growth development. The San Diego Regional Strategic Alliance would utilize this report to find ways to accelerate the deployment of alternative fuels, vehicles and infrastructure in the region.
Support Development of a Regional Electric Vehicle Charging Network
The San Diego region will be one of a handful of US metropolitan regions in which Nissan will introduce all‐electric vehicles (EV), which will be available to fleet operators in 2010 and the general public by 2012. Nissan and SDG&E have partnered on this project and SANDAG is taking internal steps to become a formal partner.
Dependent on funding assistance, SANDAG will assist SDG&E and Nissan in identifying appropriate sites for 220W – 4‐ to 8‐hour charging, 26‐minute fast‐charging, and/or battery swapping areas. The focus for SANDAG is the establishment of a region‐wide network of public access charging stations for battery electric vehicles (BEV) and plug‐in hybrid vehicles (PHEV). Depending on what level of funding that Nissan and ETEC receive through a federal transportation electrification grant, or SANDAG through a federal Clean Cities application, the San Diego region will see between 100 and 1,000 BEVs available for purchase or lease in late 2010.
Nissan and SDG&E are seeking SANDAG assistance with: Identifying any permitting barriers for home, office and public recharging sites in the local jurisdictions. Developing and promoting a regionally consistent, standard approach to EV infrastructure permitting, training and installation. Adequate infrastructure siting across the region.
The Nissan EV has an anticipated range of 100 miles on a single charge and is expected to cost about $30,000. The San Diego region has committed to purchasing a minimum of 100 cars. SANDAG is working with SDG&E to introduce EV and PHEV information and resources to fleet operators from around the region and discuss opportunities to integrate these vehicles into fleets and install charging infrastructure. Siting of public access charging will be done cooperatively with SANDAG and the region’s local governments. SANDAG and SDG&E have provided letters of support to the federal ETEC‐Nissan proposal to support EV deployment, coordination and installation of electric charging infrastructure, and training of local dealerships to service the vehicles. SANDAG is submitting federal and state proposals on behalf of the region to secure funding to implement this project in addition to other alternative fuel projects.
Further study the regional transportation project types in Table 19 to determine whether an alternative fuels component is feasible and beneficial
9‐8 Section 9
SANDAG should further refine its list of potential projects from the RTIP. Working across the agency, staff should continue assessing the potential for each project and hold discussions with the appropriate lead agency if not SANDAG (e.g. Caltrans, transit agency, or local government).
Support economic development mechanisms and measures for the clean energy sector
SANDAG and local governments can leverage the transition to alternative fuels and vehicles to concurrently achieve environmental as well as clean economic development goals. Workforce training is necessary to ready the region for growth in the alternative transportation field. The region also should support the existing biotech cluster as it expands into research and development of alternative fuels.
Provide training and education to existing construction workers and firms on clean energy materials and business practices. Local governments should enlist existing organizations like San Diego Workforce Partnership to explore new approaches to providing education and training opportunities to workers employed by temporary staffing agencies. The San Diego region has a large number residents employed in the temporary field. Utilize community colleges and university extension programs to provide programs to prepare workers for the opportunity to remain actively employed and transition to the Clean Energy Sector. Local governments can partner with regional schools, Workforce Investment Boards (WIBs), and community colleges to bring funding to the San Diego region to spur green economy knowledge and skills. Integrate green jobs initiatives into existing workforce systems. Leverage resources at universities, community and technical colleges, WIBs, community‐based organizations, and economic development agencies: Universities offer four‐year degree programs and graduate degrees in business, engineering, and the sciences. Community colleges offer both two‐year business and technical degree programs and certification programs. Many High Schools offer trade preparation with hands‐on technical laboratories, apprenticeship programs and some certification programs. The Department of Labor, partnering with community colleges, technical high schools, unions and business offer job skills training programs and apprenticeships.
Part 4: Potential Recommendations as Follow‐up to the Report
Use this report to inform development of its Regional Energy Strategy Update, Regional Climate Action Plan and Sustainable Region Program. Undertake an inventory of local government and member agency fleet vehicles, including factors such as the total number of vehicles by class and fuel type, and annual vehicle turnover. Develop an electric vehicle charging plan for the San Diego region. Potential elements could include but are not limited to: o Upgrade existing charge points to current SAE standards, o Develop criteria for public charging point siting, o Analysis of the impact to the region’s electricity grid, o Opportunities for charging with clean and renewable distributed generation o Electric vehicle charging tariffs, o “Fast‐charging” considerations (i.e., SAE Level III vs. the battery exchange concept) o Guidelines and permit streamlining for residential installation (including both single‐ and multi‐family dwellings), o Assistance with rebate applications for vehicle purchases. Create an action plan for the incorporation of alternative fuels and vehicles into SANDAG’s vehicle fleet, and the vehicle and equipment fleets of contractors, funding recipients, and the like, including vehicles used in the vanpool program. The plan should include the identification of fueling and/or charging infrastructure where necessary to support increased alternative fuel and vehicle use.
9‐9 Section 9
Identify opportunities to integrate alternative fuels, vehicle, and infrastructure considerations into existing SANDAG funding programs for smart growth land use development. Streamline permitting for electric charger and alternative fueling infrastructure installation. Support in‐region production of alternative fuels and vehicles, including research and development activities. Support electricity and natural gas tariffs for alternative fuel vehicles that encourage their use. Investigate joint procurement or aggregation options that would reduce the purchase cost of alternative fuels and vehicles for regional fleets. Identify ways to capture the economic benefits of the transition to alternative fuels and vehicles for the region and State. Identify region’s inventory of waste materials for potential use as biofuel feedstocks (biodiesel and ethanol) for production facilities Incorporate the identification of fueling‐charging infrastructure locations into local government planning processes such as the General Plan. Develop detailed standards for the siting of fueling‐charging infrastructure. Continue the study of opportunities for truck stop electrification and vehicle retrofits at the international border. Support electrification in non‐road applications at San Diego International Airport and other regional airports where applicable. Work with regional stakeholders such as the Energy Working Group, San Diego Clean Cities Coalition, and others to coordinate and support implementation of this report.
9‐10 Appendix A. Federal and State Laws and Incentives
Federal
Energy Policy Act of 1992 The 102nd Congress passed the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct 1992, P.L. 102‐486). Among other provisions, this law requires the purchase of alternative fuel vehicles by federal agencies, state governments, and alternative fuel providers. Under EPAct 1992, a certain percentage— which varies by the type of fleet (i.e., federal, state, or fuel provider)—of new passenger vehicles must be capable of operating on alternative fuels, including ethanol, methanol, natural gas, or propane. EPAct 1992 established a tax credit for the purchase of electric vehicles, as well as tax deductions for the purchase of alternative fuel and hybrid vehicles.
Energy Policy Act of 2005 In light of high fuel prices in the early 2000s, continued growth in domestic and global petroleum demand, and other energy policy concerns, Congress began working on comprehensive energy legislation in 2001, which stalled in the legislature for several sessions until the 109th Congress passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005, P.L. 109‐58), which was signed by President Bush on August 8, 2005.
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2005 The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 calls for improved vehicle fuel economy by tightening corporate average fuel economy (CAFÉ) standards. Passenger cars and light trucks must reach efficiency of 35 miles per gallon by the year 2020. EISA includes provisions to increase the supply of renewable alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard, requiring transportation fuel sold in the U.S. to include a minimum of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2022, including advanced and cellulosic biofuels as well as biomass‐based diesel. In addition, EISA includes grant programs to encourage development of cellulosic biofuels, plug‐in hybrid electric vehicles and other emerging electric technologies, and the inclusion of electric drive vehicles under EPAct 1992.
The 2008 Farm Bill Recent Farm Bills, especially the 2002 and 2008 Farm Bills (P.L. 107‐171 and P.L. 110‐246, respectively), have included titles to promote biofuels and other farm‐based energy supplies. The 2002 Farm Bill established programs to promote the development of biofuels and biorefineries; the 2008 Farm Bill expanded on these programs, and expanded existing biofuels tax credits to promote the development of cellulosic fuels—fuels produced from woody or fibrous materials such as perennial grasses, fast‐growing trees, and agricultural and municipal wastes.
Federal Alternative Fuels and Advanced Vehicles Incentives Advanced Technology Vehicle (ATV) Manufacturing Incentives Alternative Fuel Excise Tax Credit Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Tax Credit Alternative Fuel Mixture Excise Tax Credit Biobased Transportation Research Funding Biodiesel Income Tax Credit Biodiesel Mixture Excise Tax Credit Biomass Research and Development Initiative Cellulosic Biofuel Producer Tax Credit Fuel Cell Motor Vehicle Tax Credit Heavy‐Duty Hybrid Electric Vehicle (HEV) Tax Credit Improved Energy Technology Loans Light‐Duty Hybrid Electric Vehicle (HEV) and Advanced Lean Burn Vehicle Tax Credit Qualified Alternative Fuel Motor Vehicle (QAFMV) Tax Credit Qualified Plug‐In Electric Drive Motor Vehicle Tax Credit
A‐1 Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvements Grant Small Agri‐Biodiesel Producer Tax Credit Small Ethanol Producer Tax Credit Value‐Added Producer Grants (VAPG) Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC)
Federal Laws and Regulations Aftermarket Alternative Fuel Vehicle (AFV) Conversions Alternative Fuel Definition Alternative Fuel Definition ‐ Internal Revenue Code Alternative Fuel Tax Exemption Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane Exemption Idle Reduction Equipment Excise Tax Exemption Idle Reduction Facilities Regulation Import Duty for Fuel Ethanol Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program Tier 2 Vehicle and Gasoline Sulfur Program Updated Fuel Economy Test Procedures and Labeling Vehicle Acquisition and Fuel Use Requirements for Federal Fleets Vehicle Acquisition and Fuel Use Requirements for Private and Local Government Fleets Vehicle Acquisition and Fuel Use Requirements for State and Alternative Fuel Provider Fleets Vehicle Incremental Cost Allocation
Federal Programs Air Pollution Control Program Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public Lands Program Biobased Products and Bioenergy Program Clean Agriculture USA Clean Cities Clean Construction USA Clean Fuel Fleet Program (CFFP) Clean Fuels Grant Program Clean Ports USA Clean School Bus USA Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program National Clean Diesel Campaign (NCDC) National Fuel Cell Bus Technology Development Program (NFCBP) Pollution Prevention Grants Program SmartWay Transport Partnership State Energy Program (SEP) Funding Voluntary Airport Low Emission (VALE) Program
California Incentives Alternative Fuel and Vehicle Research and Development Incentives Alternative Fuel Vehicle (AFV) Rebate Program High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane Exemption Alternative Fuel Vehicle (AFV) and Fueling Infrastructure Grants Alternative Fuel Incentive Development Emissions Reductions Grants Heavy‐Duty Vehicle Emissions Reduction Grants Lower‐Emission School Bus Grants Alternative Fuel and Advanced Technology Research and Development Vehicle Emission Reduction Grants ‐ Sacramento
A‐2 Electric Vehicle (EV) Parking Incentive ‐ Sacramento Employer Invested Emission Reduction Funding ‐ South Coast Technology Advancement Funding ‐ South Coast Low‐Emission Vehicle Incentives and Technical Training ‐ San Joaquin Valley Air Quality Improvement Program Funding ‐ Ventura County Alternative Fuel and Advanced Technology Vehicle and Infrastructure Incentives ‐ Vacaville Clean Vehicle Parking Incentive ‐ Hermosa Beach Clean Vehicle Parking Incentive ‐ San Jose Alternative Fuel Vehicle (AFV) and Hybrid Electric Vehicle (HEV) Parking Incentive ‐ Santa Monica Electric Vehicle (EV) Parking Incentive ‐ Los Angeles Airport
California Laws and Regulations Regional Climate Change Initiative Alternative Fuel Vehicle Retrofit Regulations Alternative Fuel Tax Alternative Fuel and Advanced Vehicle Procurement Requirements Alternative Fuel and Vehicle Policy Development Hydrogen Energy Plan Heavy‐Duty Truck Idle Reduction Requirements Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) Standards Mobile Source Emissions Reduction Requirements Fuel Efficient Tire Program Development Alternative Fuel Promotion ‐ San Jose Fleet Fuel Use and Vehicle Acquisition Requirements ‐ San Francisco Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) Access to Roadways ‐ Placer and Orange Counties
California Utilities/Private Alternative Fuel Vehicle (AFV) and Hybrid Electric Vehicle (AFV) Insurance Discount Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Rate Reduction ‐ SMUD Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Rate Reduction ‐ LADWP Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Rate Reduction ‐ SCE Low‐Emission Vehicle Electricity Rate Reduction ‐ PG&E Natural Gas Vehicle Home Fueling Infrastructure Incentive ‐ South Coast Low‐Emission Taxi Incentives ‐ San Francisco Employee Vehicle Purchase Incentives ‐ Riverside
Resources
The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) conducts engineering and economic studies of the potential for efficiency improvement and provides advice regarding the development of programs and policies to realize this potential in the market. They take an integrated approach to the issue, addressing how fuel efficiency relates to emissions, safety, clean production, and renewable fuels and seek to encourage manufacturers to produce high‐efficiency, low‐pollution vehicles and also to motivate consumers to purchase them. A cornerstone of this effort is ACEEE's Green Book®: The Environmental Guide to Cars and Trucks and its Web site: www.Greenercars.com.
A‐3
Appendix B. Alternative Fuel Vehicle Availability
The following Web sites contain information about the availability of alternative fuel vehicles and retrofits:
United States Department of Energy, Alternative Fuels Data Center Light‐duty and Low‐speed vehicle search http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/progs/vehicles_search.php Heavy‐duty vehicle search http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/vehicles/heavy/index.php Flexible Fuel Vehicle Availability http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/vehicles/flexible_fuel_availability.html Natural Gas Vehicle Availability http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/vehicles/natural_gas_availability.html Propane Vehicle Availability http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/vehicles/propane_availability.html Plug‐in Hybrid Availability http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/vehicles/plugin_hybrids_availability.html Electric Vehicle Availability http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/vehicles/electric_availability.html Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle Availability http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/vehicles/fuel_cell_availability.html
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Green Vehicle Guide http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/
FuelEconomy.gov http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byfueltype.htm
California Air Resources Board, Drive Clean http://driveclean.ca.gov/en/gv/vsearch/cleansearch.asp
California Energy Commission, Consumer Energy Center http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/transportation/buying_a_car/index.html
California Department of General Services, Best Practices Manual, Vehicles/Transportation http://www.green.ca.gov/EPP/Vehicles/lightDV.htm#types
Automotive News Guide to Hybrid Vehicles and Advanced Technology Powertrains http://www.autonews.com/section/altfuels
Union of Concerned Scientists, Hybrid Center http://www.hybridcenter.org/
Union of Concerned Scientists – Buying a Greener Vehicle http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/technologies_and_fuels/hybrid_fuelcell_and_electric_vehicles/buying‐a‐greener‐ vehicle.html
Propane Vehicles and Conversions: http://www.propanecouncil.org/uploadedFiles/Engine%20Fuel%20Product%20Listing%2011‐08.pdf
BAF Technologies, CNG Conversions http://www.baftechnologies.com/Home.html
Baytech Corporation, Compressed Natural Gas and Propane Vehicle Conversions http://www.baytechcorp.com/
B-1
Appendix C. State of California Alternative Fuel Vehicle Purchases Vehicle Type Fleet Application Price Hybrid Electric Compact Hybrid 4‐Door Sedan Passenger car $24,720 Compact Hybrid 4‐Door Sedan Passenger car $24,720 Group I Hybrid 2‐Wheel Drive SUV Light‐truck $31,894 Group I Hybrid 2‐Wheel Drive SUV Light‐truck $31,894 Group III Hybrid 4‐Wheel Drive SUV Light‐truck $47,790 Group III Hybrid 4‐Wheel Drive SUV Light‐truck $47,590 Group III Hybrid Pickup, Reg. Cab Light‐truck $34,740 Group III Hybrid Pickup, Reg. Cab Light‐truck $34,890 Mid‐Size Hybrid 4‐Door Sedan Passenger car $25,840 Mid‐Size Hybrid 4‐Door Sedan Passenger car $25,840 Mid‐Size Hybrid 5‐Door Hatchback Passenger car $22,953 Mid‐Size Hybrid 5‐Door Hatchback Passenger car $22,593 Ethanol (E85) 4‐Door Large Sedan E‐85 Passenger car $17,036 4‐Door Large Sedan E‐85 Passenger car $17,211 4‐Door Midsize Sedan E85 Passenger car $16,925 4‐Door Midsize Sedan E85 Passenger car $17,125 Group III Pickup 2WD Extra Cab E‐85 Light‐truck $17,650 Group III Pickup 2WD Extra Cab E‐85 Light‐truck $17,800 Group III Pickup 2WD Reg. Cab E‐85 Light‐truck $15,594 Group III Pickup 2WD Reg. Cab E‐85 Light‐truck $15,482 Group III SUV 4WD E‐85 Light‐truck $30,497 Group III SUV 4WD E‐85 Light‐truck $30,697 Group IV Minivan 7‐Passenger E‐85 Van $20,222 Group IV Minivan 7‐Passenger E‐85 Van $20,472 Group V Minivan Cargo E‐85 Van $18,712 Group V Minivan Cargo E‐85 Van $18,962 Group VI Cargo Van E085 Van $16,988 Group VI Cargo Van E085 Van $17,188 Group II 8‐Passenger Van E‐85 Van $19,585 Group II 8‐Passenger Van E‐85 Van $19,785 Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Dedicated CNG Group I 2WD Cab & Chassis Crew Cab Min 167" WB Cargo Truck $53,309 Dedicated CNG Group I 2WD Cab & Chassis Crew Cab Min 167" WB Cargo Truck $53,909 Dedicated CNG Group I 2WD Cab & Chassis Extra Cab min 154" WB Cargo Truck $52,367 Dedicated CNG Group I 2WD Cab & Chassis Extra Cab min 154" WB Cargo Truck $52,967 Dedicated CNG Group I 2WD Cab & Chassis Reg. Cab Cargo Truck $50,918 Dedicated CNG Group I 2WD Cab & Chassis Reg. Cab Cargo Truck $51,518 Dedicated CNG Group I 4WD Cab & Chassis Reg. Cab Cargo Truck $53,648 Dedicated CNG Group I 4WD Cab & Chassis Reg. Cab Cargo Truck $54,248 Dedicated CNG Group II 15K GVWR 2WD Cab & Chassis Reg. Cab Cargo Truck $70,585 Dedicated CNG Group II 15K GVWR 2WD Cab & Chassis Reg. Cab Cargo Truck $69,786 Dedicated CNG Group III 17.5K GVWR Cab & Chassis Reg. Cab Cargo Truck $70,797 Dedicated CNG Group III 17.5K GVWR Cab & Chassis Reg. Cab Cargo Truck $71,596 Dedicated CNG Group III Passenger Van Van $55,201
C‐1
Appendix C. State of California Alternative Fuel Vehicle Purchases Vehicle Type Fleet Application Price Dedicated CNG Group III Passenger Van Van $55,801 Dedicated CNG Group IV Extended Passenger Van Van $58,481 Dedicated CNG Group IV Extended Passenger Van Van $59,081 Dedicated CNG Group V 2WD Cab & Chassis Reg. Cab Light‐truck $46,363 Dedicated CNG Group V 2WD Cab & Chassis Reg. Cab Light‐truck $46,963 Dedicated CNG Group V 2WD Pickup Reg. Cab Light‐truck $46,628 Dedicated CNG Group V 2WD Pickup Reg. Cab Light‐truck $47,227 Dedicated CNG Group VII 4WD Cab & chassis Reg. Cab Cargo Truck $49,030 Dedicated CNG Group VII 4WD Cab & chassis Reg. Cab Cargo Truck $49,630 Dedicated CNG Group VII Cargo Van Cargo Van $52,339 Dedicated CNG Group VII Cargo Van Cargo Van $59,938 Dedicated CNG Group VII 4WD Pickup Reg. Cab Light‐truck $49,304 Dedicated CNG Group VII 4WD Pickup Reg. Cab Light‐truck $49,904 Bi‐fuel Gasoline and CNG Group I Med. Duty Cab & Chassis Bi‐Fuel Gas & CNG Reg. Cab 2WD Cargo Truck $81,682 Group I Med. Duty Cab & Chassis Bi‐Fuel Gas & CNG Reg. Cab 2WD Cargo Truck $82,482 Group II Cab & Chassis Bi‐Fuel Gas & CNG Reg. Cab 2WD Cargo Truck $70,786 Group II Cab & Chassis Bi‐Fuel Gas & CNG Reg. Cab 2WD Cargo Truck $71,585 Group II Med. Duty Cab & Chassis Bi‐Fuel Gas & CNG Reg. Cab 2WD Cargo Truck $84,140 Group II Med. Duty Cab & Chassis Bi‐Fuel Gas & CNG Reg. Cab 2WD Cargo Truck $84,940 Group III Cab & Chassis Bi‐Fuel Gas & CNG Reg. Cab 2WD Cargo Truck $71,797 Group III Cab & Chassis Bi‐Fuel Gas & CNG Reg. Cab 2WD Cargo Truck $72,596 Group III Med. Duty Cab & Chassis Bi‐Fuel Gas & CNG Reg. Cab 2WD Cargo Truck $84,761 Group III Med. Duty Cab & Chassis Bi‐Fuel Gas & CNG Reg. Cab 2WD Cargo Truck $85,561 Propane (LPG) Group I Med. Duty Cab & Chassis Dedicated LPG Reg. Cab 2WD Cargo Truck $59,032 Group I Med. Duty Cab & Chassis Dedicated LPG Reg. Cab 2WD Cargo Truck $59,832 Group II Cab & Chassis Dedicated LPG Reg. Cab 2WD Cargo Truck $47,636 Group II Cab & Chassis Dedicated LPG Reg. Cab 2WD Cargo Truck $48,436 Group III Cab & Chassis Dedicated LPG Reg. Cab 2WD Cargo Truck $48,647 Group III Cab & Chassis Dedicated LPG Reg. Cab 2WD Cargo Truck $49,447 Group II Med. Duty Cab & Chassis Dedicated LPG Reg. Cab 2WD Cargo Truck $61,490 Group II Med. Duty Cab & Chassis Dedicated LPG Reg. Cab 2WD Cargo Truck $62,290 Group III Med. Duty Cab & Chassis Dedicated LPG Reg. Cab 2WD Cargo Truck $62,111 Group III Med. Duty Cab & Chassis Dedicated LPG Reg. Cab 2WD Cargo Truck $62,911 Neighborhood Electric Short Utility NEV Light‐truck $11,115 2‐Passenger NEV Passenger car $10,230 2‐Passenger NEV Passenger car $10,230 3‐Door Hatchback NEV Passenger car $16,800 3‐Door hatchback NEV Passenger car $16,300 4 ‐Passenger NEV Passenger car $13,475 4‐Passenger NEV Passenger car $13,475 Long Utility NEV Light‐truck $12,575 Long Utility NEV Light‐truck $12,575 Short Utility NEV Light‐truck $11,115 Source: http://www.bidsync.com/DPX?ac=agencycontview&contid=3695
C‐2
Appendix D. Sample Purchase Contracts, Policies, and Case Studies
State of California Vehicle Contracts
California Vehicle Purchase and Lease Policy http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/osp/sam/mmemos/mm06_03.pdf Hybrid Vehicle Purchase http://www.bidsync.com/DPX?ac=agencycontview&contid=3694 Neighborhood Electric Vehicle Purchase http://www.bidsync.com/DPX?ac=agencycontview&contid=4243 Alternative Fuel Vehicle Purchase http://www.bidsync.com/DPX?ac=agencycontview&contid=3695 Trucks, Vans, and Utility Vehicles (Gasoline and Diesel) http://www.bidsync.com/DPX?ac=agencycontview&contid=3712
About Statewide Vehicle Contracts
The Department of General Services competitively bids and makes vehicle contracts available to California governmental entities helping to meet their vehicle fleet needs. These vehicle contracts leverage pricing based upon California government business volume enhanced by manufacturer and dealer incentive programs provided to government. They also provide a broad spectrum of vehicles at an 8 to 12 percent cost savings over volume commercial fleet pricing (based upon KBB dealer invoice pricing). Generally, contract ordering begins in October and extends through the following March to June timeframe of the Model Year, depending upon manufacturer production schedules. The contracts provide for a 30‐day notice of production cut‐off dates.
The State of California vehicle contracts are available to any California Governmental entity defined by the California Government Code section 10298, including: county and city governments, K‐12 education, special districts, colleges and universities. Customer agencies order directly from the contract dealer; an additional copy of the order goes to the California Department of General Services (DGS) Procurement Division.
DGS charges an administrative fee for use of the contracts. The fee is minimal compared to the time spent and costs agencies would otherwise incur during the specification development, negotiation and the bid process. Contract notifications include contract terms, dealer contact information, and vehicle specifications. Customer agencies should contact the dealer(s) for help with model changes and pricing on options or deletions. All purchase orders must be complete, with all options, deletions, prices, colors, FOB points, etc., indicated before submittal to the dealer. Per the contract ordering procedures, all state and local agencies must submit a copy of purchase orders to Department of General Services, Procurement Division, Master Contracts.
We will post official ordering cut‐off dates as the manufacturers make them available to us. Please submit orders as early as possible; dealers have the option of offering to roll‐over contract pricing to the next model year after the manufacturer's order cut‐off date but they are not required to do so. Orders may be sent to the dealer either by mail or by fax. If you fax an order in, please do not mail the hard copy or a duplicate order may be issued.
Sample Local Government Policies and Ordinances
Ann Arbor, Michigan ‐ Green Fleet Policy Seattle, Washington ‐ Clean and Green Fleet City of San Diego ‐ Alternative Fuel Policy Portland, Oregon ‐ Biofuels Policy Sacramento Region, California ‐ Model Low‐Emission Vehicle & Fleet Ordinance San Francisco, California ‐ Clean Vehicles and Alternative Fuels Ordinance San Jose, California ‐ Green Fleet Policy
D‐1
Case Studies1
Santa Monica, California • BiFuel (CNG‐Diesel) transfer tractor and trailer truck, CNG refuse hauler, CNG traffic checker Bureau of Sanitation ‐ Los Angeles, California • LNG (dual‐fueled) refuse hauler Specialty Solid Waste and Recycling ‐ Sunnyvale, California • CNG refuse hauler NorCal Waste ‐ San Francisco, California • LNG (diesel ignition) refuse hauler Waste MGMT ‐ Washington, PA • LNG Refuse Hauler Ann Arbor, Michigan • Fuel Cell passenger vehicles, Portland International Airport • CNG, HEV passenger vehicles, B20 sweepers, CNG shuttle buses/vans, CNG, Propane off‐highway vehicles Seattle‐Tacoma Airport • Electric airport ground support equipment, CNG shuttle buses/vans, CNG, Propane passenger vehicles San Jose Airport • CNG shuttle buses and vans Salt Lake City Airport • CNG, B20 shuttle buses, electric, hybrid light‐duty vehicles, CNG heavy‐duty trucks New York City, New York • HEV taxis Yellow Cab ‐ San Francisco • HEV, CNG taxis Las Vegas, Nevada • Propane taxis Iowa State Police • E85 police cars Lake Jackson, Texas • CNG passenger vehicles, refuse haulers, forklifts Hoover, Alabama • E85 police vehicle (Chevrolet Tahoe), B20 off‐highway vehicle Redwood National & State Parks • HEV, Electric passenger vehicles, B20 medium/heavy‐duty vehicles, Electric tractor Carnegie Mellon University • E85 police car, electric vehicles, B20 shuttle buses and vans Fayetteville, Arkansas • B‐20 fire department vehicles City of Vacaville, California • CNG vehicles and electric vehicles Clean Cities Program, US Dept of Energy • Success stories: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/cleancities/accomplishments.html.
1 http://www.nlc.org/ASSETS/4D4B15DC22EC4B0387E4F503AD9D39E3/CPB%20‐%20Alternative%20Fuels%200808.pdf
D‐2
Appendix E. Tools and Calculators
Puget Sound Green Fleets Green Fleets Calculator
Alternative Fuels and Advanced Vehicles Data Center, U.S. Department of Energy Petroleum Reduction Planning Tool
Propane Calculator for fleets http://www.propanecouncil.org/fleetcalculator/
Electric Vehicle Cost Calculator http://www.ccds.charlotte.nc.us/~jarrett/EV/cost.php
Natural Gas Vehicle Cost Calculator http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/vehicles/natural_gas_calculator.html
Flexible Fuel Vehicle Cost Calculator http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/progs/cost_anal.php?0/E85/
Cool Fleets (GHG emissions and lifecycle costs) http://www.coolfleets.com/
Enhanced Efficiency Factor Costing Methodology http://www.ofa.dgs.ca.gov/AFVP/EEFCM11.htm
Alternative Fuel Vehicles Incentives http://www.driveclean.ca.gov/incentives_search.php
Alternative Fuel Prices http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/fuels/prices.html
E-1
Appendix F. San Diego Regional Alternative Fuels Facility Locations Name Facility Type Address City Zip Access Bressi Ranch Shell E85 2740 Gateway Rd Carlsbad 92076 Public OceansideTexaco E85 1660 Oceanside Blvd Oceanside 92054 Public Pearson Fuels E85 4001 El Cajon Blvd San Diego 92105 Public Pearson Fuels Biodiesel 4001 El Cajon Blvd San Diego 92105 Public North Island Naval Air Station Biodiesel n/a n/a n/a Private San Diego Naval Base Biodiesel n/a n/a n/a Private Soco Group Biodiesel 145 Vernon Way El Cajon 92020 Public Hornblower Cruises Biodiesel 1066 N. Harbor Drive San Diego 92101 Private Miramar Marine Corps Air Station Biodiesel Miramar Way San Diego 92145 Private Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base Biodiesel n/a n/a n/a Private New Leaf Biofuel Biodiesel‐production 2285 Newton Avenue San Diego 92113 n/a Asia Business Center (may no longer exist) Electric Charging 4660 El Cajon Boulevard San Diego 92105 n/a Ken Grody Ford Carlsbad Electric Charging 5555 Paseo del Norte Carlsbad 92008 n/a Saturn of Kearny Mesa Electric Charging 4525 Convoy Street San Diego 92111 n/a Saturn of El Cajon Electric Charging 541 N. Johnson Avenue El Cajon 92020 n/a Saturn of Escondido Electric Charging 859 N. Broadway Escondido 92025 n/a Saturn of National City Electric Charging 2202 National Boulevard National City 91950 n/a Saturn of West 78 Electric Charging 2205 Vista Way Oceanside 92054 n/a Balboa Park Auto Museum (charger removed) Electric Charging n/a San Diego 92104 n/a Costco ‐ Rancho Bernardo Electric Charging 12350 Carmel Mountain Road San Diego 92128 n/a Costco ‐ Chula Vista Electric Charging 895 East H Street Chula Vista 91910 n/a Costco ‐ La Mesa Electric Charging 8125 Fletcher Parkway La Mesa 91941 n/a Costco ‐ Santee Electric Charging 101 Town Center Parkway Santee 92071 n/a Costco ‐ San Marcos Electric Charging 725 Center Drive San Marcos 92069 n/a County of San Diego Administrations Building (charger removed) Electric Charging n/a n/a n/a n/a Lindbergh Field – Operations (charger may have been removed) Electric Charging 3165 Pacific Highway San Diego n/a Private Wells Fargo Plaza (charger removed) Electric Charging 401 B Street San Diego 92101 Public Gaslamp Quarter District (charger removed) Electric Charging 614 Fifth Avenue San Diego 92101 Public San Diego Convention Center (public access no longer available) Electric Charging 111 W Harbor Drive San Diego 92101 Public San Diego International Airport ‐ Commuter Terminal Electric Charging 3225 North Harbor Drive San Diego 92101 Public San Diego International Airport ‐ Terminal 1 Electric Charging 3665 North Harbor Drive San Diego 92101 Public Mercy Hospital Electric Charging 4077 Fifth Avenue San Diego 92103 Public San Diego International Airport ‐ Terminal 2 Electric Charging 3707 North Harbor Drive San Diego 92101 Public Mission Valley Mall Electric Charging 1640 Camino Del Rio N San Diego 92108 Public Pearson Fuels ‐ Clean Energy Electric Charging 4001 El Cajon Blvd San Diego 92105 Public Grossmont Center (charger removed) Electric Charging 5500 Grossmont Center Drive La Mesa 91942 Public Hyatt Regency La Jolla Electric Charging 3777 La Jolla Village Drive La Jolla 92122 Public
F‐1
Appendix F. San Diego Regional Alternative Fuels Facility Locations Name Facility Type Address City Zip Access UCSD ‐ Thornton Medical Center Electric Charging Medical Center Drive La Jolla 92093 Public UCSD ‐ Copy Center Electric Charging 201 University Center La Jolla 92093 Public UCSD ‐ School of Medicine Electric Charging Osler Lane La Jolla 92093 Public Scripps Green Hospital Electric Charging 10666 N Torrey Pines Road La Jolla 92037 Public Scripps Memorial of La Jolla Electric Charging 9888 Genesee Avenue La Jolla 92037 Public Scripps Memorial (Encinitas) (charger removed) Electric Charging 354 Santa Fe Drive Encinitas 92024 Public San Diego Wild Animal Park Electric Charging 15500 San Pasqual Valley Road Escondido 92027 Public Costco ‐ Carlsbad Electric Charging 951 Palomar Airport Road Carlsbad 92009 Public Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base CNG n/a n/a n/a Private Miramar Marine Corps Air Station CNG Miramar Way San Diego 92145 Private Lindbergh Field Shell‐Clean Energy CNG 2521 Pacific Highway San Diego 92101 Public Pearson Fuels ‐ Clean Energy CNG 4001 El Cajon Blvd San Diego 92105 Public City of Chula Vista CNG 1800 Maxwell Road Chula Vista 91911 Private Chula Vista Education Center CNG 84 East J Street Chula Vista 91910 Public SDG&E Northeast Service Center CNG 1623 Mission Road Escondido 92029 Private SDG&E Service Center ‐ Kearny Mesa CNG 5488 Overland Avenue San Diego 92123 Public* SDG&E Service Center ‐ Miramar CNG 6875 Consolidated Way San Diego 92121 Public* SDG&E Service Center ‐ Carlsbad CNG 4940 Carlsbad Boulevard Carlsbad 92008 Public* SDG&E Beach Cities CNG 4848 Santa Fe St. San Diego 92109 Private SDG&E Centre City CNG 701 33rd St. San Diego 92102 Private Naval Air Station ‐ North Island Coronado CNG 200 Alameda Blvd Coronado 92118 Private San Diego Transit‐Imperial Avenue Division CNG 120 Imperial Avenue San Diego 92101 Private San Diego Transit‐Kearny Mesa Division CNG 4630 Ruffner Street San Diego 92111 Private Metropolitan Transit System ‐ South Bay CNG 3650 Main Street Chula Vista 91911 Private North County Transit District East CNG 400 North Spruce Street Escondido 92025 Private North County Transit District West CNG 305 Via Del Norte Oceanside 92054 Private Naval Public Works Center ‐ 32nd Street Station CNG 411 Cummings San Diego 92116 Private Poway Unified School District CNG 13626 Twin Peaks Road Poway 92064 Public** San Marcos Unified School District CNG 215 Mata Way San Marcos 92069 Private Vista Unified School District CNG 1222 Arcadia Avenue Vista 92084 Private City of San Diego LNG 8353 Miramar Place San Diego 92121 Private Waste Management LNG 1001 West Bradley Avenue El Cajon 92020 Private City of Chula Vista Hydrogen 1800 Maxwell Road Chula Vista 91911 Public* Camp Pendleton Hydrogen Carmelo Drive and Harbor Drive Oceanside 92058 Private Petrolane Propane 584 North Marshall Avenue El Cajon 92020 n/a ProFlame Inc. Propane 15289 Old Highway 80 El Cajon 92020 n/a County Propane Service Propane 12812 Jackson Hill Drive El Cajon 92021 n/a
F‐2
Appendix F. San Diego Regional Alternative Fuels Facility Locations Name Facility Type Address City Zip Access Dick Rogers Shell Propane 1699 East Main Street El Cajon 92021 n/a U‐Haul Propane 1186 East Main Street El Cajon 92021 n/a Taylor Rental Corp. Propane 1717 East Main Street El Cajon 92021 n/a Alpine Shell Propane 1340 Tavern Road Alpine 91901 n/a San Diego ‐ Pearson Ford Propane 4067 El Cajon Boulevard San Diego 92105 Public U‐Haul Propane 4311 El Cajon Boulevard San Diego 92105 Public U‐Haul Propane 99 North 4th Avenue Chula Vista 91910 Public U‐Haul Propane 1805 Massachusetts Avenue Lemon Grove 91945 Public U‐Haul Propane 9650 Camino Ruiz San Diego 92126 Public U‐Haul Propane 13210 Poway Road Poway 92064 Public U‐Haul Propane 802 South Coast Highway Oceanside 92054 Public Ferrellgas Propane 8088 Miramar Road San Diego 92126 Public Ferrellgas Propane 107 South Vinewood Street Escondido 92029 Public Ferrellgas Propane 1425 Grand Avenue San Marcos 92069 Public Westmart Propane 4990 Avenida Encinas Carlsbad 92008 Public North County Welding Supply Incorporated Propane 526 West Aviation Road #A Fallbrook 92088 Public Sources: http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/fuels/stations_locator.html; www.evchargermaps.com; www.weststart.net/ccm; San Diego Gas & Electric. Notes: *Card access only **Credit card required
F‐3
Appendix G. Regional Alternative Transportation Resources
San Diego Regional Clean Fuels Coalition (This Clean Fuels is a network of more than 80 volunteer, is also the San Diego Regional Clean Cities community‐based coalitions, which develop Coalition) public/private partnerships to increase use of alternative fuels & alternative fuel vehicles; expand use of fuel blends; promote informed consumer choices; and advance use of idle reduction technologies in heavy‐duty vehicles. California Center for Sustainable Energy CCSE manages the Fueling Alternatives Rebate program, (CCSE) funded by the California Air Resources Board. This program provides rebates of up to $5,000 for consumers who purchase or lease new eligible modes of transportation, such as neighborhood electric, electric and compressed natural gas vehicles. CCSE also hosts the annual Street Smart event where the public can learn about alternative transportation options. San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) SDG&E runs a Clean Transportation Program that focuses on three areas: (1) On‐road and non‐road electric vehicles, (2) Electric idling initiatives, and (3) Education and outreach. San Diego EcoCenter for Alternative Fuel The EcoCenter provides alternative fuel education to Education 4th‐8th grade students in San Diego County. It operates from the 6,000‐square‐foot EcoCenter that contains a theater and exhibit hall. They provide an environmental field trip experience to about 26,000 middle school students each year.
G‐1 San Diego Association of Governments REGIONAL PLANNING COMMITTEE
July 31, 2009 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 7
Action Requested: ACCEPT
PRELIMINARY DRAFT REGIONAL ENERGY STRATEGY UPDATE File Number 3200300
Introduction Recommendation
Last updated in 2003, the adopted Regional Energy The Regional Planning Committee is Strategy (RES) serves as the energy policy blueprint for asked to accept the Preliminary Draft the San Diego region, with a primary focus on Regional Energy Strategy Update for electricity and natural gas supply and demand issues public distribution and comment. including resource choices and energy efficiency. With the emergence of climate change as an urgent global challenge and significant energy policy changes in California, an update to the RES was initiated last summer and funded in part through a partnership with the California Energy Commission. Since then, the Energy Working Group has been overseeing development of the draft at its monthly meetings. Regular status reports on the RES update have been provided to the Regional Planning Committee (RPC). On April 3, 2009, draft RES principles and goals were presented to the RPC for discussion.
Discussion
The Preliminary Draft RES Update is a policy document intended to support regional and local decision-making related to energy issues. It assesses regional need for various energy resources and infrastructure and can inform decision-making in the San Diego region. It does not make recommendations on specific energy projects (e.g., power plants or transmission lines). The Preliminary Draft RES Update serves as an energy roadmap that lays out a path for the region and provides direction and guidance to local energy planning, legislative priorities, and public outreach. As a starting point, the Preliminary Draft RES Update establishes guiding principles to form a regional vision for 2030.
It also identifies 12 regional energy goals with objectives, policies, and actions that can benefit the region. The topic areas are:
• energy efficiency • natural gas • renewable energy • transportation fuels • distributed generation • land use and transportation planning • energy and water • energy and borders • peak demand • clean energy economy • smart grid • energy and climate change
Based on the discussion at the April 3, 2009, meeting the RPC recommended that an energy and water goal be added to the Preliminary Draft RES Update.
Pending direction from the RPC, staff would distribute the preliminary draft document to seek comment from stakeholders and the general public. In addition, SANDAG plans to hold a public workshop at the California Center for Sustainable Energy, the region’s nonprofit energy center on August 4, 2009, from 5:15 p.m. to 7:45 p.m. Staff will return to the RPC in the fall to seek further input and discuss changes to the document based on external comments and for the Committee to consider a recommendation to the Board of Directors in October 2009.
BOB LEITER Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning
Attachment: 1: Preliminary Draft Regional Energy Strategy Update
Key Staff Contact: Susan Freedman, (619) 699-7387, [email protected]
2 Attachment 1
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
REGIONAL ENERGY STRATEGY UPDATE
This document is a preliminary draft of the Regional Energy Strategy (RES) Update. The final draft will incorporate comments received in the public review process and include an Executive Summary.
Comments on this document should be provided to Susan Freedman, staff, at [email protected] by August 21, 2009.
SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
July 31, 2009 PRELIMINARY DRAFT REGIONAL ENERGY STRATEGY UPDATE INTRODUCTION
San Diego has a long history of regional energy planning. SANDAG adopted its first regional energy strategy in 1979, with subsequent strategies adopted in 1984, 1994, and 2003. Concurrent with adoption of Regional Energy Strategy 2030 in 2003, the SANDAG Board of Directors established the Regional Energy Working Group to provide input to the SANDAG Regional Planning Committee and Board on coordination and implementation of the 2003 RES.
The 2003 RES focused primarily on electricity and natural gas supply and demand issues, including resource choices and energy efficiency. Serving as the energy policy blueprint for the region, similar to the state’s Integrated Energy Policy Report, the 2003 RES has helped the region develop programs for energy efficiency and renewables, set legislative priorities, make recommendations to state regulatory and policy proceedings and the local utility (SDG&E), obtain funding, and implement SANDAG’s Sustainable Region Program.
THE NEED FOR AN UPDATE
Since adoption of the 2003 RES, significant energy policy changes have occurred from the state to the international level. SANDAG’s decision to prepare the RES Update is based on the major policy changes related to global climate change and California’s preferred loading order.
Global Climate Change
Global climate change has emerged as the defining challenge of the 21st century, with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reporting that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from human activities have begun to destabilize the Earth’s climate. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is the leading international scientific body for the assessment of climate change, established by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of climate change and its potential environmental and socio‐economic consequences. The changing climate threatens the public health, economy, and environment of the San Diego region, California, and the entire world. Projected adverse climate change impacts to the San Diego region include hotter temperatures, sea level rise, water shortages, more frequent and intense wildfires, increased risks to public health, loss of native plant and animal species, and increased demand for electricity.
California has responded to the challenge of climate change in many ways, including passage of the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32, Statutes of 2006). Among other things, this legislation establishes the 1990 emissions level as the statewide limit for 2020; an approximately 15 percent reduction from the current level. Moreover, Executive Order S‐3‐05 Table 1: San Diego County GHG Emissions Overview establishes a long‐term climate goal for the state of Intergovernmental Panel on Percentage of Total reducing emissions an additional 80 percent below Climate Change Category the 1990 level by 2050. The types of energy sources, Energy 91% and how much they are used, are the primary Industrial (non‐fuel) 5% contributors to climate change in the San Diego Waste 2% region. As shown in Table 1, 91 percent of all GHG Agriculture, Forestry, Land Use 2% emissions are related to energy. Source: Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego, 2008.
Although many activities consume energy, most of the region’s energy consumption and related GHG emissions is due to the movement of people and goods in the on‐road transportation sector, electricity generation that provides power to homes and businesses, and natural gas for end uses like space heating and cooking. As shown in Figure 1, nearly half of the region’s 34.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) emissions (47 percent) are the result of transportation fuel consumption (i.e., passenger cars, light‐duty trucks, heavy‐duty
2 vehicles), with the vast majority of transportation fuel‐related emissions (89 percent) generated by personal transportation in automobiles (i.e., passenger cars and light‐duty trucks).
Figure 1: Summary of Greenhouse Gas Emissions by End‐Use Category Electricity ‐ 25% Industrial ‐ 5% Natural gas end uses ‐ 8% Other ‐ 4%
Agriculture‐Waste Wildfire‐Land Use ‐ 3% Passenger Cars ‐ Off‐road equipment & 18% vehicles ‐ 4% Civil aviation & Rail ‐ 6%
Heavy‐duty Vehicles ‐ 6% Light‐Duty Trucks ‐ 23%
Source: Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego, 2008. www.sandiego.edu/epic
The level of GHG emissions from on‐road transportation is due to the region’s near total dependence on petroleum‐based gasoline and diesel fuel, average vehicle efficiency, and levels of driving. On‐road transportation also comprises a significant proportion of GHG emissions statewide. In response, the state has enacted several transportation‐related laws calling for petroleum reduction, development of low‐carbon and alternative fuels, increased vehicle efficiency, and improved land use and transportation planning. Due to concern for climate protection and in line with the state’s policy framework, the RES Update focuses on reducing GHG emissions from transportation fuel consumption by transitioning the region away from petroleum‐based fuels and reducing automobile dependence through improved land use and transportation planning.
Table 2: Electricity Resource Mix Electricity and natural gas‐end uses account for about one‐third (33 California and San Diego Gas and Electric percent) of GHG emissions in the region. The level of GHG emissions Resource CA SDG&E from electricity generation and natural gas end‐uses is explained by Coal 16% 18% the region’s reliance on natural gas and out‐of‐state coal for about Large Hydro (>30 MW) 19% 10% two‐thirds (67 percent) of the electricity mix, and total amount of energy demand, including peak demand. Older and relatively Natural Gas 41% 49% inefficient natural gas power plants, buildings, and end‐use Nuclear 13% 15% equipment also contribute to the level of emissions from electricity Renewables 11% 8% and natural gas. Resources comprising the electricity mix for the Total Mix: 100% 100% State of California and SDG&E are provided in Table 2. Sources of Renewables Biomass 19% 38% Although many of the goals and actions identified in the RES Update Geothermal 43% 25% will have beneficial impacts on the region’s GHG emissions, energy Small Hydro (< 30 MW) 19% 6% and climate change are not synonymous issues. As a result, SANDAG Solar 2% 6% is also preparing a Regional Climate Action Plan to accompany the Wind 17% 25% RES Update. These highly related plans will complement each other, Total Renewables 100% 100% with cross references provided where applicable. Source: California Energy Commission, 2006.
The Preferred Loading Order
After adoption of the 2003 RES, California adopted a preferred loading order to meet increasing demand for electricity. The loading order consists of decreasing electricity demand by increasing energy efficiency and demand response, and meeting new generation needs first with renewable and distributed generation resources, and
3 second with clean fossil‐fueled generation. Regional implementation of the loading order is a major focus of the RES Update.
Figure 2: The Preferred Loading Order
Among the loading order preferred resources, “energy efficiency” includes programs that require buildings and appliances to be constructed in a manner that uses less energy, provide incentives for purchasing energy efficient equipment, and provide information and education to encourage people to save energy. “Demand response” includes new rate designs, which provide customers lower electricity prices during most hours in exchange for higher prices during the peak hours when supply reserves are small and electricity typically costs more, and programs that provide incentives for on‐peak load reductions. “Renewable resources” include forms of electricity generation that naturally replenish themselves, including energy from wind, solar, small hydroelectric, geothermal, and biomass. “Distributed generation” is electricity that is produced by the customer or utility who will use some or all of it locally. Examples include small fuel cells, rooftop photovoltaic solar systems, or cogeneration systems that simultaneously produce electricity and heat or steam for on‐site use.
BENEFITS OF A REGIONAL ENERGY STRATEGY
The Regional Energy Strategy establishes a framework to guide a long‐term energy strategy for the region. Benefits of developing a regional energy plan include:
Identifying region‐specific energy issues, such as increasing the diversity of energy supply in the region or reducing energy intensity of water and wastewater processes; Identifying commonly held principles or unique aspects about the region that may differ from those of state policymakers and utility planners; Prioritizing regional energy issues, guiding future actions and decisions in the region Establishing a mechanism to implement regional goals; Representing shared regional interests at appropriate proceedings such as a utility’s long‐term procurement plan or state regulatory and legislative activities; Helping local governments represent their interests in the energy arena and increase energy‐efficiency; and Realizing the co‐benefits of energy policies such as improved air quality, public health, job creation, and financial savings.
THE REGIONAL ENERGY STRATEGY UPDATE
The RES Update is a policy document written for regional and local decision‐makers – an audience that can influence and implement changes in the region that impact our energy use. The RES Update does not make recommendations on specific energy projects (e.g. power plants or transmission lines); it does assess regional need for various kinds of energy resources and infrastructure. The RES Update also does not replace San Diego Gas and Electric’s long term procurement plan, which the utility is required to develop for the California Public Utilities Commission. SDG&E’s plan is written within constraints regulated by the CPUC and focuses on providing adequate supply for the next ten years. The RES Update provides a vision out to 2030 that can inform decisions made by SDG&E and the CPUC for the procurement plan.
4 2030 Vision
By formulating a regional energy vision, establishing goals and policies to manifest that vision, and representing the vision in legislative, regulatory, and market‐based planning activities, a regional energy plan can guide energy supply and demand choices influenced by regional and local governments. A regional energy plan not only can influence local choices but also provide a regional perspective to state and federal efforts. Stakeholder and public involvement have been integral to development of the Regional Energy Strategy vision for 2030:
REGIONAL ENERGY STRATEGY VISION FOR 2030: EEnergynergy NNeedseeds AArere MMetet SSustainablyustainably LLowerower GGreenhousereenhouse GGasas EEmissionsmissions HHighigh LLevelsevels ooff EEducationducation aandnd CConsensusonsensus A RRobustobust CCleanlean EEnergynergy SSectorector IImprovedmproved SSocialocial EEquityquity aandnd EEnvironmentalnvironmental JJusticeustice EElectricitylectricity RResourcesesources aarere CCostost‐EEffectiveffective aandnd SSustainableustainable A MModernizedodernized EElectricitylectricity GGridrid EExistingxisting BBuildingsuildings aarere HHighlyighly EEfficientfficient EEnergynergy EEfficiencyfficiency PPromotesromotes LLowerower RRenewableenewable EEnergynergy SSystemystem CCostsosts NNewew BBuildingsuildings AAchievechieve ZZeroero NNetet EEnergynergy SStatustatus CCommunitiesommunities aarere DDesignedesigned ttoo LLowerower EEnergynergy CConsumptiononsumption IInfrastructurenfrastructure iiss WWidelyidely DDeployedeployed ttoo SSupportupport AAlternativelternative FFuelsuels aandnd VVehiclesehicles
Connection to the Regional Comprehensive Plan
SANDAG’s Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) integrates the array of local and regional plans in land use, transportation and supporting infrastructure that maintain the region’s quality of life. The RCP creates a regional vision and provides a broad context in which local and regional decisions can be made that foster a healthy environment, a vibrant economy, and a high quality of life for all residents. The vision balances regional population, housing, and Regional Comprehensive Plan Vision: employment growth with habitat preservation, To preserve and enhance the San Diego region's agriculture, open space, energy and other infrastructure unique features – its vibrant and culturally‐diverse needs. The intent of the vision is to move San Diego communities, its beaches, deserts, mountains, toward a sustainable future with more choices and lagoons, bluffs, and canyons, and its international opportunities for all residents. The vision looks beyond setting – and promote sustainability, economic our borders and considers the planning and growth prosperity, and an outstanding quality of life for underway in Imperial, Orange, and Riverside Counties as everyone." well as in Baja California, Mexico. The Regional Energy Strategy, its vision, guiding principles and goals, all fit within the larger regional vision adopted in the Regional Comprehensive Plan.
5 Goals and Recommended Actions
The following sections of the RES Update put forth goals and recommended actions in twelve topics areas to implement the regional vision. Online technical chapters will provide further detail for each topic area and be available on the SANDAG website.
REGIONAL ENERGY STRATEGY UPDATE TOPIC AREAS 1. Energy Efficiency and Conservation 2. Renewable Energy 3. Distributed Generation 4. Energy and Water 5. Peak Demand 6. The Smart Grid 7. Natural Gas 8. Transportation Fuels 9. Land Use and Transportation Planning 10. Border Energy 11. Clean Energy Economy 12. Energy and Climate Change
6 1 ‐ ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND CONSERVATION
Goal: Through conservation and energy efficiency, achieve a 20% reduction in per capita electricity consumption by 2030 in order to keep total regional electricity consumption flat.
Table 3: Regional Electricity Savings Targets for Energy Efficiency Measures 2030 Reductions (2007 baseline) Increased utility energy efficiency program funding 675 GWh 3.0 % Comprehensive residential building retrofit program 1482 GWh 6.7 % Comprehensive commercial building retrofit program 572 GWh 2.6 % New construction building standards (post‐2009 updates) 260 GWh 1.2 % Appliance standards (post‐2009 updates) 447 GWh 2.0 % Total electricity reduction from above Energy Efficiency Measures 3438 GWh 15.6 % Reduction in total electricity consumption due to energy efficiency 22 GWh 0.1 % Reduction in per capita electricity consumption due to energy efficiency n/a 22.2 % Source: California Center for Sustainable Energy, 2009.
The Regional Energy Strategy uses the California Energy Commission’s June 2009 electricity consumption forecast for its targets and analysis. SDG&E also relies on the Energy Commission’s forecast for its resource planning. The chart below depicts regional consumption if current trends continue. The region’s total electricity consumption from 2007 (18,648 GWh) is expected to increase by about 10% in 2020 (to 20,555 GWh) and 21% in 2030 (to 22,647 GWh). This increase is after accounting for an existing level of funding continuing for energy efficiency programs, and reductions from existing efficiency standards for buildings and appliances. The 2009 forecast is actually about 10% lower than what was forecast two years earlier and is attributed primarily to the worsening statewide economy. Even though the forecast is lower, it does not change the region’s need take additional actions to slow and flatten expected growth in total electricity consumption.
Figure 3: San Diego County Business as Usual Electricity Forecast 2010‐2030 San Diego County's Business as Usual Electricity Forecast 2010‐2030 (with measures and impacts shown) (with expected measures & impacts shown)
30,000 EE Program Savings ‐ Current Levels Appliance Standards 20,000 Building Standards PV (CEC: 234 MW in 2030) GWh 10,000 Non‐PV Self Generation 0 CEC 2009 Consumption Forecast 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Source: California Center for Sustainable Energy, 2009.
As the current trend of total regional electricity consumption continues to grow, per capita consumption is projected to remain flat through 2030. Consumers are using more electronic products and appliances today, but energy‐saving measures like conservation and energy efficiency standards have been effective in maintaining per capita consumption. The reason for overall growth is that San Diego County’s population is expected to grow by one million people between now and 2030. Therefore, the region will need to have sufficient energy to accommodate its future growth. The cheapest and most effective way to provide for increased population growth is through energy efficiency and conservation. If efficiency measures above and beyond what already exist today
7 do not occur, the region’s total electricity consumption will continue to grow and additional electricity sources will need to be financed and built.
California requires utilities to follow a “preferred loading order” when seeking additional electricity supplies. Under this law, utilities must seek new electricity resources first through conservation and energy efficiency, and then demand response programs, followed by renewable energy and clean distributed generation, and finally conventional fossil‐fuel based generation. This is depicted in the graphic on the right, which identifies the highest priority and most‐used resources at the base of the pyramid and the last choice resources at the top of the pyramid.
Keeping total electricity consumption flat will require increased energy conservation and efficiency efforts. Energy conservation is associated with changes in behavior, such as turning off lights and changing thermostat settings, that decrease the quantity of energy used. Energy efficiency refers to structural changes, such as replacing appliances with more efficient versions, changing incandescent lamps for compact fluorescent (CFL) or light‐ emitting diode (LED) lamps, or tuning up building systems to improve their energy performance. Efficiency and conservation are necessary and complimentary.
Figure 4San: San Diego Diego County's County Projected Projected Impacts Impacts of Energy of Energy Efficiency Efficiency Measures Measures 2010‐2030 2010‐2030 (a(abovebove andand beyond business business‐as as‐usual) usual)
30,000 Comprehensive Residential Retrofits 25,000 Comprehensive Commercial Retrofits 20,000 Full Increase in Utility Program Funding 15,000
GWh Partial Increase in Utility Program Funding 10,000 Building Standards 5,000 Appliance Standards 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Net from Utility
Source: California Center for Sustainable Energy, 2009.
Existing residential and commercial buildings use the most electricity in the San Diego region, as depicted in the chart below. Conservation and efficiency targeting existing buildings will provide the greatest electricity savings for the San Diego region. In addition to reducing utility bills, demand on the electricity grid, and associated greenhouse gases; energy efficiency is known to increase comfort and durability of structures and reduce waste and pollution. California energy codes (Title 24) were established in 1982 and are regularly updated as relevant cost‐effective improvements become available. Energy codes are enforced by local governments at the time of construction. In general, efficiency upgrades are not required afterward; therefore the improvements included in subsequent energy codes are not captured by existing buildings. Continuing training and education for building officials and building industry workers on Title 24 updates will increase understanding and enforcement of the building energy codes.
8 Numerous energy efficiency programs exist for homes and businesses, but they generally address singular components of a building. Longer‐term and larger energy savings can be achieved through more comprehensive or holistic programs that take an integrated approach to each building, evaluating its specific condition and prioritizing the most attractive measures together in a package. Types of measures can include lighting, insulation, space and water heating, space cooling, ductwork, weatherization, electronics, appliances, swimming pools and spas. Such a performance‐based approach enables the building owner to make a well‐informed decision. Program efforts will have the greatest impact, and will achieve greater benefits for the customer and region, when efficiency options are presented to the consumer in a coherent and integrated form, and combined with the proper education.
San Diego regional natural gas consumption is expected to grow to 660 MMTh in 2020 and 730 MMTh in 2030 as shown below. As demand for natural gas continues to grow in the region, coupled with volatile prices, priority must be made to utilizing natural gas in the most energy efficient manner and where applicable and cost‐effective, replacing it with a renewable fuel.
Within buildings, lighting usually comprises the largest portion of electricity usage, roughly 20‐25% of the total. In homes located in hot climates such as inland San Diego, air conditioning is likely to be the largest single energy user. Central, wall‐unit, and so‐called “split” air‐conditioning systems sold today can use significantly less energy than older systems. “Plug loads” collectively account for around 25% of overall household energy use in California—and more than the refrigerator in most homes. Plug loads are smaller electrical devices or appliances that draw power through an electric outlet, such computers and their peripherals; televisions and entertainment systems; and a wide variety of electronics and Natural Gas Consumption by rechargeable devices. Further, many electronics and electronic components of appliances use electricity Sector even when the device is not being used; consumers are largely unaware that they are paying higher electricity bills to cover this “phantom” usage, also
800.00 called “standby” power. Some estimates show Agricultural standby power to be as much as 10% of a newer 600.00 Mining home’s electric consumption. 400.00 Industrial State and federal governments work with 200.00 Commercial manufacturers to establish and strengthen energy 0.00 Residential standards for appliances and electronics to reduce 2007 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 demand from plug loads. Consumer education about plug loads and efficient appliances in the marketplace can also reduce electricity consumption. State and regional per‐capita consumption have been able to remain relatively flat, while many more electronic devices are in homes and buildings, due to technological improvements through standards and consumer action to purchase more energy‐efficient products.
9 To determine how much energy an existing building uses, including the devices plugged into its electrical outlets, an energy audit serves as an essential first step. The audit can identify both energy usage and opportunities where energy can be saved. The “Home Energy Rating System” program, better known as HERS program, is a nationally‐ recognized system to conduct whole‐house energy assessments. HERS raters perform a comprehensive audit for existing homes. Building performance contractors are certified to perform audits for residential and nonresidential buildings as well. There is a significant lack of trained HERS raters in the San Diego region and this void will need to be filled.
An energy audit can discover inefficiencies and provide solutions for increased efficiency. In addition, the audit is an opportune time to assess the potential for installing a distributed generation system, such as rooftop solar photovoltaics (PV) or a fuel cell, along with or after any energy efficiency improvements. This topic is addressed further in the Regional Energy Strategy distributed generation goal.
Once an energy audit is completed and conservation opportunities identified, additional help is needed for building and home owners to cover associated upfront purchase and installation costs. Energy‐efficiency financing mechanisms exist but some are new, not well known, not widely used, or only available to certain customers. Mechanisms include utility bill financing, property‐assessed financing, energy‐efficient mortgages, low interest loans for energy efficiency improvements, rebates, incentives, and federal and state tax credits. A local workforce of trained contractors also is needed to perform the building retrofits necessary to reduce per capita electricity consumption and keep the region’s total electricity consumption flat.
Recommended Actions:
Promote energy efficiency and conservation as the easiest and cheapest methods to reduce energy use and associated greenhouse gas emissions. Promote energy conservation within local governments and to the region’s residents, businesses, and schools. Support a comprehensive energy efficiency program that targets existing residential and commercial buildings. Identify and support financing mechanisms that can enable more building owners to undertake energy audits and retrofits. Develop and provide regionally‐consistent consumer information on plug loads, air‐conditioner replacement, energy audits, and finance measures that all local governments can use online, at events, permit desks, and other outreach mechanisms. Prioritize comprehensive energy efficiency measures that use electricity and natural gas more efficiently and target sectors with largest energy‐saving potential. Support and promote targeted air‐conditioning tune up and replacement program. Support local workforce training and education on HERS rating and whole‐building improvements. Support state building and appliance standard improvements that reduce energy consumption. Support training and education to building officials and associated building trades on energy codes.
10 2 ‐ RENEWABLE ENERGY
Goal: Increase renewable energy supply that provides cleaner fuel options big and small.
TARGETS 1990 2000 2007 2010 2020 2030 San Diego Regional 2,695 3,159 4,244 4,205 4,677 5,203 Peak Demand in megawatts RES 2030 targets from 2003 <1% <1% 5.2% 15% 25% 40% (actual) (actual) (actual) RES Update Targets 20% 33% 45% Megawatt equivalents for 841 MW 1,543 MW 2,341 MW RES Update Targets
The renewable energy targets developed for the 2003 strategy were considered very aggressive at the time. Since then, state laws and policies have called for even more aggressive targets. The RES Update reflects these changes. State law requires each investor owned utility to obtain 20 percent of its electricity supply from renewable resources. California’s adopted Climate Change Scoping Plan (December 2008) calls for California to obtain 33 percent of its electricity from renewable resources by 2020. In November 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S‐14‐08 directing all state agencies to work toward achieving 33 percent by 2020. San Diego Gas and Electric and the lead state energy agencies, the California Energy Commission and California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) have made commitments to meet the 33 percent target. The RES Update’s 2030 target is increased to 45% to reflect a little more than one percent supply increase each year between 2020 and 2030.
Statewi de Renewables Mix 2006* SDG&E Renewables Mix 2006*
Wind 17% Biomass Wi nd 19% 25% Solar Biomass 2% 38% Small Hydro Solar 19% 6%
Geothermal Small Hydro Geotherma l 43% 6% 25%
*2006 is the most recent year for which data is available.
The more that renewable energy resources become part of our electricity supply, the less greenhouse gas emissions are produced from electricity consumption. A greater renewable energy supply also will have a positive impact on the transportation sector as more “plug‐in” electric vehicles are utilized in the region. Electricity as a transportation fuel provides an alternative to petroleum and creates zero emissions at the tailpipe.
Renewable energy resources are energy resources that are naturally replenishing but flow‐limited. They are virtually inexhaustible in duration but limited in the amount of energy that is available per unit of time, e.g. rooftop solar panels that generate power when the sun is out but not at night and wind farms that generate power depending on when the wind is blowing. Since this “intermittent” supply cannot be produced all day every day, “dispatchable” power supplies, e.g. natural gas, nuclear and geothermal, are relied upon in the San Diego region. These supplies can be called on to operate at full capacity at virtually any time they are needed.
Renewable energy resources include:
11 Wind (produced in windy locations usually at wind farms to generate electricity) Solar (systems powered by the sun to provide heat or generate electricity including photovoltaic, concentrated solar power, and solar thermal) Geothermal (systems using heat from the earth’s surface to provide heat and generate electricity) Biogas (captured from landfills and sewage at wastewater treatment plants) Biomass (technologies that burn primarily paper, wood, tree trimming and other similar “green” waste as fuel) Hydro power (flowing water that drives a turbine to generate electricity) Onshore wave power (built along shorelines, systems extract energy in breaking waves)
In order to reach regional and state renewable energy targets, certain permitting barriers must be addressed. Renewable generation facilities must receive a site permit in order to construct a project. The California Energy Commission is responsible for approving permits for thermal power plants 50 megawatts and greater. All other projects must receive a county or city permit. Projects on federal land also must receive permits from the appropriate federal agencies, usually the Bureau of Land Management or the United States Forest Service.
Most renewable facilities in California seek permits from a federal agency since many of the best solar, wind, and geothermal sites are on federal land. In recent years, permitting entities have been inundated with applications for new renewable facilities, causing project delays. In November 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order S‐14‐08 to remove red tape surrounding permitting for renewable projects. To streamline the application process, the Energy Commission and Department of Fish and Game have created a "one‐stop" permitting process in order to reduce application process times by half.
The CPUC requirement for utilities to acquire renewable energy supply is called the “renewable portfolio standard” (RPS). Not all of the region’s renewable energy resources are counted in the RPS. For example, residential and most commercial rooftop solar PV cannot be counted toward the state RPS requirement. The RES Update promotes renewable energy regardless of its purpose or size; therefore, the Renewable Energy Goal recognizes and accounts for all renewable resources providing electricity for the San Diego region.
Some smaller renewable energy systems (up to 1.5 megawatts) are able to be counted toward the RPS due to a “feed‐in‐tariff” that the CPUC adopted in February 2008 in response to Assembly Bill 1969. The law was enacted to support deployment of renewable resources specifically on publicly owned water and wastewater treatment facilities. The CPUC established the feed‐in tariffs but expanded them to non‐water and non‐wastewater facilities for only Southern California Edison and PG&E territories. The expansion of this type of tariff to the San Diego region could be another mechanism to incentivize greater deployment of renewable resources. This topic is further addressed in the RES Update Distributed Generation Goal.
Tradable renewable energy credits (RECs) are an emerging benefit to renewable energy resources. The state currently is establishing a trading program in which owners of the environmental attributes, or REC, can sell this attribute to entities that must reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. In California, a REC represents one megawatt‐hour of renewable energy that was generated and delivered by an eligible renewable energy resource.
The CPUC, Energy Commission and other agencies are conducting financial analyses to learn the cost and benefit impacts of meeting the state’s needed 33 percent renewable energy target by 2020. Initial CPUC analysis shows that electricity costs will increase in 2020, regardless of renewable resource requirements. For the analysis, they assessed the cost of procuring all natural gas between now and 2020, which was comparable to the cost of procuring 20 percent renewable resources. The electricity cost to achieve a 33 percent renewable mix is estimated at about 7 percent higher as of June 2009. See Table below. At the printing of this document, analysis was in its preliminary stages.
12
Electricity Costs to Increase in 2020, Regardless of Renewable Resource Requirements 2008 All‐Gas 20% RPS Reference 33% RPS Reference Scenario in 2020 Case in 2020 Case in 2020 Total Statewide $36.8 billion $49.2 billion $50.6 billion $54.2 billion Electricity Expenditures Average Statewide $0.132 per kWh $0.154 per kWh $0.158 per kWh $0.169 per kWh Electricity Cost Source: CPUC/E3
The all‐gas scenario may grow more costly with passage of federal climate change laws. A greater demand for natural gas will occur from states that have been chiefly reliant on coal. The added competition could raise prices (San Diego natural gas prices are impacted by price spikes in the East) and reduce available supply. If this scenario occurs, increasing renewable energy supply may insulate the region from higher‐priced finite natural gas resources.
Historical Average Electricity Prices by Customer Class (in cents per kilowatt‐hour) Year Residential Commercial Industrial SDG&E CA SDG&E CA SDG&E CA 1990 10.7 10.4 9.6 10.6 6.6 7.7 2000 14.1 11.5 14.5 11.5 12.0 7.9 2007 15.7 12.5 17.4 15.3 13.5 10.9 2008 15.5 12.7 16.9 15.5 12.7 11.1 Source: Energy Almanac, CEC, 2009
The magnitude infrastructure that is necessary for California to meet the needed renewable energy target for 2020 has never been planned, permitted, procured, developed, and integrated in such a short time horizon. The CPUC identified several measures that must be implemented in the near term if achieving a 33 percent renewable resource supply by 2020 is to be a top priority, including:
Planning for more transmission and generation than needed to reach just 33 percent; Pursuing procurement which is not dependent on new transmission such as distributed solar photovoltaics (PV); and Concentrating renewable development in pre‐permitted land that would be set aside for a renewable energy park.
The Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative (RETI) is a statewide initiative to help identify the transmission projects needed to accommodate state renewable energy goals, support future energy policy, and facilitate transmission corridor designation and transmission and generation siting and permitting. RETI process is open and collaborative so any interested parties can participate. In addition to identifying transmission corridors to reach renewable resources, RETI assesses all competitive renewable energy zones (CREZ) in California, and possibly zones in neighboring states, that can provide significant electricity to California by 2020.
Connecting to the electricity grid to supply clean power to resource load centers like the San Diego region is generally cost prohibitive for a single renewable energy project. Since multiple renewable projects are often located within a renewable resource area, the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) is developing a framework for multiple projects within a transmission constrained renewable resource area to share the costs of connecting to the grid.
13 Recommended Actions:
Monitor feed‐in‐tariff level of participation here and other regions to see if we want to ask the state to open up more in our region. In a regionally‐consistent manner, assist local governments in the identification and removal of barriers to siting renewable energy installations in San Diego County. Assist local governments in identification of potential sites for renewable energy projects that will help the region meet renewable energy targets. Promote quality jobs for workers employed in the energy sector through training programs related to local renewable energy industries. Support cost‐effective transmission access from areas rich in renewable resources to the San Diego region. Monitor the Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative (RETI) and consider its recommendations in future regional planning.
14 3 ‐ DISTRIBUTED GENERATION
Goal: Increase clean distributed generation that provides homes and businesses with reliable options to offset their electricity and natural gas needs with onsite power systems.
Targets Technology 2008 Level 2030 Base Targets 2030 Stretch Targets Biofuels 26 MW 27 MW 31 MW Solar photovoltaics 49 MW 844 MW 970 MW Combined heat and power 341 MW 398 MW 458 MW Other (hydro & steam) 11 MW 11 MW 11 MW Total Distributed Generation in the Region 427 MW 1278 MW 1590 MW Proportion of Regional Peak Demand RES 2030 targets from 2003 12% (2010) 30% 30% RES Update targets 9% (actual) 21% 24% Source: California Center for Sustainable Energy, 2009
For the RES Update, clean distributed generation is defined as small‐scale power generation technologies located close to the load being served, capable of lowering costs, improving reliability, reducing emissions and expanding energy options. Figure 1 depicts various distributed generation systems integrated with the electricity grid. In California, clean power designates a system that is more energy efficient than the most efficient conventional power plant built today, a natural gas combined‐cycle gas turbine plant. Combining energy efficiency measures with distributed generation is the best way to reduce a customer’s energy demand, thereby properly sizing the distributed system and generally saving the customer costs of a larger system.
Figure 1.
Small‐scale is defined as less than 20 megawatts in capacity. In the San Diego region, the primary sources of clean distributed generation are identified in Table 1 above and the pie chart below. The Renewable Energy Goal and to an extent the Distributed Generation Goal address renewable energy systems. Distributed generation, renewable or not, installed primarily for a customer’s use onsite has many similar benefits and barriers regardless of fuel source. Ongoing performance monitoring will distinctly identify all technologies cross‐listed in both goals. Source: California Energy Commission
In the San Diego region, solar photovoltaic (PV) systems have the greatest growth potential. Several regional resources are available that help enable residents to install solar. The City of San Diego partnered with the California Center for Sustainable Energy (CCSE) to develop an interactive solar mapping tool. The Solar Map identifies solar systems installed in the region and can help a resident determine their own rooftop's viability for solar panels. Moreover, CCSE manages the California Solar Initiative incentive program for the region and hosts an annual Solar Energy Week including a Solar Homes Tour and Commercial Solar Sites Tour. In the 2009 Environment California report, California’s Solar Cities, the City of San Diego was ranked the number one solar city in California.
15 Regional Distributed Generation Targets for 2030 (in megawatts)
Steam, 7 Hydro, 4
Combined Heat & Power, 458
Biofuels, 31 Solar Photovoltaic, 970
In addition to solar options, combined heat and power (CHP) and other clean heat and power technologies, such as those that use waste energy recovery or biofuels, have a variety of commercial and societal benefits for the region. CHP systems provide efficient use of natural gas by recycling otherwise wasted heat and reusing it for additional electricity or heating and cooling. They also can operate on renewable fuels. Technologies include microturbines, internal combustion engines and fuel cells. Fuel cells are most efficient in CHP mode, but do no have to operate this way.
End users that need greater reliability and power quality onsite than what the electric grid can supply, tend to use CHP systems. Biotech firms, data centers, telecommunications, and industrial processes are some of the business types that cannot afford power to be interrupted. CHP can provide premium power onsite, offering end users a higher level of reliability than the electric grid. Additional distributed generation resources include hydro power, steam and wind but they are not anticipated to play a larger role through 2030. The former two have reached their market potential and the latter one plays a role in larger sizes included in the RES Update renewable energy goal. These resources will be monitored and if options for increased use materialize, targets for those resources will be added.
Although the lifecycle costs of distributed generation systems make them a good choice for many end users, the upfront capital costs can be a barrier to their increased penetration. California offers many financial incentives— e.g. the California Solar Initiative, New Solar Homes Program, and Self Generation Incentive Program‐to help defray the costs for new and existing buildings. Some local governments and large businesses use third party energy providers that can cover the upfront cost of a system through a long‐term contract with the jurisdiction.
Net‐metering is an additional financial incentive set up to expand California’s renewable energy markets. Net‐ metering allows entities with onsite renewable generating potential in excess of what they can use onsite to be compensated for that generation. “Feed‐in tariffs” are available for some renewable energy systems and combined heat and power systems. Feed‐in tariffs are for distributed generation systems that are used for export to the electric grid rather than offsetting the customer’s load.
Interconnection policies have been another barrier to increased use of distributed generation. California applies a standard practice for interconnecting distributed generation systems to the electric grid (Rule 21). Non‐ standardized interconnection rules create uncertainty and risk for customers interested in using DG technologies and can make this option cost prohibitive. Rule 21 specifies standard interconnection, operating, and metering requirements for DER generators.
Since there are a variety of distributed generation systems, customers are able to choose the technology that best serves their needs. Distributed generation also benefits the utility by reducing peak demand on the electric grid and benefits businesses by reducing costs associated with peak demand charges. In power constrained areas where outages are common, distributed generation can serve to provide reliable power.
16 “Advanced energy storage” (AES) is a distributed energy system that is expected to perform an integral role in future increased use of renewable energy and in improving grid reliability. AES is a technology that converts electricity into another form of energy, stores it, and then converts it back into electricity at another time. Storage is beneficial to providing more usable electricity from intermittent resources such as solar and wind. AES also can reduce peak demand and save money by storing electricity for use during periods when grid‐based electricity is most expensive.
Recommended Actions:
Explore development of a regional incentive program to further reduce cost to homes and businesses of energy efficiency and distributed generation installations o Identify the cost, benefits, and funding sources for a regional program o Encourage and support the implementation of financing and loan guarantee programs in addition to the partial rebates and incentives available. o Explore opportunities to use energy bonds to increase installations in the region o Support bill financing programs Lead by example by exploring opportunities to generate electricity at municipal sites, schools, and water pumping stations. Identify local barriers and solutions that could be supported throughout the region and applied across jurisdictions to reduce the confusion for builders, contractors, officials, about various distributed generation technologies, applications and financing. Support smart grid policy implementation Explore opportunities and applications for local governments to demonstrate advanced energy storage with distributed generation technologies.
17 4 ‐ ENERGY AND WATER
Goal: Reduce the embedded energy of water supply and uses.
There is a close relationship between water and energy resources in the San Diego region. Water utilities use large amounts of energy to pump, treat, deliver, and recycle water, while residents and businesses use energy to heat, cool, and use the water. Energy is also used to dispose of wastewater and power the large pumps that move water throughout the state. Power plants use a significant volume of water, primarily for cooling, which can impact local water supplies. Water also provides hydroelectricity for the region, while pumped storage facilities provide commercially viable electricity storage on a large scale.
California’s water systems are highly embedded with energy relative to national averages. The state has major conveyance systems that move water to end users over hundreds of miles and thousands of feet in elevation. The State Water Project (SWP) burns energy by pumping water 2,000 feet over the Tehachapi Mountains ‐‐ the highest lift of any water system in the world. The San Diego region is at the farthest – and therefore most energy intensive – end of the SWP and Colorado River Aqueduct. The amount of energy used to deliver water from the SWP to residential customers in Southern California is almost one‐third the total average household electric use in the region. The San Diego region currently imports more than 80 percent of its water from these distant and energy intensive sources; about 18 percent is supplied from local sources.
Table 1: Energy Intensities in the Water Cycle Water Cycle Segments Range of Energy Intensity (kilowatt hours/million gallons) Low High Supply and Conveyance 0 4,000 Treatment 100 16,000 Distribution 700 1,200 Wastewater Collection and Treatment 1,100 4,600 Wastewater Discharge 0 400 Recycled Water Treatment and Distribution 400 1,200 Source: California Energy Commission, California’s Water‐Energy Relationship, final staff report, 2005.
As of 2005, water‐related energy use annually consumes 19 percent of the state’s electricity consumption, 30 percent of non‐power plant natural gas consumption, and 88 million gallons of diesel fuel. Statewide water‐related electricity consumption alone costs at least $2 billion per year. Water demand and associated energy costs will continue to grow if current trends continue. Water and energy demands are growing at roughly the same rate. Water‐related electric use is expected to grow at a faster rate because of increasing and more energy‐intensive water treatment requirements, conversion of diesel agricultural pumps to electric, increasing long‐distance water transfers, and changes in crop patters that require more energy intensive irrigation methods.
Peak demand for water (and energy required to treat and transport that water) coincides with peak demand for electricity. If not coordinated and managed, water‐related electricity demand could affect the reliability of the electric grid during peak load periods. Conversely, reliable and adequate electricity supplies are essential for water and wastewater agencies to meets the needs of their customers.
Energy and Water in the San Diego Region
San Diego County Water Authority (CWA) currently supplies about 600,000 acre‐feet1 of water per year (af/year) to water agencies in the region. Supply sources include 470,000 af/year from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD), 83,000 af/year from the SWP, 30,000 af/year from local groundwater supplies, and 18,000 af/year from
1 An acre‐foot is equal to about 325,850 gallons of water, or enough to cover an acre of land to a depth of one foot.
18 recycled wastewater. The average energy intensity of the water‐energy cycle in the San Diego region is 6,900 kilowatt‐hours per acre‐foot (kWh/af). Based on these figures, total water‐related energy consumption to satisfy current water demand is estimated at 4,140,000 megawatt‐hours (mWh) per year.
The energy intensities for the five stages of the water life cycle in San Diego region are as follows: (1) sources and conveyance, 2,040 kWh/af; (2) water treatment, 60 kWh/af; (3) distribution, 330 kWh/af; (4) end uses, 3,900 kWh/af; and (5) wastewater treatment, 570 kWh/af. Despite the energy‐intensive process of conveying water over long distances to the region, end uses like landscape irrigation and showering are the most energy‐intensive stages of the water life cycle, accounting for over half (57 percent) of water‐related energy use.
As shown in the table below, the residential sector is responsible for 58 percent of energy consumption related to water end uses. The commercial, industrial and institutional sectors are responsible for an additional 32 percent, while agriculture accounts for 10 percent. The five largest end use consumers of energy are residential landscape irrigation (23 percent), residential toilets and leaks (14 percent), commercial/industrial landscape irrigation (12.1 percent) residential showers, faucets and bathtubs (12 percent), and clothes washers (8 percent). Targeting conservation measures in these largest end use subsectors can reduce the energy intensity of water end uses.
Table 2: Estimated Embedded Energy of Water End Uses in the San Diego Region Energy Considerations for Meeting Future Water Demand
The population of the San Diego region will grow by approximately one million residents by 2030, increasing the region’s demand for water. CWA estimates that at least an additional 100,000 af/year will be needed in 2020, and demand for water will continue to grow to 2030 and beyond. CWA must save 80,000 acre‐feet (af) by 2010, 94,000 af by 2020 and 108,000 af by 2030 to meet the region’s water needs. There are various strategies to meet future water demand, including: conservation; recycling; and desalination. Imported supplies from the SWP and Colorado River will likely be Source: 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report, California Energy Commission. constrained by various factors including enforcement of the Colorado River Compact, environmental restrictions on water from the SWP, and the impacts of climate change such as reduced snowpack levels in the Sierra Nevada. Energy intensity varies by strategy, as shown in Table 3.
Conservation
The Energy Commission identifies water conservation as the far superior water “source” from an energy perspective. Investment in conservation may forestall or avoid larger public investments for drinking water, clean water infrastructure, or power generation facilities, and it will help stretch available public water funds. For example, total energy savings of meeting the next 100,000 af through conservation instead of additional SWP water could be approximately 767 million kWh, enough to provide annual electricity for 118,000 households.
19 Table 3: Energy Intensity for Satisfying Additional Water Demand Source and Water Distribution End Use Wastewater Total Conveyance Treatment (kWh/af)2 (kWh/af)3 Treatment (kWh/af) (kWh/af) (kWh/af)1 (kWh/af)4 Status quo 2,040 60 330 3,900 570 6,900 Status quo plus scenario5 Conservation 1,780 50 290 3,400 500 6,020 Recycling 1,830 50 330 3,900 500 6,610 Water bag transfer 1,950 60 330 3,900 570 6,810 Imperial Irrigation District transfer 60 60 330 3,900 570 6,940 Additional State Water Project 60 60 330 3,900 570 7,100 Seawater desalination 50 50 330 3,900 570 7,250 Source: California Energy Commission. Notes: (1) The conservation, recycling, and desalination scenarios assume the additional 100,000 acre‐feet of water do not require treatment, reducing the average energy intensity of treatment from 60 to 50 kWh/af delivered to customers. (2) Conserved water does not need to be distributed, reducing the embedded energy of distribution from 330 to 290 kWh/af delivered. (3) Conservation assumes no energy is conserved when water is conserved, but no energy is expended to conserve water either. (4) Wastewater is not generated by conservation or by recycling if recycled water is used for landscape irrigation, reducing energy intensity from 570 to 500 kWh/af delivered. (5) The scenarios are presented for purposes of comparing energy consumption only. They do not necessarily represent feasible or likely scenarios for satisfying future water demand in the San Diego region.
Reclamation
Water recycling (reclamation) is the next best efficient source of additional water supply. Recycled water is the fastest growing source of new supplies in the state. After treatment to stringent health and quality standards, recycled can displace use of fresh water for power plant cooling, industrial processes, landscape irrigation, and groundwater replenishment.
The San Diego region has already made substantial investment in water reclamation. The City of San Diego has constructed two reclamation facilities – North City Water Reclamation Plant (NCWRP) and South Bay Water Reclamation Plant (SBWRP). NCWRP has capacity to produce up to 24 million gallons per day (MGD) of recycled water, but existing beneficial reuse, consisting mostly of irrigation and some industrial purposes, total only about 6 MGD (City of San Diego, Water Reuse Study [2006]). The SBWRP produces from five to six MGD of recycled water that is then disposed through the ocean outfall, without application for domestic or industrial reuse. Thus, although the region has substantial capacity to produce recycled water with adequate quality, actual demand for recycled water has not matched that capacity. However, none of the recycled water is currently used as potable water.
Currently, a substantial portion of the processed reclaimed water is never utilized. Instead, it is pumped back into the general wastewater lines where it is run through treatment processes again at the Point Loma water treatment facility, and disposed of in the Pacific Ocean. This is an inefficient use of water and the energy used for processing and pumping.
Desalination
Desalination is another option to meet future water demand. The process removes salt from brackish water or seawater to create potable fresh water. Brackish water desalination is considerably less energy intensive than seawater desalination. The Energy Commission reports that desalinated brackish water and seawater can relieve drought conditions, replace and restore groundwater, and provide a source of water for river and stream ecosystem restoration. The future demand for additional sources of water and constraints on imported supply require the identification of conservation and efficiency options in all stages of the water‐energy cycle, as well as potential sources of local supply. It is important to note that many consideration, are relevant to the selection of water sources to meet future demand in the region. Energy is just one of the considerations. Reliability, cost, and regional control may be other important considerations.
20 Producing Energy from Water
Several opportunities exist to increase energy supplies from water and wastewater utilities, including hydroelectric power in hydroelectric power plants and pumped storage facilities, water storage for peak shifting, in‐conduit hydroelectric generation, biogas cogeneration at wastewater treatment plants, and development of local renewable resources on water and wastewater utilities’ extensive watersheds and rights‐of‐way.
Opportunities for construction of new hydroelectric plants are very limited. Pumped storage projects involve the transfer of water between two reservoirs or tanks at varying elevations to generate electricity. Water can be pumped from the lower to the higher reservoir during off‐peak electricity periods, and then released to the lower reservoir during peak electricity periods to spin a turbine or power an electricity generating unit. This is considered a method or storing renewable electricity, particularly intermittent sources such as wind and solar power. In‐ conduit generation utilizes the flow of water through pipelines, canals, and the like to generate electricity. Although this technology is widely deployed, additional in‐conduit projects could help offset the embedded energy of the water system or be sold back to the grid. In‐conduit projects could also help contribute to the region’s goals for renewable power generation.
Wastewater treatment plants use anaerobic digestion to clean wastewater, a process that releases biogas (60 to 90 percent methane). Biogas can be captured and used for electricity. The Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant in the City of San Diego produces enough biogas to run a 4.5 megawatt (MW) generator, which saves the City millions of dollars in energy costs and produces power for the electrical grid.
There are opportunities at pumping stations to take advantage of downgrade water flow to provide hydroelectric electricity to pumping stations. In addition to hydroelectric power, onsite solar arrays or cogeneration systems at pumping stations can provide energy for water pumping while reducing impact on the electricity grid. Wind and solar photovoltaic facilities are excellent power sources from a water perspective as they do not use water during operation. Distributed energy systems are essentially air‐cooled machines requires little to no water for operations. Many water agencies have potential for installation of solar panels on rooftops and structures and other unused or underutilized land within their control. Water agencies can take advantage of renewable energy opportunities to offset their own electricity load and even send power to the grid and contribute to regional goals for the generation of renewable power (e.g., Renewable Portfolio Standard goals). However, existing tariffs and rules constrain full development of self‐generation by water and wastewater utilities.
Recommended Actions:
Regional and local governments should collaborate with the San Diego County Water Authority, local water districts and SDG&E on cooperative programs that achieve energy and water savings. Support programs and efforts to increase energy conservation and efficiency of water end‐uses in the residential and commercial sectors, with priority on the most energy‐intensive water end‐uses. Identify financing mechanisms that end users can utilize to reduce water‐related energy consumption, such as those available for energy measures (e.g., on‐bill financing [property tax or utility] and low interest loans). Consider integration of water‐related energy considerations into regional program to incorporate energy efficiency and distributed generation into the existing residential and commercial building stock. Promote energy efficiency, demand response and self generation efforts to local governments that own or operate water pumping stations and treatment facilities. Assist local governments and other regional agencies in public education and promotion of the water, energy, climate change and environmental benefits of reclaimed water in order to gain public acceptance for domestic uses that help the region meet its goals of water source diversification. Promote or identify uses for existing, unused reclaimed water, such as landscape irrigation or power plant cooling.
21 5 ‐ PEAK DEMAND
Goal: Close the gap between peak and average demand to improve operating efficiency of the electric system.
The RES Update uses the California Energy Commission’s June 2009 peak demand forecast for its targets. SDG&E also relies on the Energy Commission’s forecast for its resource planning. “Peak Demand” is the electric load that corresponds to a maximum level of electric demand, measured in kilowatts (kW), in a specified time period. In contrast, average demand measures the total annual demand averaged over all the hours in the year (8760). The relationship between average and peak demand is called the load factor. This is a measure of how effectively the total capacity of the electrical system is used on average. The higher the load factor, the more effective the electric system is. A load factor of 100%, which is nearly unattainable, would mean the average and peak demand were equal. The current regional load factor is approximately 53%.
Weather and behavior play a role in determining peak demand. On an annual basis, the region generally experiences high peak demand periods on the hottest days of the year and during continuous heat waves, usually in summer. High demand periods are typically driven by air conditioning use. Peak demand is a significant concern Demand Trends, SDG&E Service Territory
4,500 80 4,000 70 3,500 60 50 3,000 Factor
MW 40 2,500
30 Load 2,000 20 1,500 10 1,000 ‐ 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
Peak Demand Average Demand Load Factor for energy planners about 80 to 100 hours each year. During that time, when electricity demand increases significantly, base‐load electricity supply has been surpassed and electricity prices are at their highest. Increased demand must be offset by increasing supply or reducing demand. Supplemental power plants called “peaking units” or “peaker plants” can be used to increase supply for these short durations. Demand response programs and other demand‐side management measures are another option to alleviate peak demand conditions and potentially postpone the need for additional power plants. Demand response programs shift end‐user demand from peak times to lower demand periods of the day, when electricity is cheaper and more abundant. California’s preferred loading order to meet our resource needs places demand response second in priority, only behind conservation and energy‐efficiency.
A demand response program provides customers with incentives for reducing load in response to a call for load reduction by the utility. Incentives can be a credit on the utility bill, a dynamic rate or exemption from rolling blackouts. SDG&E manages several types of demand response programs that local governments and SANDAG can take part in or provide education to our employees, businesses and residents about.
22 In addition to demand response programs, distributed generation systems can reduce peak demand. Rooftop solar, fuel cells and combined heat and power systems all provide end‐users with power generated on or near its point of use. Distributed generation technologies can produce electricity during peak times, thus reducing system wide electrical demand. Energy savings from these technologies are included in the RES Update Distributed Generation Goal so they are not included in the peak demand reduction targets here. Development of smart grid technologies, in particular smart meters and advanced metering infrastructure, can help to reduce regional peak demand. The RES Update Smart Grid Goal provides further detail on the attributes and benefits of a smart grid.
Smart meters and advanced metering infrastructure can automate utility billing, optimize electricity resources connected to the grid, and provide energy consumers with greater information on their electricity use. Smart meters collect data on the amount and time of day of electricity consumption. Providing customers with detailed information about their consumption patterns can result in energy and demand reductions. Pilot smart metering projects in the San Diego region and across the state have shown that consumers that were provided information about their energy use and the actual cost of electricity based on the time of use, modified their consumption and reduced peak demand.
In addition to smart meters, smart end‐use devices will enable energy consumers to cycle air‐conditioning units off and on, set clothes dryers and dishwashers to run at off‐peak hours, and manage other energy intensive equipment based on the time of use, the cost and availability of electricity. The electric utility or the customer will be able to remotely enable demand response programs and measures that could reduce some of the need for new electric generation resources.
Smart grid technology also will enable the convergence of the electricity and transportation sectors. Electric vehicles that plug‐in to the electric grid for recharging may also be able to provide electricity back to the grid in the near future, once smart grid components are in place. To prevent a fleet of electric vehicles from increasing peak demand, smart charging features could help to even out the increase in electric demand caused by electric vehicles.
Recommended Actions:
In coordination with SDG&E, provide education and outreach on demand response programs available to residents, businesses and institutions Support fair and reasonable rate designs and incentives that encourage reductions in peak demand Support the rollout of advanced metering infrastructure and communication technologies that enable electric vehicles, distributed generation, and electricity consumption to be accurately monitored by consumers and the utility Support the modernization of communications across the electricity grid through implementation of the smart grid for the San Diego region Since air‐conditioning units are a large proportion of electric load during peak demand times, local governments and SANDAG should support and promote aggressive air conditioning cycling, tune‐up and other load reduction programs
23 6 ‐ ‐ TTHEHE SSMARTMART GGRIDRID
Goal: Modernize the electricity grid with smart meters, smart end‐use devices, and interactive communication technologies.
The U.S. Department of Energy has found that if the electric grid were just 5 percent more efficient, the energy savings would equate to permanently eliminating the fuel and greenhouse gas emissions from 53 million cars. A smart gird can help the region achieve many of the RES Update Goals. It can better provide reliable power to end users while saving money for both the utility and end user. Smarter communications will improve reliability and reduce outages, as well as enable electric vehicles and distributed generation technologies to be accurately integrated into the electricity grid.
Figure 1
Source: U.S. Department of Energy
In 2006, the Energy Policy Initiatives Center of the University of San Diego released the San Diego Smart Grid Study. The regional study included extensive analysis of the technologies, utility and societal costs and benefits as depicted in Tables 1 and 2, as well as scenarios for implementing a smart grid in the San Diego region.
Table 1. Summary of San Diego Smart Grid Study Cost‐Benefit Analysis Results Total Annual Benefits $141 million System Benefits (20 years) $1,433 million Societal (Consumer‐side) Benefits (20 years) $1,396 million Total Capital Cost $490 million Annual Operating and Maintenance Cost $24 million Source: EPIC, 2006.
The integration of smart grid technologies, e.g. smart meters, advanced metering infrastructure, and interactive communications, will help the region to achieve multiple RES Update energy goals. Smart meters and advanced metering infrastructure can automate utility billing, optimize electricity resources connected to the grid, and provide energy consumers with greater information on their electricity use. Smart meters are designed to give consumers access to their previous day’s electricity consumption and electricity cost information via the internet. Pilot smart metering projects in the San Diego region and across the state have shown that consumers that were provided with information about their energy use and the actual cost of electricity based on the time of use, modified their consumption and reduced peak demand.
24 The smart‐grid will reduce the number and duration of power outages. When the power goes out at a home, the smart grid can communicate that outage to the utility when it happens. With the grid in place today, the utility does not know that the power is out at a house or business until the end‐user calls the utility to let them know.
Table 2. Smart Grid Benefits for the San Diego Region Benefit Type Societal System Benefits Benefits Reduction in congestion cost $13.1 million Reduced blackout probability $1.5 million Reduction in forced outages/ interruptions $38.6 million Reduction in restoration time and reduced operations and $11.3 million management due to predictive analytics and self healing attribute of the grid Reduction in peak demand $25.6 million Other benefits due to self diagnosing and self healing attribute of $0.2 million the grid Increased integration of distributed generation resources and $14.7 million higher capacity utilization Increased security and tolerance to attacks/ natural disasters $1.2 million Power quality, reliability, and system availability and capacity $1.3 million improvement due to improved power flow Regional job creation and increased GDP $28.3 million Increased capital investment efficiency due to tighter design limits $0.2 million and optimized use of grid assets Tax benefits from asset depreciation, tax credits, and other $3.1 million Environmental benefits gained by increased asset utilization $2.4 million Subtotals $69.7 million $71.8 million Total $141.5 million Source: EPIC, 2006
Smart grid’s can be region‐wide and at a micro level (micro‐grid). For instance, the University of California, San Diego was awarded a Department of Energy grant to create a campus micro‐grid combining fuel cells and advanced energy‐storage technologies. The project will demonstrate smart grid benefits at a campus scale.
Recommended Actions:
Support education on the regional deployment of the smart grid and smart meters. Support regional entities in acquiring state and federal funds to implement components of the smart grid in the San Diego region.
25 7 ‐ ‐ NNATURALATURAL GGASAS
GOAL: Reduce total natural gas supply in the electricity sector by replacing inefficient power plants with energy‐ efficient plants that run on natural gas, biogas, or other reliable, renewable alternative.
Natural gas is the least polluting fossil fuel and the only fossil fuel that California allows to fuel in‐state power plants. The majority of natural gas supply in the region is used to generate electricity. Natural gas also is used for space conditioning and water heating for homes and buildings, industrial processes, and increasingly as a transportation fuel. With the exception of electricity supply, how to best utilize natural gas is addressed throughout the RES Update, in particular in the following topic areas: energy efficiency and conservation; renewable energy; distributed generation; peak demand; and transportation fuels
The San Diego region currently consumes approximately 581 million metric therms (MMTh) of natural gas annually. At present, California imports 87 percent of its natural gas needs from out state, and at the same time in‐ state production is decreasing. Natural gas markets have proven to be very volatile over the last decade, which has made most forecasts less‐ or un‐reliable. The RES Update looks to historical data, as shown in Figure 1, and several other factors to identify appropriate regional policies.
Federal changes in energy policy will likely impact natural gas markets, creating some uncertainty for California and the San Diego region regarding access to stable, reasonably priced supply. For example, the establishment of federal carbon caps or laws to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will likely cause many states that rely heavily on coal for electricity generation to switch to natural gas to fuel power plants. What effect federal policy changes will have on supply that currently comes to California is not known. Natural gas prices and volatility also are impacted by supply and demand imbalances, infrastructure (storage and pipeline) issues, the weather, regional and global economic conditions, speculative trading, market manipulation, and unreliable data.
The San Diego region should utilize natural gas as efficiently as possible to help mitigate volatility issues. As power plants are the largest user of natural gas, and the region is home to aging, inefficient plants, there are opportunities to make improvements in this area. Energy efficient natural gas plants currently are combined‐cycle gas turbine plants. Biogas (generally at landfills and wastewater treatment plants) offers another way to diversify from natural gas use. The region will need to rely on natural gas plants for part of its fuel supply for the foreseeable future to provide dispatchable power when the electricity system requires it. There are aging, inefficient plants in the region. New plants would provide more energy for less fuel. Chart 1 shows the state and regional fuel sources for electricity.
26 Statewide Electricity Mix 2006* SDG&E Electricity Mix 2006*
Renewables Renewables Coal Coal 11% 8% 16% 18% Nuclear Nuclear 13% 15% Large Hydro Large Hydro 10% 19%
Natural Gas Natural Gas 41% 49%
*2006 was latest year for which data was available
Recommended Actions:
Monitor the availability and cost of natural gas supplies in light of increased regulatory and environmental restrictions on fossil fuels. Establish or support energy efficiency programs that reduce natural gas usage in existing homes and businesses Support policies that will provide more stable natural gas prices and reduce consumer exposure to market volatility. Support increased use of solar water heating in residential, pool and commercial uses to offset natural gas demand. Promote the use of high efficiency distributed generation technologies like combined heat and power. Promote the weatherization and insulation of un‐insulated homes built before the development of building energy codes (1983). Increase and promote demand‐side energy efficiency programs to reduce residential, commercial and industrial gas usage. Facilitate the re‐powering, replacement, or removal of older power plants in the county based on the RES loading order with high efficiency combined cycle gas turbines or renewables where possible.
27 8 ‐ ‐ TTRANSPORTATIONRANSPORTATION FFUELSUELS
Goal: Substantially increase efficiency and the deployment of alternative fuel vehicles.
The region can improve air quality, promote public health, protect against petroleum price volatility and supply uncertainty, reduce GHG emissions, and the benefit the economy by substantially increasing efficiency and transitioning to alternative fuel sources in the transportation sector. Passenger vehicles, heavy‐duty trucks and buses, aircraft, watercraft, off‐road engines, and rail transportation can each improve the efficiency of fuel consumption or operate fully or in part on fuels other than gasoline or diesel. Alternatives to these petroleum‐ based fuels include biofuels (ethanol and biomass‐based diesels), electricity, hydrogen, natural gas, and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG or propane). Electricity can displace the most petroleum and GHG emissions. Electric drives are inherently more efficient than internal combustion engines, and existing electric infrastructure would facilitate the deployment of this alternative fuel faster than others. Hydrogen and renewable biofuels also offer significant GHG emission and petroleum reduction benefits, but significant economic and technological barriers must be overcome before these fuels can be deployed on a large scale. Natural gas and propane can also achieve economic and environmental benefits for the region, but of a more modest nature. Please consult the Regional Alternative Fuels, Vehicles, and Infrastructure Report for a detailed assessment and comparison of petroleum‐based and alternative fuels, vehicle technologies, and infrastructure.
Alternative fuels and vehicle technologies, although generally offering more benefits than petroleum, are not without potential drawbacks. For example, it is important to note that natural gas is a finite fossil fuel (as is propane) with many other important applications, including electricity generation, residential and commercial end uses like space and water heating, as well as the raw material in fertilizers critical to food production. Electric vehicles, deployed on a large scale, would have a potentially significant impact on the electricity grid. In addition, there is a limited amount of land to produce feedstocks for biofuels, and hydrogen fuel must be created from another energy source like natural gas or electricity. Moreover, production of alternative fuel vehicles is an energy‐ intensive process that requires extraction of raw materials, industrial assembly, and typically long‐distance distribution to customers. A careful, holistic approach to alternative transportation fuels will help the region minimize unintended consequences of a transition to alternative fuels and vehicle technologies.
State and federal energy policy provides significant opportunities for the region to increase the deployment of alternative fuel vehicles and infrastructure, including funding and tax credits. Moreover, a variety of alternative fuel vehicles in multiple vehicle classes are available now or will be in the near future, including factory‐made and commercially‐available vehicles from major automobile manufacturers and after‐market vehicle conversions and retrofits. Much government funding, research, and private sector investment is focused on the development of plug‐in hybrids, electric vehicles, and biofuels. Hydrogen, natural gas, and propane are also the focus of public and private sector research and dollars.
It should be noted that the future of alternative fuels in general, as well as individual technologies, is uncertain. While this strategy attempts to identify broad future trends in alternative transportation fuels, the many variables that affect these trends can be unpredictable, including but not limited to national and global economic conditions, the price and availability of crude oil and natural gas, national and global energy policy, technological developments, and levels of state and federal funding and support. This alternative fuels strategy should be revisited and revised as needed in the case that any of these or other important variables change significantly.
Increasing efficiency and reducing the growth in travel demand are also essential components of a comprehensive approach to achieving goals for air quality, climate change, public health, and energy security. Measures to lower travel demand are discussed in the Land Use and Transportation Planning section of the Regional Energy Strategy.
28 On‐Road Transportation
The on‐road transportation sector is a large consumer of energy, and is almost entirely dependent on petroleum‐ based fuels (gasoline and diesel). As shown in Figure 1, passenger cars and light‐duty trucks are by far the largest consumers of transportation fuel, accounting for about 1.6 billion gallons of gasoline and diesel or 85 percent of total consumption by on‐road vehicles. Light‐duty trucks represent only about 35 percent of total miles traveled, but due to their relatively low efficiency, account for about half of fuel consumption.
Heavy‐duty trucks and buses account for most of the remaining consumption by on‐road vehicles, about 170 million gallons. In total, on‐road vehicles account for about 46 percent of GHG emissions in the region. While heavy‐duty trucks mostly use diesel fuel, the region’s transit agencies operate a substantial number of CNG buses, including CNG‐electric hybrids. Passenger vehicles are the largest contributors, generating about 89 percent of emissions from on‐road vehicles, while heavy‐duty vehicles account for the remainder. Without changes in policy or behavior, on‐road consumption of petroleum‐based fuels is expected to increase sizably by 2020, with the trend continuing to 2030.
Figure 1. Fuel Consumption by On‐Road Transportation Vehicles in San Diego County Source: Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego, 2008.
Passenger Cars and Light‐Duty Trucks
The State has developed a 2050 vision for alternative fuels and vehicles based on a fair‐share of GHG emission reductions from passenger vehicles. Although transportation accounts for a larger proportion of regional than statewide emissions and a fair‐share approach is not established by statute, the vision illustrates the magnitude of change the region must undergo over the next four decades. By 2030, the horizon year of the RES, substantial progress toward this vision must be achieved. Major attributes of the 2050 vision include:
Average vehicle fuel economy of 60 miles per gallon (mpg); 80 mpg for electric vehicles, significantly higher than current average of about 22 mpg; Fuel mix consisting of 40 percent electricity and hydrogen, 30 percent biofuels, and 30 percent petroleum‐ based fuels, substantially different than existing supply of nearly 100 percent petroleum. Carbon intensity reductions of 90 percent below today’s gasoline vehicles for electricity and hydrogen, 80 percent for biofuel vehicles, and at least 10 percent for other fuel and vehicle types. Per‐capita vehicle miles traveled (VMT) of about 8,200, approximately 20 percent lower than projected statewide for 2050 without change in policy or behavior (about 14 percent lower than the regional 2030 projection).
The Regional Alternative Fuels, Vehicles, and Infrastructure Report provides a detailed analysis of alternative fuels and vehicles, including recommendations for passenger cars and light‐duty trucks. At least for the near‐term, plug‐ in hybrids and electric vehicles are the priority alternative fuel and vehicle recommendations for the region.
29 Electricity can achieve significant GHG and petroleum reductions, and electric charging points are relatively inexpensive. Electric vehicles will likely first become available to the region in 2010, with additional automaker vehicle rollouts over the next 2‐5 years. While hydrogen and biofuels (when produced from renewable sources) show potential to significantly reduce petroleum consumption and GHG emissions, there are technological and economic barriers to be overcome before they are commercially viable. The cost and availability of infrastructure and fuel production (as well as vehicles for hydrogen) currently makes hydrogen and renewable biofuels uncompetitive with other alternative fuels. If these technologies become commercially viable on a large scale, they could offer benefits of a similar level to plug‐in hybrids and electric vehicles. Natural gas and propane can help the region achieve modest near‐term benefits, although not of equal magnitude to plug‐in hybrids and electric vehicles. Long‐term, natural gas and propane will comprise a minor portion of the passenger vehicle fleet. Importantly, government coordination of public access electric charging and alternative fueling infrastructure is required to support private sector rollout and purchase of vehicle and fuels in the San Diego region.
Heavy‐Duty Trucks and Buses
Although a small portion of transportation fuel consumption relative to passenger vehicles, there are opportunities to reduce petroleum energy consumption from the movement of people and goods by transitioning heavy‐duty trucks and buses to alternative fuels. Other heavy‐duty vehicles such as trash haulers and street sweepers can operate on alternative fuels and efficient vehicle technologies. The emerging fuels and vehicle technologies included in this analysis are renewable diesel, hydraulic hybrids, battery‐electric hybrids, full‐electric vehicles, hydrogen fuel cells, propane, CNG, and LNG. The state 2050 vision for heavy‐duty vehicles foresees CNG, LNG, propane, biodiesel and hybrid technologies with the greatest potential for displacing petroleum‐based fuels and improving efficiency. Biodiesel blends up to B20 can be used in most existing vehicles and equipment (when consistent with manufacturer warranty). Changes in diesel engines may allow use of blends greater than B20, while efforts to produce biodiesel from renewable feedstocks like algae and waste may be commercially viable within the timeframe of the RES. Natural gas is recommended for heavy‐duty trucks and buses: CNG is best suited for short‐ and medium‐haul applications, while LNG is better suited for longer distances. Both propane and natural gas can be applied to more medium‐duty vehicles like vans and cargo trucks. Hybrid electric and hydraulic hybrids are viable options for a variety of medium and heavy‐duty applications like refuse trucks, drayage trucks, and utility trucks as well as transit and school buses. Where opportunities arise to incorporate electricity and hydrogen fuels into the heavy‐duty vehicle sector, the region should take advantage of them. However, electricity and hydrogen will play an important, but likely smaller role in the heavy‐duty truck and bus sector.
It should be noted that, after air transport, heavy‐duty trucks are the least efficient form of goods movement. As discussed in the next section, Other Transportation, rail and ocean‐based goods movement are more energy efficient modes than heavy‐duty trucks.
Other Transportation: Aviation, Rail, Watercraft, and Off‐Road Equipment
Although small relative to fuel use by passenger cars and heavy‐duty vehicles, energy consumed by the civil aviation, rail transportation, water‐borne equipment, and off‐road sectors is significant. Fuel consumption in these sectors accounts for about 10 percent of GHG emissions in the San Diego region and is primarily petroleum‐based.
As of 2007, the civil aviation sector (primarily comprised of flights and ground operations at San Diego International Airport) consumed about 210 million gallons of jet fuel, 28,000 gallons of aviation gasoline, and 53 million cubic feet of natural gas. International flights are not included in this analysis. Fuel use in this sector combined to account for about five percent of total GHG emissions in the region. The off‐road category is the next largest consumer of fuel in this sector (primarily gasoline and diesel), and accounted for about four percent of total GHG emissions. The largest fuel users in this category are construction and mining, industrial, pleasure craft, and agricultural.
The rail transportation category consumes diesel fuel for goods movement, the Coaster commuter rail line, and the Sprinter light‐rail line. The light‐rail San Diego Trolley is powered by electricity. The diesel consumption
30 accounts for about one percent of the region’s carbon footprint, while electricity to power the Trolley accounts for a very small amount of GHG emissions from the region’s electricity consumption. There are many types of water‐ borne navigation in the San Diego region, but the largest sources of fuel consumption are ocean going vessels (OGVs) and harbor craft at Port of San Diego marine terminals. It should be noted that in addition to rail, OGVs are the most efficient mode of goods movement. The majority of fuel use from OGVs is due to automobile shipments, refrigerated vessels, and passenger cruise ships, which primarily consume heavy fuel oil, but also use diesel fuel. The majority of harbor craft fuel use is due to commercial and charter fishing boats. Water‐borne navigation accounts for less than one percent of total GHG emissions. Without change in policy or behavior, fuel consumption from these sources is expected to increase to 2030 and continue to rely primarily on petroleum‐based fuels. However, the trend of decreasing aviation fuel consumption is projected to continue.
Regional Planning for Alternative Fuels and Vehicles
Siting alternative fueling stations, electric charging points, vehicle maintenance facilities, and other infrastructure in coordination with vehicle availability and purchases is of critical importance to a successful transition to alternative fuel vehicles in the on‐road transportation sector. Such coordination is needed to provide customers like fleet managers and the general public with a level of certainty that infrastructure will be available to support their investment in an alternative fuel passenger vehicle. Planning for truck stop electrification (TSE) and anti‐idling (AI) measures can help save energy from heavy‐duty trucks in the goods movement sector. Outfitting the region with electric charging points and alternative fuel infrastructure can also help attract private investment associated with alternative transportation to the region.
SANDAG is a logical entity for coordinating planning of alternative fuel infrastructure and identifying suitable locations for infrastructure. As a regional planning agency, SANDAG can ensure that alternative transportation considerations are integrated with development of the regional transportation network and recommend specific alternative fuel and vehicle technologies for different transportation sectors that are tailored to the unique characteristics of the region. In addition, SANDAG can facilitate vehicle and infrastructure deployment through actions such as development of a unified regional vision, identification of funding opportunities and coordination of funding applications, and development of standardized guidelines for infrastructure siting, permitting, and education. Please see SANDAG’s Draft Regional Alternative Fuels, Vehicles, and Infrastructure Report for a detailed assessment of alternative fuels, vehicles, and infrastructure and recommended actions for the San Diego region (the final report is anticipated in Fall 2009).
Recommended Actions:
General Create an action plan that incorporates alternative fuel vehicles and increased efficiency into the SANDAG vehicle fleet, and the vehicle and equipment fleets of contractors and funding recipients, such as the vehicle fleet for the vanpool program. Use the Regional Alternative Fuels, Vehicles, and Infrastructure Report and the Regional Energy Strategy Update as tools to support the integration of alternative transportation options into local government fleets, planned regional transportation projects, and future updates of the Regional Transportation Plan and the Regional Comprehensive Plan. Develop a regional approach to infrastructure planning for alternative fuels by facilitating continued development of a public‐private strategic alliance. Support regional efforts to educate the general public about the benefits of alternative fuels. Help local governments develop streamlined permitting requirements and standardized design for electric charging stations. Support regional production of alternative fuels, vehicles, and infrastructure. Help the region pursue and secure funding for increased deployment of alternative fuel vehicles and infrastructure. Support electricity and natural gas tariffs that encourage their use as transportation fuels.
31 Support state and federal legislation that can help the region increase availability of alternative fuels, vehicles, and infrastructure.
Passenger Cars and Light‐Duty Trucks Make plug‐in hybrids and electric vehicles the top priority for alternative fuel vehicle purchases. Where plug‐in hybrids or electric vehicles are not an option, purchase new CNG vehicles. Monitor the status of E85, propane, biodiesel, and hydrogen fuels and vehicle technologies and periodically re‐evaluate opportunities for regional deployment. Accelerate the transition to plug‐in hybrids and electric vehicles by developing a regional plan for the installation of a public access electric car charging network, as recommended in the Regional Alternative Fuels, Vehicles, and Infrastructure Report. Analyze the potential impacts of plug‐in hybrid and electric vehicle deployment on the electricity grid.
Heavy‐Duty Trucks and Buses Make natural gas, biodiesel blends up to B20, and hybrid technologies the top priority for heavy‐duty trucks. Improve efficiency and conserve energy in the heavy‐duty truck sector through measures like truck stop electrification and anti‐idling. Monitor the status of electric vehicles, hydrogen, and biodiesel blends greater than B20 and periodically re‐ evaluate opportunities for regional deployment. Coordinate with regional transit agencies and school districts to incorporate alternative fuels, vehicles, and infrastructure considerations into their bus fleets. Facilitate the transition to natural gas, B20, and electrification by developing a regional plan for public access infrastructure. In addition to improved efficiency and alternative fuels, support energy efficient alternatives to moving goods by heavy‐duty truck.
Other Transportation Support strategies to reduce jet fuel and natural gas consumption, including but not limited to lower‐carbon alternatives to jet fuel, provision of landside electric power to aircraft, more efficient movement of aircraft, electrification of airport ground support equipment, and shifting people and goods movement to more efficient travel modes like rail transportation. Support efficiency, electrification or use of alternative fuels to power off‐road vehicles and equipment. Support ocean going vessels as an efficient means of people and goods movement. Reduce fuel oil and diesel consumption in ocean going vessels through electrification and strategies to increase efficiency. Support rail transportation as an efficient mover of people and goods relative to on‐road transportation and aviation. Reduce diesel consumption from rail transportation through use of the most efficient diesel locomotive technology or electrification.
32 9 ‐ ‐ LLANDAND UUSESE AANDND TTRANSPORTATIONRANSPORTATION PPLANNINGLANNING
Goal: Reduce the energy demand of the built environment through land use and transportation planning.
Energy consumption is strongly related to urban form, the physical features and composition of the built environment in a region. The built environment is comprised of the building stock, land use pattern, transportation network, open space system, and distribution of other public facilities such as parks and schools. The energy demand of the built environment is strongly related to the design and orientation of buildings, distribution and density of development, types of transportation infrastructure, and the design of public facilities. Although there is considerable variation throughout the region, the existing built environment generally features segregation between land uses and transportation systems and urban design that favor the automobile over biking, walking, and public transit. To a large degree, these factors influence the amount of energy residents of the San Diego region consume in their daily lives. In fact, personal vehicle use (e.g., passenger cars; sport utility vehicles; pick‐up trucks), residential electricity use and natural gas consumption together account for about 56% of total GHG emissions in the region.
Figure 1: The Urban Heat Island Effect In addition, exposed urban surfaces like roofs and pavement absorb heat and cause surface and air temperature in developed areas to become warmer than undeveloped areas through a process known as the urban heat island effect (Figure 1). There are several negative impacts associated with urban heat islands, including increased energy demand for cooling during summer months, particularly during periods of peak electricity demand.
Source: United Environmental Protection Agency.
Local governments and SANDAG have the ability to influence the built environment, including the amount of energy consumed, through regulation, incentives, and infrastructure investments. In addition, local governments can contribute to regional energy goals for increased distributed generation and large scale renewable power by considering the spatial requirements of energy infrastructure in local land use plans, ranging from on‐site and distributed generation systems to utility‐scale renewables, power plants, substations and transmission lines. A local government’s approach to these issues may influence its character, energy demand, carbon footprint, and type of available energy sources.
A major objective of local land use and regional transportation planning is to identify the land and infrastructure needed to accommodate projected population, housing, and job growth while maintaining and enhancing quality of life. The San Diego region is forecast to grow by another million residents by 2030, about 30 percent more people than today. In the past, population growth has been associated with increased total electricity consumption, gasoline consumption, and vehicle miles traveled. The relationship among population growth, energy consumption and travel behavior will continue to follow past trends unless the region develops a new strategy for population growth and the built environment that addresses energy savings.
33 Existing Planning Efforts
Fortunately, SANDAG and the local jurisdictions, through a collaborative process, have already developed a strategy to accommodate projected growth based on the concept of smart growth. Under SANDAG’s adopted smart growth principles, smart growth opportunity areas are places that could accommodate higher residential and employment densities within pedestrian‐friendly activity centers connected to other activity centers by public transit. Essentially, smart growth seeks to reduce the amount of vehicle use. The Smart Growth Concept Map (Figure 2) illustrates the nearly 200 locations of existing, planned, and potential smart growth opportunity areas in seven place types reflecting the notion that smart growth is not a “one‐size‐fits‐all” concept. SANDAG provides funding for transportation and transportation‐related infrastructure improvements and planning efforts that support smart growth development through the TransNet Smart Growth Incentive Program.
The Regional Comprehensive Plan – the blueprint for the region’s growth – describes the importance of better integrating smart growth development with transportation planning. SANDAG develops the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and allocates funding to implement the long‐range vision for the regional transportation network. The adopted 2007 RTP is founded on four main components: (1) better integration of smart growth land use with the transportation system, (2) systems development including improvements to the highway, road, and public transportation systems, (3) systems management to make more efficient use of existing facilities and investments, and (4) demand management to encourage alternatives to driving alone and minimize demand during peak travel periods.
Broadening Planning Efforts to Address Energy
Energy savings is not an explicit objective of regional land use and transportation planning. However, the region’s adopted smart growth strategy and existing transportation investments in areas like public transportation and demand management promote a less energy‐intensive built environment. These energy implications of the smart growth strategy and transportation plan should be acknowledged, as should land use and transportation strategies that do not save energy. Moreover, the region could more broadly address energy demand, supply, and infrastructure issues by broadening the definition of smart growth to include all energy strategies. Increasing onsite production of renewable energy, using distributed electricity generation, orienting residences in relation to the sun, increasing shading, incorporating roofs and pavements that reflect heat, producing food locally, and installing energy‐efficient appliances are some of the non‐transportation related strategies that would fall under a broader definition of smart growth and produce significant energy savings. Smart community strategies – deployment of information technology to change how a community uses its physical space – may also reduce the energy demand of the built environment by reducing the amount of vehicle travel, for example.
A review of the region’s existing strategies against the following general characteristics of low‐energy demand built environments (at a minimum) would ensure that energy considerations are more fully integrated into the region’s smart growth land use and transportation planning:
1. Building stock featuring energy efficiency, distributed generation, and solar orientation; 2. Compact land use pattern with convenient access to a mixture of land uses and a person’s daily needs; 3. Infrastructure supporting energy efficient transportation choices like walking, bicycling, and public transit as well as alternative fuel vehicles; 4. Public realm designed to reduce urban heat island effect (e.g., increased tree and vegetative cover; cool pavements) and convey a scale and character that supports convenient access and energy efficient transportation choices; 5. Smart community strategies that deploy information technology to change how a community uses its physical space to save energy (e.g., telecommuting to avoid vehicle trips); and 6. Consideration of spatial requirements of small‐ and large‐scale energy infrastructure.
34 Figure 2: Smart Growth Concept Map
35 Since the existing built environment is the result of several decades of land use development and transportation investments, reducing its energy demand will likely be incremental in the near‐term. However, by 2030, land use and transportation planning decisions made to accommodate future growth can have a large impact on the amount of energy consumed, the distribution of land uses, access to destinations, the design of the public realm, and how people travel. The evolution of the built environment will not only affect achievement of energy and climate change goals, but the region’s ability to maintain and enhance residents’ quality of life through co‐benefits like improved public health and air quality. The region can lower the energy demand of the built environment through continued smart growth development, increased energy efficiency and distributed generation, improved urban design, and transportation planning and investments that reduce energy consumption.
Finally, it is important to note that the increased support for walking, bicycling, and public transit as well as shorter vehicle trips associated with a low‐energy demand built environment will help lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from passenger cars and light‐duty trucks. SANDAG’s requirement under state law to achieve GHG emission reduction targets from passenger cars and light‐duty trucks in the next update of the RTP through integrated land use and transportation planning will be discussed in greater detail in the Regional Climate Action Plan.
Recommended Actions:
Local governments should participate in SANDAG’s Sustainable Region Program and Energy Roadmap Initiative that identify ways to integrate energy considerations into local planning tools, codes, and ordinances such as the General Plan, zoning ordinance, and building code. Support adoption of local building energy codes beyond the current Title 24 and other measures that help meet a goal of zero net energy homes by 2020 and zero net energy commercial buildings by 2030. Continue to encourage and help local governments incorporate Potential Smart Growth Opportunity Areas into adopted land use plans. Support a low‐energy demand built environment, energy efficient transportation choices, and alternative fuel vehicles in future updates of the Regional Transportation Plan, including, to the extent applicable, the Sustainable Communities Strategy required by Senate Bill 375. Support further integration of energy considerations for the built environment in future updates of the Regional Comprehensive Plan. Explore opportunities to support one or more demonstration projects in the region that exemplify adopted smart growth principles along with comprehensive energy saving strategies. Include comprehensive estimates of energy consumption and GHG emissions for land use and transportation planning scenarios at the regional and local level.
36 10 ‐ ‐ EENERGYNERGY AANDND BBORDERSORDERS
Goal: Integrate energy considerations into existing and future collaborative border initiatives.
Energy supply, usage, and conservation in the San Diego region are impacted by actions of its neighbors and vice versa. San Diego County borders include Orange, Riverside and Imperial Counties, Mexico, and 17 tribal governments2 (the most in any county of the US). Collaborative efforts are underway among SANDAG, its member agencies and its neighbors on various issues including transportation congestion management and goods movement. SANDAG and its member agencies can take steps to further integrate energy considerations into its border planning activities as the region strives to diversify its fuel sources, expand renewable energy resources, and address environmental and climate‐related pollutants from transportation. The region cannot be successful in any of these areas without the involvement of our neighbors. Through its Borders Committee, SANDAG addresses policy issues related to transboundary planning from three perspectives—tribal, interregional, and binational.
Tribal Governments
The tribal governments in San Diego County and SANDAG are working together to develop and implement innovative government‐to‐government strategies to address transportation and other regional planning issues. Existing tribal coordination includes goals, policy objectives and actions focused on improving communication and collaboration with tribal governments in areas of regional importance such as economic development, transportation, housing and water supply. Energy can be integrated into these discussions in terms of transportation fuels, mobility choices, efficient building design and retrofits, renewable energy development, and water‐energy issues.
Interregional Coordination
During the 1990s, the San Diego region's average annual population growth rate paralleled the national average. However, the rates in Orange, Riverside, and Imperial Counties were substantially higher. Through interregional coordination, neighboring councils of government and transportation planning agencies have begun to develop collaborative strategies in economic development, transportation, and housing that will improve the quality of life for residents in each county by reducing the impacts of interregional commuting, creating more jobs in housing‐ rich areas and more housing in jobs‐rich areas. SANDAG and its member agencies can foster the integration of energy considerations into existing interregional efforts, like the voluntary partnership between Western Riverside and San Diego region centered on the two‐county commute corridor along the Interstate 15.
Binational Coordination
Given San Diego’s unique position as an international gateway, binational coordination already exists to address economic development, homeland security and other pressing cross‐border issues. In 2008, SANDAG hosted its annual binational event in which participants met to discuss smart growth issues, including climate change. This year’s binational event was held in June 2009 and focused solely on climate change initiatives on both sides of the border, as well as exploring opportunities to share information and work together to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Continued coordination between California and Baja California can help identify common issues, interdependencies and policies and actions to address energy planning and infrastructure on both sides of the border.
2 Federally‐recognized tribal nations in San Diego County: Barona Band of Mission Indians, Campo Kumeyaay Nation, Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians, Inaja‐Cosmit Band of Mission Indians, Jamul Indian Village, A Kumeyaay Nation, La Jolla Band of Luiseño Indians, La Posta Band of the Kumeyaay Nation, Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla/Cupeño Indians, Manzanita Band of the Kumeyaay Indians, Mesa Grande Band of Mission Indians, Pala Band of Mission Indians, Pauma‐Yuima Band of Luiseño Indians, Rincon Luiseño Band of Indians, San Pasqual Band of Diegueño, Mission Indians of California, Santa Ysabel Band of Diegueno Indians, Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation, Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians.
37 Recommended Actions:
Encourage regional coordination on energy and climate related issues in the border region that come within the purview of SANDAG, the Borders Committee, the Committee on Binational Regional Opportunities (COBRO), and the Regional Energy Working Group. Collaborate with entities seeking funding opportunities that promote binational, tribal and interregional energy efficiency programs for buildings, planning, infrastructure and transportation. Support the integration of energy‐saving measures for buildings, transportation and overall project design for the development of the new Port of Entry at Otay Mesa East. Support measures including greater transit, pedestrian, and bicycle access that can reduce congestion and vehicle idling at the Ports of Entry between San Diego, California and Baja California, Mexico. Support measures that reduce the petroleum use and greenhouse gas emissions from heavy duty vehicles associated with goods movement across our borders. Explore energy saving measures on both sides of the international border that relieve stress on the shared regional electricity system. Monitor and evaluate regional natural gas storage and pipeline capacity to accommodate future demand.
38 11‐‐ CCLEANLEAN EENERGYNERGY EECONOMYCONOMY
Goal: Collaborate with workforce entities, employers, and labor unions to identify and expand local job placement mechanisms in the Clean Energy Sector.
According to the California Economic Strategy Panel, green products and practices, including those in the Clean Energy Sector, can be found in the same industries as conventional products and practices. As such, an economic analysis of the type and amount of clean energy jobs and investment based primarily on tracking business and employment growth by industry is difficult to quantify. The following types of industries and jobs comprise the Clean Energy Sector:
Source: Political Economy Research Institute, University of Massachusetts‐Amherst, 2008
Clean Energy Sector jobs are defined as blue or white collar positions that: Preserve, restore, or improve the environment; Help save energy, advance new energy efficient technologies, or foster a more sustainable regional and national energy system; Have been updated to adopt sustainability as a core segment of the job description; and Provide career pathway opportunities leading to sufficient income to support a household and potential for advancement.
Opportunities and advantages to the Region from expanding the Clean Energy Sector: Creating new jobs or retraining the unemployed and under‐employed in a time of economic downturn; Providing opportunities for career advancement in the sustainability fields; Reducing our dependence on foreign oil, and strengthening national security; Promoting the use of domestic renewable energy resources; Reducing high utility costs of energy‐inefficient public buildings and public housing; and Mitigating climate change by cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
Through 2019, significant investment will be injected into the Clean Energy Sector through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. Nationally, ARRA will provide $787 billion of stimulus funding, with most made available in 2009‐2011. As of June 2009, energy‐related allocations to California are listed in the table below.
39 California ARRA Energy Funding as of June 2009 Program Agency(s) Allocation State Energy Program California Energy Commission $ 226 million Energy Efficiency and Conservation U.S. Dept. of Energy and California Energy $ 352 million Block Grants Commission Weatherization Assistance Program CA Dept. of Community Services & Development $ 185 million Science Department of Energy $ 184 million Environmental Management Department of Energy $ 62 million Biomass Department of Energy $ 111 million
Investment in the Clean Energy Sector Growing Even without ARRA funds, the Clean Energy Sector is expected to grow. Clean Edge, which tracks the growth of clean‐tech markets, reports that global revenues for solar photovoltaics, wind power, and biofuels expanded from $75.8 billion in 2007 to $115.9 billion in 2008, an increase of about 53 percent.
Clean Edge’s 2009 energy trends study identified a 30 percent growth of clean energy venture capital investments as a percentage of total venture capital investments in US‐based companies from 2007 (9.1 percent) to 2008 (11.8 percent). In 2000, clean energy venture capital comprised only 0.6 percent of the total.
Job Creation by Clean Energy Sector The influx of federal stimulus funding creates the potential for significant growth in Clean Energy Sector. Various levels of job creation are identified in economic studies from the US Environmental Protection Agency, American Council for an Energy‐Efficient Economy (ACEEE), American Solar Energy Society (ASES), US Council of Mayors, University of California Berkeley, among others. In 2008, a comprehensive analysis of national energy efficiency and energy supply investments by ACEEE found that since 1970, energy efficiency and energy productivity gains have met 75 percent of new energy service demands in the U.S., while new energy supplies contributed 25 percent.
Summary of U.S. Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Industries in 2006 Industry Revenues Direct Jobs Total Jobs Created (direct plus indirect) Renewable Energy $39.2 billion 196,000 452,000 Energy Efficiency $932.6 billion 3,498,000 8,046,000 Total $971.8 billion 3,694,000 8,498,000 Source: Bezdek, Management Information Services, Inc. for ASES, 2007
Building Retrofit and Green Construction Generally, green construction, retrofit, and conventional construction projects are bid and worked on by similar contractors. In construction, some of the differences between green and conventional renovations are the composition of materials used in the process, where and how the materials are produced and how waste is addressed. Continual training and continuing education programs can provide the knowledge needed about green construction for contractors, architects, inspectors, permitters, and marketers that communicate with customers.
40
Renewable Energy and SMART Grid Workers Similar to construction, many workers in renewable energy fall under the classifications of the traditional construction trades. Increasing demand for energy efficiency and renewable energy systems can be expected to generate new employment opportunities for electricians, HVAC technicians, carpenters, inspectors and permitters, plumbers, roofers, laborers, and insulation workers, among others. Comprehensive home and commercial building programs also would increase demand for green building materials, and would stimulate associated manufacturing industries. Training and retraining of existing workers is integral to expanding the region’s clean energy sector.
Manufacturing Investment Job Creation $1 million in renewable energy systems 5 full time employment component manufacturing jobs $1 million in energy efficiency programs 3‐4 building material manufacturing jobs 5 energy efficient appliance manufacturing jobs 1 direct manufacturing job 2.9 indirect jobs (finance, transportation, supply chains, installers, and other related businesses) (EPI 2003) Sources: Apollo Alliance Green Manufacturing Action Plan, 2009, Economic Policy Institute
Clean Transportation (including transit and biofuels) Continuing and rapid changes in transportation technology to improve vehicle or system operation efficiency, to switch from petroleum based to alternative fuels, to reduce environmental emissions, and to effectively integrate transportation systems have also resulted in major changes in skill requirements. Some of these skills are enhancements of existing ones; however there is a substantial difference between working on a diesel powered vehicle and one powered by natural gas. Hybrid vehicles require advanced electrical training and biodiesel, a good working knowledge of chemistry. Training and retraining of existing workers is critical to reducing petroleum use and limiting adverse environmental emissions.
Regional Clean Energy Job Development Opportunities Leverage state and federal resources such as California’s Green Collar Jobs Council (formed by passage of Assembly Bill (AB) 3018) and Clean Energy Workforce Training Partnership, which was formed to best utilize ARRA funding to stimulate quality job growth.
The Green Jobs Guidebook prepared by the Environmental Defense Fund provides detailed job descriptions for renewable energy and energy efficiency related jobs in California for employment year 2008‐2009. Links to apprenticeship programs and job placement programs are included.
Recommended Actions:
Promote the integration of Clean Energy Sector initiatives into existing workforce systems. Foster the development and implementation of clean energy workforce training programs amongst the region’s private and governmental organizations and labor unions. Collaborate with universities, community and technical colleges, high schools, Workforce Investment Boards (WIBs), community‐based organizations, and economic development agencies to bring funds to the region and support pathways to provide technical training, and integrate students and newly trained workers into the local workforce. o Support apprenticeships, internships, and/or job shadowing with labor unions, government organizations, and private companies o Support continual technical (re)training of existing workforce to maintain jobs as new technologies and methods change Collaborate with regional economists to develop mechanism to start tracking level of clean energy investment and jobs in the San Diego region.
41 12 ‐ ‐ EENERGYNERGY AANDND CCLIMATELIMATE CCHANGEHANGE
Goal: Transition to energy sources and consumption levels that will put the region on a path to achieve the 2050 emissions level for climate stabilization.
The type and amount of energy used in the San Diego region is the overwhelming source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that cause climate change. Table 1 shows emissions in the four principal categories established by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Table 1: San Diego County GHG Emissions by IPCC Category Intergovernmental Panel on Percentage of Total Climate Change Category Greenhouse Gas Emissions Energy 91% Industrial (non‐fuel) 5% Waste 2% Agriculture, Forestry, Land Use 2% Source: Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego, 2008.
Although a myriad of energy‐consuming activities are responsible for GHG emissions in the region, about 80 percent of emissions are caused by three categories: on‐road transportation (i.e., passenger cars, light‐duty trucks, electricity generation, and heavy‐duty vehicles); electricity generation; and natural gas end uses (Figure 1). The largest emissions category is on‐road transportation, which accounts for nearly half of emissions (47 percent). Moreover, energy consumed by passenger cars and light‐duty vehicles (pick‐up trucks, sport utility vehicles), primarily gasoline for personal transportation, accounts for about 89 percent of on‐road transportation emissions, and about 41 percent of total emissions in the region.
Figure 1: Summary of Greenhouse Gas Emissions by End‐Use Category
Electricity 25% Industrial 5% Natural gas end uses 8% Other 4%
Agriculture‐Waste Wildfire‐Land Use 3% Passenger Cars Off‐road equipment 18% & vehicles 4% Civil aviation & Rail 6%
Heavy‐duty Vehicles 6% Light‐Duty Trucks 23%
Source: Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego, 2008. www.sandiego.edu/epic
GHG emissions can also be analyzed by economic sector. As shown in Figure 2, the residential sector (i.e., passengers cars, light‐duty trucks, electricity and natural gas consumption) accounts for more than half (56 percent) of all regional emissions. This indicates that energy used by residents move around the region and how they consume energy at home are significant contributors to regional GHG emissions.
42 Figure 2: Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Economic Sector
Source: Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego, 2008.
Regional Greenhouse Gas Emissions Projections
Under a business‐as‐usual scenario in which current energy use trends and policies do not change, GHG emissions in the region will be approximately 43 MMT CO2E in 2020, approximately 26% greater than the 2006 level and 48% higher than the 1990 level. Emissions would be even greater in 2030 under a business‐as‐usual scenario. The projected increases in energy consumption and GHG emissions for on‐road transportation, natural gas and electricity are provided below in Figures 3‐8.
Figure 3: Projected On‐road Fuel Consumption, 2007‐2020
Source: Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego, 2008.
43 Figure 4: Projected Greenhouse Gas Emissions from On‐road Consumption, 1990‐2020
Source: Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego, 2008.
Figure 5: Projected Natural Gas Consumption, 2007‐2030
800.00 Agricultural 600.00 Mining 400.00 Industrial 200.00 Commercial 0.00 Residential 2007 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Source: Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego, 2008.
Figure 6: Projected Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Natural Gas Consumption, 1990‐2030 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 MMTCO2E 1.00 0.00 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Source: Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego, 2008.
44 Figure 7: Projected Electricity Consumption (Gigawatt‐hours), 2007‐2030
25,000 Street lighting 20,000 Mining 15,000 Agricultural 10,000 Industrial 5,000 TCU 0 Commercial 2007 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Residential
Source: Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego, 2008.
Figure 8: Projected Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Electricity Consumption, 1990‐2030 15.0
10.0
5.0 MMTCO2E
‐ 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Source: Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego, 2008.
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets
The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2005 (Assembly Bill 32, Statutes of 2006) requires GHG emissions to be reduced to the 1990 level by 2020; about 15 percent below current levels. In addition, Executive Order S‐3‐ 05 establishes a long‐term goal for GHG emissions equal to 80 percent below the 1990 level by 2050. Although not required by statute, the 2050 target is based on the level of emissions reduction required for climate stabilization and used as the long‐term driver for state policy development.
Although the state does not set reduction targets for specific geographic region of the state, the theoretical emissions reductions necessary to reduce emissions to the 2020 and 2050 targets illustrates the magnitude of change the region needs to make over the next four decades (Figure 9). It should be noted that deep cuts in GHG emissions must occur during a period of projected growth in population and economic output.
Figure 9: Theoretical Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Targets for the San Diego Region
Source: Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego, 2008.
45 The Regional Energy Strategy Approach to Climate Change
Achieving the 2020 target will likely focus efforts to use energy more efficiently, while the 2050 target for GHG emission reductions will require fundamental change in how we use energy. Fortunately, we have already started on a path to a cleaner and more energy efficient future. The Regional Energy Strategy identifies recommended actions that build on existing efforts to start the region on a long‐term path to do its part for climate stabilization.
Strategies for On‐Road Transportation
The three primary strategies for reducing GHG emissions from fuel use in the on‐road transportation sector are to: (1) improve vehicle fuel efficiency, (2) reduce the carbon content of transportation fuels, and (3) better integrate land use patterns and transportation infrastructure through improved planning.
The State has adopted the Light‐Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Standards and Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) to improve vehicle fuel efficiency and increase the availability and diversity of low‐carbon fuels, respectively. Section 8, Transportation Fuels, identifies how the region can contribute to the deployment of low‐carbon alternative fuels, vehicles, and infrastructure to local governments and the general public. Senate Bill 375 (Statutes of 2008) requires metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) such as SANDAG to achieve GHG emissions reduction targets from passenger cars and light‐duty trucks through improved land use and transportation planning. Section 9, Land Use and Transportation Planning, describes how the region can reduce energy consumption from passenger cars and light‐duty trucks through improved land use and transportation planning. A major focus is on the need for land use planning and transportation investments to support energy efficient transportation choices like walking, bicycling, and public transit as well as shorter vehicle trips.
Strategies for Electricity Generation and Natural Gas End Uses
The primary strategies for reducing GHG emissions from electricity generation and natural gas end use are increasing energy efficiency and reducing the carbon intensity of electricity supplies.
Energy Efficiency Energy efficiency measures for both electricity and natural gas can significantly reduce GHG emissions. The primary focus is on improving energy efficiency for both existing building stock and new construction. In particular, the existing building stock presents a significant opportunity to achieve major improvements in energy efficiency. Much of the region’s building stock is already on the ground, and substantial new building stock will be added between now and 2030. Buildings typically have a lifespan of several decades. As a result, it is important to reduce emissions from both the existing building stock and new construction.
The strategies to improve building energy efficiency include Zero Net Energy (ZNE) buildings, voluntary and mandatory measures to achieve energy efficiency beyond minimum requirements for new construction, voluntary and mandatory energy‐saving retrofits for existing buildings, and improved compliance and enforcement of energy efficiency standards. Increased installation of high efficiency technologies like solar hot water heaters and cogeneration systems are additional strategies to offset natural gas use and meet energy needs more efficiently. And finally, funding and financing strategies are essential to successfully increasing energy efficiency and reducing GHG emissions from the region’s building stock. For more on Energy Efficiency, please refer to Section 1.
Carbon Intensity of Energy Supplies In addition to improved energy efficiency, reducing GHG emissions from electricity and natural gas requires the increased installation of renewable energy sources, including renewable onsite power systems such as photovoltaic solar panels and utility‐scale electricity projects taking advantage of solar and wind resources. Clean, nonrenewable onsite power systems and the most efficient, state‐of‐the‐art utility‐scale natural gas plants also are needed to reduce the GHG intensity of the region’s energy supply. Please see Section 2 for more discussion of regional goals and actions related to renewable energy. Natural gas is discussed in Section 7.
46 Although resources like biomass, geothermal, and small‐scale hydroelectric generation can provide baseload power, other renewable resources are intermittent (wind) or variable over time (solar). As a result, integration of intermittent generation into the electricity system will require grid improvements to accommodate the variation in power availability and improve grid reliability such as improved communications technology, automated demand response, and other modern technologies. Recommended actions to improve demand response and implement the smart grid are discussed in sections 5, Peak Demand, and 6, The Smart Grid, respectively.
Energy‐Water‐Climate Change Connection
In the San Diego region, water and energy resources – and therefore climate change – are closely connected. Water utilities use large amounts of energy to pump, treat, deliver and recycle water, while residents and businesses use energy to heat, cool, and use the water. Energy also is used to dispose of wastewater and power the large pumps that move water throughout the state. GHG‐emitting fossil fuels are the primary source of the embedded energy in water. As of 2005, water‐related energy use consumes 19 percent of the state’s electricity, 30 percent of its non‐electricity generation natural gas consumption, and 88 million gallons of diesel fuel every year. Moreover, water demand continues to grow. End‐uses, like landscape irrigation and clothes washing, are the highest amount of water‐related energy use. On the other hand, water providers have the opportunity to offset their energy consumption and even contribute to regional goals for renewable electricity by generating hydroelectric power through pumped storage projects, or onsite generation of renewable electricity.
Historically, the energy implications of water decisions were not typically considered. Water sources were chosen without consideration of the energy costs; conversely, energy savings were not associated with water conservation and efficiency measures. However, understanding of the nexus between water and energy is beginning to grow. The region can build off this understanding to take actions that save energy and water resources: reducing the energy intensity of water supply and uses will reduce the region’s contribution to climate change while using less water will help the region adapt to the reduction in water supply anticipated from climate change. Integrating energy considerations into water planning also can save money and strengthen the economy. California water and wastewater agencies spend more than $500 million annually on energy costs. Recommended actions are provided in Section 4, Energy and Water.
The Effect of Climate Change on Energy Consumption
Environmental changes caused by climate change also will impact energy production. In the San Diego region and statewide, climate change is projected to increase the risk of drought or water shortages during summer months. In addition, winter runoff may increase and increase risk of flooding. As a result, hydroelectric power generation may be adversely affected. Lower runoff flows would decrease hydropower generation while higher flows often must be spilled past dams without generating any electricity. Lost hydropower generation would have to be replaced with electricity generated from renewable sources, or else GHG emissions from electricity generation would increase.
In addition, increased average temperatures and longer and more extreme heat events associated with climate change are expected to increase peak demand for electricity. In many cases, relatively inefficient and high GHG‐ emitting “peaker plants” are utilized to meet peak demand. As a result, demand response strategies will become an even more important part of the region’s energy strategy as a result of climate change.
Conclusion
The goals and recommended actions of the Regional Energy Strategy described above will help the region meet its energy needs while beginning and making substantial progress on a path to clean, low carbon energy future. Please refer to SANDAG’s Regional Climate Action Plan for more details on the region’s response to global climate change.
47 San Diego Association of Governments REGIONAL PLANNING COMMITTEE
July 31, 2009 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 8
Action Requested: DISCUSSION
STIMULUS FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES FROM U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION File Number 3200300
Introduction
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) (federal stimulus bill) included several new or enhanced sources of funding related to energy. Programs, projects, or planning dollars are being made available in the areas of transportation energy, energy efficiency, renewable energy, green-job workforce training, and education. Staff will present an overview of upcoming opportunities and discuss a time-sensitive regional clean fuels proposal that SANDAG submitted on behalf of a regional coalition. The Regional Planning Committee is asked to provide input regarding energy-related grant opportunities and express its level of interest in SANDAG undertaking regional efforts for stimulus dollars.
Discussion
SANDAG, as part of a regional coalition, submitted a $15 million grant application ($30 million project cost) on clean fuels to the Department of Energy on May 27, 2009, and California Energy Commission (Energy Commission) on June 10, 2009.
The regional coalition included: Air Pollution Control District Clean Energy University of California, San Diego San Diego County Regional Airport San Diego Gas and Electric Authority Nissan North America Cloud 9 Super Shuttle Waste Management Access Shuttle Services Chula Vista Elementary School District Coronado Livery Education Collaborative: San Diego Regional Clean Cities Coalition (Clean Fuels Coalition), California Center for Sustainable Energy, Miramar College Alternative Transportation Center, San Diego Unified Schools, and San Diego EcoCenter.
Attachment 1 provides a summary by the Energy Commission of energy-related funding opportunities in ARRA as of July 16, 2009. The Alternative Fueled Vehicles Program that SANDAG applied to is referenced on page 3 of that document. Notice of awards is expected in August or September 2009.
Additional solicitations from federal and state energy programs have been, or are expected to be, released that individual local governments, SANDAG, or a regional team could apply for in 2009 (Attachment 2).
BOB LEITER Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning
Attachments: 1. HR 1 ARRA: Energy-Related Funding Summary 2. Energy-Related Funding Summary for Federal and State Programs
Key Staff Contact: Susan Freedman, (619) 699-7387, [email protected]
2 Attachment 1
HR 1 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ENERGY-RELATED FUNDING SUMMARY Updated July 16, 2009
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION • www.energy.ca.gov/recovery Energy and Climate Programs
National Total $52,477,000,000 California Share (AS OF JULY 16, 2009) $1,587,212,344 (Direct Allocations and Competitives)
Energy Efficiency & Conservation been authorized $49.6 million and will make 60 percent of these funds ($29.7 million) available to small cities Block Grant Program and counties through a grant program. The remaining 40 DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy percent can be expended at the Energy Commission’s dis- cretion for Energy Independence Security Act-related (eisa) National Total $3,200,000,000 activities. The doe criteria for individual cities and counties (Includes $400 million to be awarded on a competitive basis) block grants and the program guidelines for large cities and California Share $351,658,900 counties are available at: (Total California award) [ www.energy.ca.gov/recovery/blockgrant.html ] $49,600,000 (Energy Commission allocation)
PROGRAM COMMENTS State Energy Program These Block Grants go to states, local government and DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy tribal government to support the development of energy efficiency and conservation strategies and programs, National Total $3,100,000,000 including energy audit programs and projects to install California Share $226,093,000 renewable energy projects at government buildings. (Energy Commission allocation)
STATUS PROGRAM COMMENTS July 8,2009: Preliminary EECBG Guidelines available for The California Energy Commission was authorized for $226 public discussion and review. Available at [http://energy. million on March 12, 2009, to support various programs in ca.gov/recovery/blockgrant.html] residential, commercial, transportation, industrial, institu- tional, and agricultural energy efficiency in renewable energy June 25,2009: California Energy Commission filed applica- research and deployment and in transmission planning. tion to doe. [http://energy.ca.gov/recovery/blockgrant. html] Public statewide workshops to discuss preliminary guidelines scheduled for July 14 - 16, 2009. State applica- STATUS tion process not available yet. Sign up on List Serve for July 16,2009: Preliminary SEP Guidelines available for announcements. [www.energy.ca.gov/recovery/blockgrant. public discussion and review. Public workshops scheduled html] for July28, 29 and 31, 2009. Information and Preliminary Guidelines available at [http://energy.ca.gov/recovery/block- March 26, 2009: California’s local governments were autho- grant.html] rized for $351.5 million to use for projects and programs to reduce total energy use. About $302 million will go directly June 25,2009: doe awards California 40 percent ($90.4 to large cities and counties. Interested parties are encour- million) of the allocation for a statewide effort to leverage aged to contact their local city or county for ways to partner funds for an energy efficiency retrofit program and cost for the Block Grant funding. The Energy Commission has (continued on next page)
www.energy.ca.gov/recovery/documents/funding_summary.pdf 1 3 (continued from previous page) Smart Grid DOE Office of Electricity Delivery and Reliability effective clean energy systems for residential, commercial and industrial buildings and facilities. The program will National Total $4,500,000,000 also invest in green workforce training, creating more jobs focused on energy efficiency and clean energy sources California Share $5,250,000 including solar and wind. California initially was allocated PROGRAM COMMENTS (but has not yet received) 10% of the $226 million to sup- The Smart Grid Investment Program will provide grants up port SEP planning activities. After demonstrating success- to $200 million to support research and development of ful implementation of its plan, the state will receive the smart grids and regional, utility-scale energy storage and remaining funding, for a total of $226 million for the entire synchrophaser demonstrations. Proposed 50% cost match program. The California Energy Commission is developing for private smart grid demonstration projects. Eligible appli- the SEP guidelines and will present the draft guidelines in cants include electric utilities, companies that distribute or July public workshops. State application process not avail- sell electricity and appliance and equipment manufacturers. able yet May 5,2009: California Energy Commission filed application STATUS to doe. [www.energy.ca.gov/recovery/sep.html] June 25, 2009: doe issued the final Funding Oppor- State application process not available yet. tunity Notices for $3.9 billion to invest in Smart Grid March 12, 2009: State Energy Program monies allocated and transmission technologies: Smart Grid Investment by the Department of Energy (doe) to the states. Federal (de-foa-0000058) and Smart Grid Demonstrations(de- guidelines available at foa-0000036). [www.energy.gov/recovery/funding.htm] [www.energy.ca.gov/recovery/sep.html]. Application from June 15, 2009: doe issued several arra-related funding California to the doe due May 12, 2009. announcements including $60 million for six cooperative agreement awards for regional and interconnection trans- mission analysis and planning (de-foa-0000068). Applica- Advanced Battery Manufacturing tions due August 14; $20 million direct award for transmis- sion and demand analysis by doe’s national laboratories Research and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation; DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy $46 million direct allocation to states for grants to support state public utility commissions to oversee new electricity National Total $2,000,000,000 projects (de-foa-0000100). The California Public Utilities California Share Competitive Commission was allocated over $1.68 million. Applications due August 31; $39.5 million direct allocation to states to PROGRAM COMMENTS support energy assurance capabilities for states improving Competitive grants for advanced battery research, develop- emergency preparedness plans and ensuring resiliency of ment, demonstration and deployment to support next- electrical grid (de-foa-0000091). The California Energy generation plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (phev) and their Commission was allocated $3.57 million. Applications due advanced battery components. Of the $2 billion, $1.5 billion July 30. [ www.energy.gov/recovery/funding.htm ] will go to U.S. manufacturers to produce high-efficiency April 16, 2009: Notice of Intention (noi) was re-issued batteries and their components; $500 million for u.s. with a draft Funding Opportunity Announcement for manufacturers to produce other components for electric Smart Grid Demonstrations. Comments due to doe on vehicles, such as electric motors. Purchasers of plug-in May 6, 2009. Final solicitation notice expected late spring hybrids will be able to claim a tax credit of up to $7,500. or early summer.
STATUS March 19, 2009: doe solicitation (DE-FOA-0000026) for Electric Drive Vehicle Battery and Component Manufactur- ing Initiative released. Due May 19, 2009.
www.energy.ca.gov/recovery/documents/funding_summary.pdf 2 4 Diesel Emissions Reduction Act tion assistance for homes that were weatherized as recently as 1994. A list of energy service providers that perform U.S. Environmental Protection Agency weatherization assistance services is available at: [www.csd.ca.gov/programs/energy%20service%20 National Total $300,000,000 providers.aspx] California Share Competitive Information on any solicitations are available at: [ www.energy.gov/recovery/funding.htm ] PROGRAM COMMENTS Diesel truck and equipment owners can retrofit or replace equipment, and replace school buses, marine engines and STATUS locomotives. arra increases funding for an existing program June 18, 2009: DOE awarded California $74.3 million to through the u.s.epa’s National Clean Diesel Funding leverage a network of over 50 non-profits, local govern- Assistance Program. Funding split 70% (National) and ments and community action groups to perform weather- 30% (State). National program ($206 million) is allocated ization services to over 50,000 homes. After demonstrating among three national programs areas. State program fund- successful implementation of this program, California will ing is $88 million. receive the remaining $92 million in funding. Information on any solicitations are available at: May 12, 2009: csd submitted the state’s plan to doe. [ www.energy.gov/recovery/funding.htm ] Anticipated that doe will approve plan and issue 40% of the funds by July 12, 2009. csd to issue local assistance contracts by July 12, 2009. STATUS Solicitations Released (EPA-ARRA-OAR-OTAQ-09-06, March 12, 2009: doe authorized weatherization assistance EPA-ARRA-OAR-OTAQ-09-05 and EPA-ARRA-OAR- monies to states. OTAQ-09-04): Applications requesting u.s.epa funding be- tween $500,000 to $10 million will be accepted for Region 9 (includes California). Application deadlines vary between April 28 – May 5, depending on program. Alternative Fueled Vehicles Program (Clean Cities) DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Energy Weatherization Assistance National Total $300,000,000 Program California Share Competitive DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
PROGRAM COMMENTS National Total $5,000,000,000 Competitive grant program for state and local governments California Share $185,811,061 to purchase alternative fuel vehicles and infrastructure. (Department of Community Services & Development allocation) Authorized under Section 721 of the epact of 2005. Antici- pated award size is $5 million minimum to $15 million maxi- PROGRAM COMMENTS mum for Alternative Fuel & Advanced Technology Vehicles Funds are distributed to states through the existing doe Pilot Program (Program Funding Area of Interest – 4). Weatherization Assistance Program formula to provide additional free installation of weatherization measures that increase the energy efficiency of dwellings occupied by low- STATUS income persons. Administered by the California Depart- March 10, 2009: Alternative Fuel and Advanced Technology ment of Community Services & Development (csd). Vehicles Pilot Program solicitation released (DE-PS26- [ www.csd.ca.gov/recovery/recovery.aspx ] 09NT01236-00). Applications to doe due May 29, 2009 (Round 1) and Sept 30, 2009 (Round 2). DOE anticipates Client eligibility is increased to 200 percent of the federal notifying Round 1 applicants by August 2009 with awards poverty level and the dwelling assistance cap would be in- by September 2009. Round 2 applicants will be notified by creased from $2,500 to $6,500 and allows new weatheriza- December 2009 with awards by 2010.
www.energy.ca.gov/recovery/documents/funding_summary.pdf 3 5 Energy Efficient Appliance Transportation Electrification Rebate Program & Energy Star ® DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Recovery Funding National Total $400,000,000 DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy California Share Competitive National Total $300,000,000 PROGRAM COMMENTS California Share Competitive Funds could be used by ports for portside electric power for ships and electrification of drayage trucks, truck-stop PROGRAM COMMENTS electrification, and airport support equipment electrifica- States may receive funding if they have a rebate program for tion. Includes plug-in electric drive program as authorized ® Energy Star products and submit an application to doe. in Section 131 of the eisa. Recipients will likely be states, local governments, port authorities, and metropolitan STATUS transportation authorities. July 16, 2009:: doe allocated $35.2 million to California for a rebate for consumer purchases of new ENERGY STAR STATUS qualified home appliances. The Energy Commission will March 19, 2009: doe solicitation for Transportation Electri- administer this program and must submit the state’s final fication released (DE-FOA-0000028). Applications todoe program design plan to DOE by October 15, 2009. For due May 13, 2009. [www.energy.gov/recovery/funding.htm] more information go to [http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/ daily.cfm/hp_news_id=178] Renewable Energy Loan General Services Administration Guarantees (GSA) Federal Buildings & DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Vehicle Fleet National Total $6,000,000,000 National Total $5,000,000,000 California Share Competitive California Share Competitive PROGRAM COMMENTS Competitive loans for renewable power generation (includ- PROGRAM COMMENTS ing wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, and methane gas) Program includes energy efficiency upgrades for ready- and advanced transmission projects that avoid and lower to-go federal building projects and fleet upgrades. No air pollutants and green house gas emissions. determination which federal buildings might be eligible for funding. Allocations of $300 million for replacing federal fleet with more efficient vehicles and $4.5 billion to convert STATUS doe guidance pending. General Services Administration facilities to high-perfor- mance green buildings.
STATUS GSA announced plans to buy and deliver $300 million worth of energy-efficienct and alternative fuel vehicles us- ing ARRA funds.
www.energy.ca.gov/recovery/documents/funding_summary.pdf 4 6 Employment and Training STATUS Administration Direct Loans to Bonneville and Western Power Administra- US Department of Labor tion.
National Total $500,000,000 California Share Direct Allocations Applied Research, Development, Demonstration, and Deployment PROGRAM COMMENTS The Department of Labor received $3.9 billion in arra Activities funds to be directed towards Workforce Investment Act DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (wia) programs with $500 million allocated as competitive grants for research, labor exchange, and job training proj- National Total $2,500,000,000 ects that prepare workers for careers in energy efficiency California Share $13,560,000 and renewable industry industries. (As of July 2009) Competitive & Direct Allocations STATUS June 24, 2009: Department of Labor announced five Fund- PROGRAM COMMENTS ing Opportunity Notices: $50 million for State Labor Market Competitive grants available for energy efficiency and Information Improvement; $100 million for Energy Training renewable energy research, development, demonstration; Partnerships; $150 million for Pathways Out of Poverty; and deployment to universities, business, and national $190 million for State Energy Sector Partnerships and laboratories. Includes a minimum of $800 million for Tranining and $5 million for Green Capacity Building. Ap- biomass projects, $400 million for geothermal projects plications are due for the various FOAs between August 5 and $50 million for Information and Communications - October 20, 2009. [http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/ Technology. The remaining funds can be used for other eta/eta20090725.htm] energy efficiency and renewable energy research. March 18, 2009: Department of Labor issued policy guid- Information on any solicitations are available at: ance and direction regarding the arra funding for activities [ www.energy.gov/recovery/funding.htm ] authorized under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (wia) and the Wagner-Peyser Act. The letter also provided STATUS specific instructions regarding the requirement for states to July 16, 2009: doe awarded almost $14 million to 28 new modify their wia and Wagner-Peyser Strategic State Plans. wind energy projects ($12.8 million in ARRA funds). Three California companies received a total of $595,385:
Alpha Star Corporation - Long Beach ($200,383 - ARRA) Bonneville and Western Power Analatom, Inc - Sunnyvale ($200,000 - ARRA) Administration V&R Energy Systems Research - LA ($195,002 - non ARRA)
National Total $6,500,000,000 July 15, 2009: doe announced FOA (DE-FOA-0000122) California Share N/A for $21.4 million to support planning and installation of utility-scale community renewable energy projects in up to PROGRAM COMMENTS four communities nationwide. doe expects applicants to Increased loan and borrowing authority for new construc- have matching funds from public and private sector. Fund- tion and upgrading of electric power transmission lines and ing restricted to state and local governments and Native related facilities. Western Power Administration to receive American Tribes. Applications due September 3, 2009. $3.25 billion in loans. Bonneville Power Administration to More information [http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/daily. receive $3.25 billion in borrowing authority. cfm/hp_news_id=185]
(continued on next page)
www.energy.ca.gov/recovery/documents/funding_summary.pdf 5 7 (continued from previous page) ations. The funding will focus on a single national organiza- tion that will facilitate the development and distribution June 30, 2009: doe announced FOA (DE-FOA-0000120) of model training curricula, best practices in training, and of $32 million for Hydroelectric Facilicty Modernization. information on solar career pathways and a select number Eligibility is restricted industry and industry-led partner- of regional training providers that will offer solar instruc- ships only. Letters of intent due July 22 and applications due tors advanced courses on solar technologies, instructional August 20, 2009. design, and course development. June 29, 2009: doe announced the specific allocations for [ www.oe.energy.gov/news_room_and_events/1229.htm ] the $346 million for Energy Efficiency Building Technolo- June 2, 2009: doe issued Funding Opportunity Announce- gies: $100 million for Advanced Building Systems Research; ment (DE-FOA-0000090) for $24 million allocated for $70 million for Residential Buildings Development and De- developing a consortia between universities and industry ployment; $53.5 million for Commercial Buildings Initiatives; for critical wind energy challenges. Letters of intent due to $72.5 million for Buildings and Appliance Market Transfor- doe by June 16 and applications by July 30, 2009. mation and $50 million for Solid State Lighting Research and Development. DOE also released six Funding Oppor- doe also will fund $50 million to advance commercializa- tunity Notices for these funding areas. To view the FOAs tion of renewable heating and cooling systems (geothermal (DE-FOA-0000118, DE-FOA-0000115, DE-FOA-0000099, heat pumps) focusing in three areas: Innovative Technology DE-FOA-0000082, DE-FOA-0000057, DE-FOA-0000055) Demonstrations, Life Cycle Cost Tools and National Certifi- go to [http://www.energy.gov/recovery/funding.htm] Ap- cation and Accreditation (DE-FOA-0000116). plication deadline August 10 - September 1, 2009. June 1, 2009: doe will fund $256 million to support energy June 23, 2009: DOE released the Funding Opportunity efficiency improvements for manufacturing, and informa- Notices (DE-FOA-0000112) for $45 million for the develop- tion technology industries: $156 million for combined heat ment of a wind drive train testing facility. Applications due and power, district heating systems and efficient industrial August 6, 2009. [http://www.energy.gov/recovery/funding. equipment (DE-FOA-0000044); $50 million rd&d for htm] advanced clean energy technologies (DE-FOA-0000075); and $50 million for improved information and communica- June 11, 2009: doe re-issued a $240 million Funding Oppor- tions technologies (DE-FOA-0000107). Other FOAs are: tunity Announcement from the Vehicle Technologies Office DE-FOA-00092 for high efficiency vehicles that will include $110 million of arra funding (de-foa-0000079). The solicitation focuses May 27, 2009: doe released funding allocations totaling al- on increasing efficiency of heavy-duty commercial trucks most $468 million for solar ($117.6 million) and geothermal (Class 8) and advanced technology power trains for light- ($350 million) energy projects. Geothermal: $140 million duty trucks. Applications are to due September 9, 2009. in competitive solicitations for Geothermal Demonstration More information is available at: Projects; $80 million in competitive solicitations and direct [ www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/financial/ awards for Geothermal System r&d; $100 million in com- solicitations_detail.asp?sol_id=279 ]. petitive solicitations for Innovative Exploration Techniques (DE-FOA-0000109) and $30 million in competitive solicita- doe also awarded $22 million to 24 solar projects from tions to labs and universities for Geothermal Data System. the May $117.6 million allocation for solar. Five California Solar Market Transformation: $51.5 million for Photovoltaic companies received a total of $9.26 million: Technology Development (no solicitation yet); $40.5 mil- Palo Alto Research Center, Inc. Palo Alto ($150,000) lion competitive solicitations for Solar Energy Deployment Solar Red San Jose ($150,000) and $25.6 million competitive solicitations and direct Sierra Solar Power Fremont ($3 million) awards to national labs for Concentrating Solar Power r&d. Silicon Genesis Corporation San Jose ($3 million) Solar Funding announments: DE-FOA-0000085 and DE- XeroCoat Redwood City ($2.96 million) FOA-0000078. [www.energy.gov/recovery/funding.htm] doe will invest up to $27 million to develop the nation’s solar installation training infrastructure. doe will fund this May 5, 2009: doe announces $786.5 million for biofuels effort using $5 million from the American Recovery and research and commercialization. Funding is allocated to four Reinvestment Act as well as $22 million in annual appropri- main areas: $480 million solicitation for integrated pilot-
(continued on next page)
www.energy.ca.gov/recovery/documents/funding_summary.pdf 6 8 (continued from previous page) STATUS May 15, 2009: The dod finalized itsarra funding plan, al- and demonstration-scale biorefineries (DE-FOA-0000096), locating more than $245 million to 29 California military fa- $176.5 million for commercial-scale biorefinery projects, cilities for energy improvements and renewable projects in $110 million for research on key program areas, $20 million these areas: $172.8 million for Facilities Sustainment, Resto- for ethanol research. Notice of intent to apply to doe due ration & Modernization; $10.7 million for Military Construc- May 29, 2009 and proposals submitted by June 29, 2009. tion; $61.9 million for Energy Conservation Improvement. April 29, 2009: doe awarded $193 million to support wind Funding for Near-Term rd&d has not been awarded yet. energy projects. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (nrel) was directly awarded $100.7 million for its facility and infrastructure improvements including installing solar, geothermal, and fuel cells and upgrading the current build- Science & Research Facilities ings to maximize energy efficiency measures. The National DOE Office of Science Wind Technology Center was awarded $10 million to sup- port the wind industry through testing current and new National Total $1,200,000,000 technologies. Up to three partnerships between universities California Share $184,155,000 and the industry can compete for $24 million to establish (As of July 2009) research and development programs to advance design and competitive & direct allocations performance. Another $43 million is apportioned for wind turbine drive train r&d and testing however it is unclear if PROGRAM COMMENTS this will be awarded by competitive bid or direct allocations. Funds are allocated for accelerated construction of key April 15, 2009: doe awarded $41.9 million to 13 projects scientific facilities, laboratory infrastructure, and expanded nation-wide to accelerate and commercialize fuel cell research efforts for the ten National Laboratories in eight technology. Two California companies received $4.3 million: states (Ames, Argonne, Brookhaven, Fermilab, Jefferson, Jadoo Power – Folsom ($1.8 million) and PolyFuel – Moun- Lawrence Berkeley, Oak Ridge, Pacific Northwest, and Stan- tain View ($2.5 million). ford Linear Accelerator).
STATUS Military Facilities April 27, 2009: doe Office of Science will invest $777 mil- US Department of Defense lion in 46 Energy Frontier Research Centers over the next five years using regular appropriations andarra funding. National Total $1,900,000,000 Although funding specifics have not been released, each (energy related) of these efrcs will receive between $2 million–$5 million annually. California has seven centers (ucla, uc Santa Bar- California Share $245,437,000 (approximately) bara, uc Berkeley, Stanford, Lawrence Berkeley, California Institute of Technology, and usc). Two of these, usc and Direct Allocations uc Santa Barbara, will receive arra funding.
PROGRAM COMMENTS March 23, 2009: doe allocated $1.2 billion for science and The Department of Defense received $7.4 billion in arra research to national laboratories and universities. Califor- funds with approximately $1.9 billion earmarked for nia’s Lawrence Berkeley Lab was awarded $115.8 million and energy efficiency improvements and renewable projects the Stanford Accelerator $68.3 million for new buildings for military facilities. The funds for energy projects will be and existing facility retrofits. distributed in these areas: almost $1.4 billion for Facilities Sustainment, Restoration & Modernization; $100 million for Military Construction; $120 million for Energy Conserva- tion Improvement; and $300 million for Near-Term Energy Efficiency Demonstration and rd&d. The dod expects that 80% of these arra funds will be awarded on a com- petitive basis to help stimulate the economy.
www.energy.ca.gov/recovery/documents/funding_summary.pdf 7 9 Clean Fossil Energy $2.4 billion to advance rd&d in these areas of Carbon Cap- ture and Storage Projects: $1.52 billion for Industrial Carbon DOE Office of Fossil Energy Capture & Storage for a competitive solicitation for large scale ccs from industrial sources to focus on beneficialco National Total $3,400,000,000 2 reuse and co2 capture from the atmosphere (this includes California Share $308,000,000 $20 million to a facility in Washington state and $70.6 mil- lion to a host facility in Arizona); $800 million for Clean Coal PROGRAM COMMENTS Initiative to expand new coal technologies; $50 million for Competitive grants for carbon capture and sequestration Geologic Sequestration Site Characterization for competitive technology projects. Recipients are to be determined but solicitations to differentiate 10 geologic formations in the likely will include states, utilities and private entities and us; and $20 million for Geologic Sequestration Training and partnerships. doe laboratories will likely receive direct Research focusing on educating and training future genera- allocations. tion of geologists. STATUS February: Notice of Intention (noi) released in late Febru- July 1, 2009: DOE awards up to $408 million to two compa- ary, then retracted. nies from the third round of the Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) to support innovative demonstrations of advanced coal technology to advance carbon capture and storage. California company: Environmental Clean-up Hydrogen Energy International LLC, will receive $308 million DOE Office of Environmental Management to design, construct, and operate an integrated gasification combined cycle power plant that converts coal and coke into National Total $6,000,000,000 hydrogen and CO2. [http://www.fossil.energy.gov/news/ California Share $62,100,000 techlines/2009/09043-DOE_Announces_CCPI_Projects. (As of July 2009) html] Direct Awards June 29, 2009: DOE released FOA (DE-FOA-0000032) for Geologic CO2 Sequestration Training and Research for uni- PROGRAM COMMENTS versities, colleges and college-affiliated research institutions. Funding is specifically used to accelerate environmental Application due August 11, 2009. [http://www.energy.gov/ cleanup work in 12 states – including a major investment recovery/funding.htm] in California. Projects identified for funding will focus on accelerating cleanup of soil and groundwater, transporta- June 9, 2009: doe reopened and amended the original tion and disposal of waste, and cleaning and demolishing Funding Opportunity Notice (DE-FOA-0000042) from 2008 former weapons complex facilities. adding $800 million for Clean Coal Power Initiative Round 3 to demonstrate advanced clean coal-based technologies that captures co2 emissions and put them to beneficial use. STATUS Letters of intent due July 24 and Applications due August March 31, 2009: Two California science facilities were 24, 2009. allocated a total of $62.1 million for site clean up. The Energy Technology Engineering Center (etec)in Ventura June 8, 2009: doe released Funding Opportunity Announce- County was allocated $54 million for the u.s. epa to con- ment (DE-FOA-0000015): Almost $1.4 billion for carbon duct radiological assessments necessary to complete an capture and sequestration from industrial sources and $100 environmental impact statement and enable completion of million for beneficialco uses. Minimum cost share is 20%. 2 site cleanup. The Stanford Linear Accelerator Center was Application due August 7, 2009. awarded $8.1 million to accelerate excavation and disposal June 2, 2009: doe issued FOA: $50 million for site selec- of contaminated soil and accelerate installation of ground- tion of promising geologic formations to store co2 (DE- water treatment systems. FOA-0000033). Applications due August 3; $20 million for geologic co2 sequestration technology training (DE- FOA-0000080). Applications due July 22. May 15, 2009: doe will be posting Notices of Intent to issue
www.energy.ca.gov/recovery/documents/funding_summary.pdf 8 10 Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E) US Department of Agriculture Under the DOE Office of Science National Total $57,000,000 National Total $400,000,000 California Share $4,748,000 California Share Competitive & Direct Allocations PROGRAM COMMENTS Grants available for projects that use wood-to-energy and PROGRAM COMMENTS biomass that promote the development of biofuels and The arpa-e supports innovative high-risk, high pay-off reduce hazardous fuels that increase wildland fires. energy research that accelerates traditional and alternative energy sources and energy efficiency that are not likely to be pursued independently. STATUS June 11,2009: The usda announced $57 million in funding for a variety of wood-to-energy grants and biomass proj- STATUS ects. California was awarded $4.5 million to restart an exist- April 27, 2009: The arpa-e solicitation (DE-FOA-0000065) ing cogeneration facility in Humboldt county and $248,000 was released for $400 million. The awards are expected to to re-open a closed cogeneration facility in Shasta county. be between $500,000 and $20 million and cost share will range from 20 percent to 50 percent. Concept papers are due between May 12 and June 2, 2009. Successful concept applicants will then submit a full proposal.
Transit Investments for Greenhouse Gas & Energy Reduction (TIGGER) US Department of Transportation (Federal Transit Administration)
National Total $100,000,000 California Share Competitive
PROGRAM COMMENTS Transit agencies can fund capital projects that reduce en- ergy use and/or greenhouse gas emissions. Grants from $2 million – $25 million.
STATUS Grant announcement (FTA-2009-0013) released. Proposals to the Federal Transit Administration due May 22, 2009.
www.energy.ca.gov/recovery/documents/funding_summary.pdf 9 11 HR 1 American Recovery And Reinvestment Act of 2009 ENERGY-RELATED TAX CREDITS and FINANCIAL INCENTIVES Updated July 16, 2009
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION • www.energy.ca.gov/recovery
Tax Credits for Energy-Efficient Temporary Election to Claim the Improvements to Existing Homes Investment Tax Credit in Lieu of the Production Tax Credit Final act Estimates $2,300,000,000 Final act Estimates $285,000,000 COMMENTS The bill extends the tax credits for improvements to energy- COMMENTS efficient existing homes through 2010. Under current law, Under current law, facilities that produce electricity from individuals are allowed a tax credit equal to 10% of the solar resources are eligible to take a 30% investment amount paid or incurred by the taxpayer for qualified energy tax credit in the year that the facility is placed in service. efficiency improvements installed during the year. This tax Facilities that produce electricity from wind, closed-loop credit is capped at $50 million for any advanced main air biomass, open-loop biomass, geothermal, small irriga- circulating fan; $150 million for any qualified natural gas, tion, hydropower, landfill gas, waste-to-energy, and marine propane, oil furnace or hot water boiler; and $300 million renewable resources are eligible for a production tax credit. for any item of energy-efficient building property. For 2009 The production tax credit is payable over a 10-year period. and 2010, the bill increases the amount of the tax credit Because of current market conditions, it is difficult for many to 30% of the amount paid or incurred by the taxpayer for renewable projects to find financing due to the uncertain qualified energy efficiency improvements during the year. future tax positions of potential investors in these projects. The bill also eliminates the property-by-property dollar caps The bill allows facilities to elect to claim the investment tax on this tax credit and provides an aggregate $1,500 cap on credit in lieu of the production tax credit. all property qualifying for the credit. The bill updates the energy-efficiency standards of the property qualifying for the credit. Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds Long-term Extension and Modification of Renewable Final act Estimates $803,000,000 Energy Production Tax Credit COMMENTS The bill authorizes an additional $2.4 billion of qualified Final act Estimates $13,143,000,000 energy conservation loans and grants to finance state, municipal and tribal government programs, and initiatives COMMENTS designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The bill The bill extends the placed-in-service date for wind facilities would also clarify that qualified energy conservation bonds for three years (through Dec. 31, 2012). The bill also extends may be issued to make loans and grants for capital expen- the placed-in-service date for three years (through Dec. ditures to implement green community programs. The bill 31, 2013) for certain other qualifying facilities: closed-loop also clarifies that qualified energy conservation bonds may biomass, open-loop biomass, geothermal, small irriga- be used for programs in which utilities provide ratepayers tion, hydropower, landfill gas, waste-to-energy, and marine with energy-efficient property and recoup the costs of that renewable facilities. property over an extended period of time.
www.energy.ca.gov/recovery/documents/funding_summary.pdf 10 12 Removal of Dollar Limitations on its 200,000th sale of a plug-in electric drive vehicle. The credit is reduced in following calendar quarters. The credit Certain Energy Credits is allowed against the alternative minimum tax. The bill also restores and updates the electric vehicle credit for plug-in Final act Estimates $872,000,000 electric vehicles that would not otherwise qualify for the larger plug-in electric drive vehicle credit and provides a tax COMMENTS credit for plug-in electric drive conversion kits. Under current law, businesses are allowed to claim a 30% tax credit for qualified renewable energy system. Individuals are allowed to claim a 30% tax credit for qualified solar water heating property (capped at $2,000), qualified small wind Tax Credits for Alternative energy property (capped at $500 per kilowatt of capacity, up Refueling Property to $4,000), and qualified geothermal heat pumps (capped at $2,000). The bill repeals the individual dollar caps. As Final act Estimates $54,000,000 a result, each of these properties would be eligible for an uncapped 30% credit. COMMENTS The alternative refueling property credit provides a tax credit to gas stations that install alternative fuel pumps, Clean Renewable Energy Bonds such as fuel pumps that dispense e85 fuel (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline), electricity, hydrogen and natural gas. For 2009 and 2010, the bill increases the 30% alternative refuel- Final act Estimates $578,000,000 ing property credit for businesses (capped at $30,000) to 50% (capped at $50,000). Hydrogen refueling pumps COMMENTS remain at a 30% credit percentage; however, the cap for The bill authorizes an additional $1.6 billion of new clean hydrogen refueling pumps will be increased to $200,000. renewable energy bonds to finance facilities that generate In addition, the bill increases the 30% alternative refueling electricity from the following resources: wind, closed-loop property credit for individuals (capped at $1,000) to 50% biomass, open-loop biomass, geothermal, small irriga- (capped at $2,000). tion, hydropower, landfill gas, marine renewable and trash combustion facilities. This $1.6 billion authorization will be subdivided into thirds: qualifying state/local/tribal govern- ment projects; qualifying projects of public power provid- Treasury Department Energy ers; and qualifying projects of electric cooperatives. Grants in Lieu of Tax Credits
Final act Estimates *$3,000,000,000 Plug-in Electric Drive Vehicle Credit COMMENTS July 15, 2009: Under current law, taxpayers are allowed to claim a production tax credit for electricity produced by cer- Final act Estimates $2,002,000,000 tain renewable energy facilities and an investment tax credit for certain renewable energy property. These tax credits COMMENTS help attract private capital to invest in renewable energy The bill modifies and increases a tax credit passed into law projects. This new program allows taxpayers to forgo tax at the end of last Congress for plug-in electric drive vehicles credits in favor of an immediate reimbursement from the placed in service during the year. The base amount of the Treasury Department for a portion of the property expense. credit is $2,500. If the qualified vehicle draws propulsion The direct payments are 10% - 30% of the basis of the prop- from a battery with at least 5 kilowatt hours of capacity, erty and paid within 60 days of the facility being placed in the credit is increased by $417, plus another $417 for each service or, if later, within 60 days of receiving an application kilowatt hour of battery capacity in excess of 5 kilowatt for such grant. Eligible projects must produce electricity, hours up to 16 kilowatt hours. Taxpayers may claim the have land use in the US and have been completed or broke full amount of the allowable credit up to the end of the ground by the end of 2010. This is not a competitive pro- first calendar quarter in which the manufacturer records gram and there is no cap on the total grants.*
www.energy.ca.gov/recovery/documents/funding_summary.pdf 11 13 ENERGY‐RELATED FUNDING SUMMARY FOR FEDERAL AND STATE PROGRAMS Attachment 2
Grant Who is Eligible/Applying Description Funds Available Solicitation Deadline Local SANDAG Others in and Match Available Government or APCD Region Required USDOE EECBG ο Amount for CA large cities and counties $302 million Y 8/10 USDOE EECBG ο ο Competitive energy grants $50 million N TBD CEC EECBG ο Amount for CA small cities and counties $30 million N TBD competitive grant program. Guidelines and application NOT yet available. CEC EECBG ο ο Discretionary grant program $20 million N TBD USDOE SEP ο ο ο Support transportation, residential, commercial, Expect opening of N TBD agricultural, industrial, institutional energy competitive efficiency/ renewable programs grants after state allocations complete CEC SEP ο ο ο Support residential, commercial, agricultural, $226 million Likely July‐ TBD industrial, institutional energy efficiency/ Aug 2009 renewable programs CA CSD ο California allocation for weatherization assistance $186 million unsure 7/13 Weatherization program (WAP) to increase energy efficiency of homes owned or occupied by low income residents. Current providers in Chula Vista, National City and downtown. USDOE Clean ο • Alternative fuel vehicle program‐‐ funding up to 50% match Y 5/29 Cities Round 1 30 geographically diverse programs. SANDAG $5‐15 million submitted on behalf of San Diego Regional grants (up to $30 Alternative Fuels, Vehicles and Infrastructure million project) Deployment program (RAFVID)—SANDAG admin, SD Regional Clean Cities Coalition, UCSD, SDG&E‐ Nissan, airport transportation (airport authority, clean energy+), Chula Vista elementary school, Waste Mgt (El Cajon), Education Team (CCSE, EcoCenter, Miramar College, SD High Schools)
ο = Eligible • = Applied/Applying 14 ‐over‐ ENERGY‐RELATED FUNDING SUMMARY FOR FEDERAL AND STATE PROGRAMS
Grant Who is Eligible/Applying Description Funds Available Solicitation Deadline Local SANDAG Others in and Match Available Government or APCD Region Required USDOE Clean ο ο Alternative fuel vehicle program 2nd round of Likely 50% match Round 1 9/30 Cities Round 2 funding. Rules likely same as first round, but have using remaining released. not seen explicit instructions yet. funds of Round 1 CEC AB118 (Only • This solicitation is tied to ARRA transportation $6 million request Y 6/10 for Clean Cities energy applicants to provide matching funds. If 50% match match) Round 1 Clean Cities not awarded, then San Diego RAFVID receives no state funding either. CEC AB118 (Only ο ο This solicitation is tied to ARRA transportation 50% match for TBD TBD for Clean Cities energy Round 2 applicants to provide matching federal ARRA match) Round 2 funds. If federal ARRA funds not awarded, then no Round 2 state funding awarded. applications USFTA TIGGER • Reduce energy and GHG from transit capital $2 – 25 million Y 5/29 projects. MTS applied, NCTD planned to apply grants, No Match (may have done so) USEPA Public ο ο Improving water efficiency and reducing energy $6 million total, Y 8/17 Health Protection requirements from infrastructure includes up to $600,000 through Water centralized/decentralized systems that convey, per project, Infrastructure store, distribute potable and non‐potable water No Match Sustainability and collect and manage municipal and industrial wastewater, storm water, and on‐site rainwater USDOE • Electrification for vehicles, port, airport, other $400 million Y 5/13 Transportation operations. Nissan North American‐ETEC applied nationwide. Electrification for national 5‐metro region project (including San Diego) to rollout EV sedans and infrastructure in 2010. Nissan requested $101 million (50% match)—could be up to $40 million investment in our region. SDG&E facilitated effort locally. Sfr 7/16/09
ο = Eligible • = Applied/Applying 15 ‐over‐ Environmental Mitigation Program
Status Report
July 31, 2009 BackgroundBackground
•• TransNetTransNet EnvironmentalEnvironmental MitigationMitigation ProgramProgram CreatedCreated TwoTwo FundsFunds – Biological Mitigation Fund – Regional Habitat Conservation Fund
Environmental Mitigation Program BackgroundBackground
TheThe MOAMOA states:states:
““StartingStarting inin 2010,2010, andand thenthen onceonce everyevery twotwo yearsyears thereafter,thereafter, SANDAGSANDAG willwill developdevelop aa reportreport cardcard toto analyzeanalyze thethe statusstatus andand progressprogress ofof thethe MOAMOA implementingimplementing thethe goalsgoals ofof thethe TransNetTransNet EMPEMP forfor presentationpresentation toto thethe SANDAGSANDAG BoardBoard asas partpart ofof thethe updateupdate toto thethe RegionalRegional TransportationTransportation ImprovementImprovement ProgramProgram (RTIP).(RTIP).””
Environmental Mitigation Program Biological Mitigation Fund
TransNet Environmental Mitigation Program Mitigation Costs as of July 2009
$35,008,633
Acquisition Restoration $770,000 $870,000 Management
Estimated Remaining Mitigation Needs: Regional Transportation Plan Projects as of July 2009
1,600 1,400 Est. Remaining 1,200 Mitigation 1,000 988.0 (1704 ac) 800 Regional Acres 600 Transportation 400 411.6 Plan Projects 200 220.9 (614 ac) 0 Coastal Wetlands Freshw ater Uplands (4.1 ac) Wetlands (526.2 ac) (83.4 ac)
An additional 83.8 acres of uplands acquired for local streets
Environmental Mitigation Program RegionalRegional HabitatHabitat ConservationConservation FundFund
Encumbrances by Fiscal Year
$6,000,000 $5,000,000
$4,000,000 $3,000,000
$2,000,000 Monitoring $1,000,000 Management Coordination $0 2006 2007 2008 2009
Conservation Fund Encumbrances by Category as of July 2009
$6,175,000
$3,775,000
$1,050,000 Coordination Management Monitoring
Environmental Mitigation Program ImplementationImplementation
1. Securing opportunities for wetlands remains a challenge
2. Transparent, up-to-date system to depict the status of the EMP and to be able to track expenditures
3. Cost saving accrued under the EMP since the start of its implementation
Environmental Mitigation Program Environmental Mitigation Program
Questions?
July 31, 2009 Environmental Mitigation Program
Five-Year Funding Strategy Update, FY10 Funding Allocation and FY10 Land Management Grant Criteria
El Monte County Park
July 31, 2009 1 Background
• BOD approved a Five-Year Funding Strategy for management and monitoring on Dec 15, 2006 and updated Sept 26, 2009 • Five-Year Funding Strategy consistent with the funding levels identified in BOD approved MOU
Environmental Mitigation Program 2 Discussion Updated Five-Year Funding Strategy and FY10 Funding
• Minor modifications are recommended to address the most current needs (Attachment 1) • Specific funding for FY10 activities proposed (Table 1) are consist with funding strategy and overall budget in TransNet EMP MOU
Environmental Mitigation Program 3 Discussion FY10 Land Management Grant Criteria (Attachment 2)
• EMP has a competitive land management grant • EMPWG reviewed eligible activities: – Invasive Removal - Wildfire Recovery – Habitat Restoration - Signage and Litter Control • No changes recommended on eligibility
Environmental Mitigation Program 4 Discussion FY10 Land Management Grant Criteria (Attachment 2) • EMPWG reviewed application process and evaluation and weighting criteria: • More information on the distribution of the grant and proposed matching funds • More information on public outreach and education – Number of public to benefit – Number of volunteer hours – Signage and interpretation features – An access plan for public use • No changes recommended to weighting criteria
Environmental Mitigation Program 5 Recommendations The Regional Planning Committee is asked to recommend that the Board of Directors: • Approve the updated Five-Year Conceptual Funding Strategic Plan, the proposed management and monitoring activities and budget for FY 2010 totaling $4 million, and, subject to Board Policy No. 017, authorize staff to solicit proposals and enter into contracts or amend existing contracts accordingly; and • Adopt the modifications to the submittal and evaluation criteria for land management grants for FY 2010 as reflected in Attachment 2
Environmental Mitigation Program 6 Environmental Mitigation Program
Five-Year Funding Strategy Update, FY10 Funding Allocation and FY10 Land Management Grant Criteria
El Monte County Park
July 31, 2009 1 Regional Alternative Fuels, Vehicles and Infrastructure Report
July 31, 2009 Project Update
Developed at Energy Working Group RPC provided input on draft at June 5 meeting Board accepted draft report for distribution and public comment on June 12 Presented to the San Diego Regional Clean Fuels Coalition on June 24 Additional feedback from – California Energy Commission – Transportation Committee – Technical Working Group – Regional Stakeholders and general public
2 Report Addresses State Alternative Fuel Policies
Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions from vehicles Reduce reliance on petroleum Increase alternative fuel use Increase in-state biofuels use and production
3 Fleet Applications in the Report
Wide range of vehicles Cars, SUVs, vans and pick-ups Trash trucks and street sweepers Light, medium and heavy- duty applications
Report focus is on local government fleet applications but findings are useful for any public or private fleets
4 Federal and State Resources
Grants, loans, rebates and tax credits available Large injection of funds to increase use of alternative fuel vehicles – Federal Economic Stimulus – Energy Commission Alternative Fuels Program – CARB Air Quality Improvement Program
5 What’s Included about the Fuels and Vehicles?
Assessments based on – New vehicle (or retrofit) price / availability – Infrastructure cost / availability – Fuel economy, price and driving range – Petroleum and GHG reductions based on a “well to wheels” analysis Charts comparing conventional gasoline, diesel, and various alternative fuels
6 Report Recommendations
Best fuels by vehicle class based on availability, cost, GHG reduction and fuel economy Regional approaches to help rollout of alternative fuel vehicles to fleets and general public Participate in planning for publicly accessible fueling/charging stations – Near major throughways and intersections – Near popular destinations – At or near BRT stations – When other transportation improvements occur
7 RPC Recommendation
The Regional Planning Committee is asked to recommend that the Board of Directors accept the Final Version of the Regional Alternative Fuels, Vehicles, and Infrastructure Report for distribution.
8 Regional Alternative Fuels, Vehicles and Infrastructure Report
July 31, 2009 PreliminaryPreliminary DraftDraft RegionalRegional EnergyEnergy StrategyStrategy UpdateUpdate
Regional Planning Committee July 31, 2009 WhatWhat isis thethe RegionalRegional EnergyEnergy StrategyStrategy 20302030??
• Energy policy blueprint for the region • Adopted by SANDAG Board in July 2003 • Energy Working Group established • Prepared by California Center for Sustainable Energy (CCSE) with Regional Advisory Committee selected by SANDAG
2 WhyWhy UpdateUpdate ourour CurrentCurrent Strategy?Strategy?
• Significant changes in state policy • Expanded focus on regional and local governments • Emerging regional energy issues • California Energy Commission Partnership
3 What’sWhat’s beenbeen donedone soso far…far…
• Began project in summer 2008 • Overseen by Energy Working Group • Regional Planning Committee gave direction on guiding principles, goals and targets at April 3rd meeting • Board gave direction at May 22nd meeting • Staff analysis assisted by EPIC, CCSE, SDG&E and CEC • Feedback received from Technical Working Group, Transportation and Borders Committees
4 WhatWhat TopicsTopics areare addressedaddressed inin thethe PreliminaryPreliminary Draft?Draft?
• energy efficiency • energy and water • renewable energy • peak demand • distributed generation • smart grid
5 • Natural gas • Clean energy economy • Transportation fuels • Energy and climate change • Energy and Borders • Land use and transportation planning
6 MultipleMultiple BenefitsBenefits fromfrom MultipleMultiple Goals:Goals: PreliminaryPreliminary DraftDraft FindingsFindings
• Combine conservation, efficiency and distributed generation to reduce energy demand – Great savings from energy efficiency – Further savings from distributed generation (DG) – Smaller-sized (and priced) DG an option – Water conservation measures save energy
7 NeedNeed BigBig andand SmallSmall Renewables:Renewables: PreliminaryPreliminary DraftDraft FindingsFindings
• Solar on rooftops and parking lots • Biogas from wastewater treatment plants • Biomass from yard clippings and greenwaste • Large solar arrays, wind farms, geothermal and biofuels from Imperial Valley, Tehachapi and Baja Mexico
8 EnergyEnergy andand InfrastructureInfrastructure Needs:Needs: PreliminaryPreliminary DraftDraft FindingsFindings
• Clean power supplies from variety of renewable and non- renewable resources • Replace least efficient plants with state of the art • Distributed generation alleviates regional needs • Modernize electric grid with smart meters and devices • Monitor natural gas supply, pipelines and storage capacity
9 PreliminaryPreliminary DraftDraft Findings:Findings: EnergyEnergy AspectsAspects ofof LandLand UseUse andand TransportationTransportation PlanningPlanning
• Smart Growth principles save energy • Accommodate multiple travel choices and nearby place types • Expand transportation fuel options • Energy-efficient buildings • Sustainable Region Program and Energy Roadmap Initiative
10 FinancingFinancing Improvements:Improvements: PreliminaryPreliminary DraftDraft FindingsFindings
• Additional finance mechanisms needed for widespread consumer investments • Local or regional governments can help – On-bill financing – Extra incentives – Conduit to existing resources
11 WorkforceWorkforce Development:Development: PreliminaryPreliminary DraftDraft FindingsFindings
• Local job placement mechanisms lacking in the Clean Energy Sector • Collaborate with workforce entities, employers, and labor unions • Apprenticeships, mentoring, acquire (re)training program funds
12 Next Steps
• Release preliminary draft for comments • Hold public workshop at CA Center for Sustainable Energy on August 4th at 5:15pm • Seek further feedback from Technical Working Group • Seek staff-level feedback from state agency peers
13 Schedule
• Return to Regional Planning Committee with Final Draft in October – Provide overview of workshop and comments received – Highlight changes from earlier draft • Board to review preliminary draft and hear initial public comments at September Policy Meeting • Board to consider adopting Regional Energy Strategy Update in October
14 RPCRPC RecommendationRecommendation
The Regional Planning Committee is asked to accept the Preliminary Draft Regional Energy Strategy Update for public distribution and comment.
15 PreliminaryPreliminary DraftDraft RegionalRegional EnergyEnergy StrategyStrategy UpdateUpdate
Regional Planning Committee July 31, 2009 Los Angeles
Orange
San Diego
• July 31, 2009. SANDAG Meeting. • Subject: Children’s Pool, and small State Marine Reserve (SMR) through the MLPA. • • After the July 20, 2009 Court hearing when the La Jolla seals at Children’s Pool were given 72 hours to disperse, a group of young female students from La Jolla and their little sisters walked over to Governors Schwarzenegger’s field office and ask him to sign Senate Bill SB-428 to protect the seal rookery from destruction. Governor Schwarzenegger signed the emergency bill before he signed the Budget. This reprieve from the Governor last Monday has been reported world-wide. • • These ladies who grew up and live in La Jolla want to have peace at Children’s Pool in their lifetime. We are asking for a hearing by SANDAG to discuss writing a letter to the Department of Fish and Game MLPA Process asking for at least a 100 yard diameter State Marine Reserve at Children’s Pool. • The California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) map for the MLPA South Coast Study Region, shows that La Jolla is the only recognized marine mammal rookery and haul out from Los Angeles County to the Mexican Border (see Page 2). The seals at Point Loma are not recognized by the State of California DFG. • • http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/rpsc/map3_2-1h-i.pdf • • The Lapis 1 Option is the only MLPA option that has protection for Marine Mammals Haul Out and Rookeries in Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties. The Topaz, Opal, and Lapis 2 Option has zero protection for the baby seal rookery because before July 20, 2009 the accumulated sand on the beach and the seal’s were illegal according to Judge Yuri Hofmann. • • A small 100 yard diameter State Marine Reserve (SMR) in Children’s Pool would protect the seals and foster peace in the neighborhood. We are advocating for Lapis 1 option, and asking the other three groups Topaz, Opal, and Lapis 2 groups create a 100 yard diameter State Marine Reserve (SMR) at Children’s Pool. That is the size of a football field. This very small gesture by the fishing community would be appreciated by all the hundreds of thousands of tourists who flock to view the births of the baby seals in the rookery. The financial cost to the fishing community, government’s in San Diego, and the City of San Diego will be zero dollars for a State Marine Reserve. The Environmental Impact Report will be prepared by the State through the MLPA with a cost of zero dollars to the City of San Diego. Creating a State Marine Reserve (SMR) at Children’s Pool will still allow access to the water for the spear fishermen and swimmers during the non-pupping season. Just like the existing La Jolla Ecological Reserve at La Jolla Shores, Caves, and Cove. The outstanding issue of dual use, shared use, no seals, or seals-only is still the City Council's decision to make with input from all after January 1, 2010. There are no kelp beds within Children’s Pool or just outside the Breakwater Wall. The kelp beds are off shore. Only a handful of fishermen use the Children’s Pool breakwater wall. Baby seals and adults have been killed from the pollution and trash of cut fishing lines and discarded fishing hooks. After being tangled in fishing line, when the baby seals grow, fishing line cuts their blubber until they grow too large and die. Closing the 100 yard diameter area of Children’s Pool will not hurt the viability of fishermen, spear fishermen, or kayakers, but will allow Children and adults to observe a wonderful seal rookery in an urban setting. Please tell us how we can have this issue be discussed at SANDAG. Kennerson has vowed to sue if the City creates a seal sanctuary, because only the State has the power to protect the seals. If the States creates a SMR then Kennerson can not win his new lawsuit against the taxpayers. • • http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/mapcomparison2009internal.pdf • • Regards, Katheryn Rhodes and Conrad Hartsell, MD, 371 San Fernando Street, San Diego, California 92106 • 619-523-4350 [email protected]