DOCSLIB.ORG

Electrifying Bus Routes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Electrifying Bus Routes ELECTRIFYING BUS ROUTES: INSIGHTS FROM MEXICO CITY’S EJE 8 SUR TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT Executive Mexico City’s Objectives Summary Eje 8 Sur route of the report KEY INSIGHTS This report aims to illustrate Mexico City is one of the world’s largest The study was part of a wider package of cities: its metropolitan area is home to nearly support provided by the C40 Cities Finance how a city can assess different It is critical that future bus 21 million people. Since 1946, a public transport Facility to Mexico City, to help develop the electric bus technology options, procurement decisions are agency, Servicio de Transportes Eléctricos Eje 8 Sur project technically and financially. based on the Total Cost of (STE), operates all trolleybuses and light-rail by providing a summary of an services in Mexico City. The technology assessment was conducted to 1 Ownership of the bus to compare the various technological options for analysis conducted in Mexico avoid choosing diesel STE has been mandated to establish a new bus buses on Eje 8 Sur. City by the C40 Cities Finance technologies because of route along Eje 8 Sur, a 22km corridor in the their lower upfront costs. south of the city. Trolleybus Line E operated Titled ‘Evaluation of Electric Buses for Eje 8 Sur’, Facility (CFF). This summary along Eje 8 Sur from the 1980s until 2009, when the assessment was carried out in collaboration explores how data on the buses’ it was discontinued. with Grütter Consulting. financial costs, environmental The technology assessment focused on the A previous report (‘Analysis of Alternative Bus Integrating environmental Technologies’) aimed to develop the capacity impacts and on existing westernmost 15.8 km of the corridor, between impacts into technology Mixcoac and Constitución de 1917. STE of city officials and the administration to infrastructure on the route led assessments can drastically currently operates eight trolleybus lines, but understand and choose between different to the choice of trolleybuses as 2 change the Total Cost of most trolleybuses covering the network are electric bus technologies. Ownership comparisons and over 30 years old. Both reports are available on the CFF website at: the best solution for the Eje 8 allow for consideration of https://www.c40cff.org/projects/mexico-city- Sur route. This summary aims to alternative bus technologies. eje-8 inform similar analyses by other cities and practitioners. Specific city characteristics and experiences can help to overcome the operational 3 risks associated with zero- emission technologies such as Mexico City’s experience with operating trolleybuses. Alternative financing mechanisms may be needed to allow cities to borrow 4 more and manage this debt to overcome the higher upfront costs. 22 33 Bus type Description Diesel – Euro IV Diesel engine with a Euro IV compliant engine. MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF EJE 8 SUR Diesel – Euro VI Diesel engine with a Euro VI compliant engine. (MIXCOAC TO CONSTITUCIÓN DE 1917) Trolleybus Electric engine charged via overhead cables. TYPE OF BUSES Opportunity Charging – Ultrafast Electric engine which is charged at several stops along AVERAGE and specifications the route. 18KM/H BUS SPEED 1 18M articulated buses, capacity of 140 passengers, without AC/heating Opportunity Charging – Electric engine which is charged at the end End of route of the route. Battery Electric Bus – An electric bus with a battery charged a few MINIMUM PERCENTAGE OF 15.8 Daytime fast-charging times a day. BUS FLEET SIZE KM (without reserve fleet) RESERVE FLEET Battery Electric Bus – An electric bus with a battery large enough to operate 10%, i.e. 5 BUSES ROUTE Overnight Charging for a full day. Charging is done at night at the depot. 47 BUSES LENGTH Figure 2: Bus options analysed for the Eje 8 Sur route. MINIMUM 250KM PER WORKING DAY Environmental2 impacts DISTANCE DAILY 150KM PER NON-WORKING DAY BETWEEN MILEAGE BUSES 260 WORKING DAYS PER YEAR a) Emissions (CO2e, PM, NOX, and SO2) 2.5 MINS (HEADWAY) b) Noise pollution TOTALrequired including FLEET reserve fleet Financial TCO 52 BUSES a) Capital costs (buses and refuelling/charging infrastructure and associated costs) ANNUAL MILEAGE b) Net Present Value of operating costs, i.e. energy and maintenance costs, cumulative over 12 years PER BUS TOTAL ANNUAL MILEAGE OF BUSES Economic TCO a) Environmental impacts b) Financial TCO Figure 1: Main characteristics of the Eje 8 route 1 Mexico City’s buses do not require heating and cooling due to its moderate climate. Figure 3: Summary of the parameters used to evaluate the performance of buses. 2 73,000 KM 3,775,000 KM Cumulative over 12 years and not discounted over time. 44 55 Environmental Financial Total impacts Cost of Ownership Greenhouse gas emissions include The financial analysis considered: (a) direct emissions (‘tank to 1. Capital expenditure (CAPEX): This included wheel’) and (b) indirect emissions the upfront costs4 of the bus, any additional (‘well-to-tank’). infrastructure (e.g. chargers or land acquisition costs) and the cost of partial replacement of (a) Direct emissions are the emissions the investment, e.g. batteries. Diesel prices produced by the bus through fuel combustion. included the costs of building service stations. CAPEX did not include the cost of power (b) Indirect emissions are the emissions infrastructure, e.g. transformers which may resulting from the production of electricity be required to supply sufficient electricity. used to charge electric buses, or, in the case of Diesel buses were expected to last 12 years, diesel buses, the upstream emissions of fossil electric buses between 16 and 20 years and fuels (i.e. extraction, refining, transport, and trolleybuses 20 years: the longer lifetimes are distribution). due to the reduced vibrations rates and fewer The emissions accruing from the production moving parts. Factoring these longer lifetimes of electric buses and their batteries and into the TCO is essential to accurately compare of diesel buses were not included in the technology options. assessment: indirect emissions resulting from 2. Operating expenditure (OPEX): The the manufacturing of a diesel bus (120g CO2e\ analysis only included those that differ km) are estimated to be comparable to those between diesel technology and electric buses, of manufacturing an electric bus, including namely the costs of energy and maintenance. 3 batteries (130g CO2e\km) . Operating expenses such as the cost of drivers and management were excluded Local emissions (PM, NOX, SO2) from combustion and vehicle wear and tear are factored in, as well from the study since they do not differ across as the impacts of noise pollution. technologies. Electricity prices vary across electric bus technologies (e.g. depending on Unlike other costs, the environmental costs are the time of consumption and installed power): not discounted over time. a reference electricity price was calculated for each type of electric bus technology. The financial Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) is the sum of CAPEX (buses and infrastructure) and the Net Present Value of OPEX (discounted at a rate of 8% per year - the Weighted Average Capital Cost in the transport sector in Mexico). 3 Emissions are comparable due to the longer commercial lifecycle of an electric bus and the expected re-purposing of batteries at the end of their life. 4 Upfront costs are based on data available in 2017 on bus prices in Mexico. 66 77 Economic Total Cost Conclusions of Ownership of the report The economic Total Cost of • The costs of local emissions are calculated 1. Of all the bus technologies assessed for km) have a similar or slightly higher economic based on the Tier 3 methodology of the Eje 8 Sur, the analysis demonstrates that TCO than diesel bus technologies (see above). Ownership includes the costs 5 COPERT model . Only PM, NOX, SO2 are electric buses using opportunity charging Trolleybuses (1.37 USD/km) and night-charging associated with greenhouse gas assessed as they are the main pollutant have the lowest financial TCO of all assessed battery electric bus technologies (1.45 USD/ emissions, local emissions and resulting from diesel buses. bus technologies (0.98-0.99 USD/km), lower km) have the highest financial TCO of all the than or equal to diesel bus technologies (0.99- technologies assessed. noise pollution. • The costs of noise pollution are calculated 1.00 USD/km). Fast-charging battery electric based on international experience collected bus technologies have a higher financial TCO 3. While trolleybuses have much higher • The costs of greenhouse gas emissions in a report by the Victoria Transport Policy upfront costs – an additional USD $40 million 5 than diesel bus technologies (1.12 USD/km), were calculated as an estimate of the Institute . Trolleybuses (1.32 USD/km) and night-charging for Eje 8 Sur – they can be a financially viable economic damages linked to an increase in battery electric bus technologies (1.39 USD/ alternative if existing infrastructure can CO e emissions, known as the social cost 5 EEA (2016a), Air pollutant emission inventory guidebook Version 2016 update be used. Overhead charging infrastructure is 2 December 2016. 5 VTPI (2017), Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis II – Noise km) have the highest financial TCO of all the of carbon. On Eje 8 Sur, shifting to electric Costs. technologies assessed. estimated to make up to 40% of the total cost. 1.5 buses would result in a reduction of around A separate assessment by STE determined 6,000 tonnes of CO e per year. 2. Electric buses using opportunity charging that much of the existing infrastructure on Eje 1.2 2 have by far the lowest economic TCO of all 8 Sur, unused since 2009, could be retrofitted assessed bus technologies (1.04 USD/km). for a new trolleybus line. Given STE’s extensive 0.9 By integrating the costs of environmental experience with trolleybuses, this technology impacts of greenhouse gas and local emissions, presents lower operational risks for STE than USD/Km 0.6 the economic TCO of opportunity charging the other electric bus technologies.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A-1 Electric Bus & Fleet Transition Planning
    A Proterra model battery electric powered bus (photo credit: Proterra, May 2021). 52 | page A-1 Electric Bus & Fleet Transition Planning Initiative: Assess the feasibility of transitioning Pace’s fleet toward battery electric and additional CNG technologies, as well as develop a transition plan for operations and facilities. Study other emerging technologies that can improve Pace’s environmental impact. Supports Goals: Responsiveness, Safety, Adaptability, Collaboration, Environmental Stewardship, Fiscal Solvency, and Integrity ACTION ITEM 1 Investigate and Plan for Battery Electric Bus (BEB) Pace is committed to the goals of environmental stewardship and economic sustainability, and recognizes how interest to electrify vehicles across private industry and US federal, state, and local governments has been intensifying throughout 2020-2021. Looking ahead, the agency will holistically evaluate a transition path to converting its fleet to battery electric buses (BEB). As a first step, Action Item 2 of the A-2 Capital Improvement Projects initiative describes Pace’s forthcoming Facilities Plan. This effort will include an investigation of the prerequisites that BEB technology requires to successfully operate. Once established, Pace will further plan what next steps and actions to take in pursuit of this vehicle propulsion system. A Union of Concerned Scientists 2017 study3 indicates that BEB’s have 70 percent lower global warming emissions than CNG or diesel hybrid buses even when considering the lifecycle emissions required to generate the necessary electricity. Similarly, a 2018 US PIRG Education Fund Study4 indicates that implementing BEB’s lower operational costs yields fuel and maintenance savings over a vehicle’s life cycle. Pace praises the efforts of many other transit agencies across the nation and world who are investing heavily in transitioning their fleets to BEB and other green, renewable, and environmentally-cognizant sources of vehicle propulsion.
    [Show full text]
  • Financial Analysis of Battery Electric Transit Buses (PDF)
    Financial Analysis of Battery Electric Transit Buses Caley Johnson, Erin Nobler, Leslie Eudy, and Matthew Jeffers National Renewable Energy Laboratory NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy Technical Report Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy NREL/TP-5400-74832 Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC June 2020 This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications. Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 Financial Analysis of Battery Electric Transit Buses Caley Johnson, Erin Nobler, Leslie Eudy, and Matthew Jeffers National Renewable Energy Laboratory Suggested Citation Johnson, Caley, Erin Nobler, Leslie Eudy, and Matthew Jeffers. 2020. Financial Analysis of Battery Electric Transit Buses. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-5400-74832. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy20osti/74832.pdf NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy Technical Report Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy NREL/TP-5400-74832 Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC June 2020 This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy National Renewable Energy Laboratory Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications. 15013 Denver West Parkway Golden, CO 80401 Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov NOTICE This work was authored by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, operated by Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308. Funding provided by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Vehicle Technologies Office.
    [Show full text]
  • An Attractive Value Proposition for Zero-Emission Buses in Denmark
    Fuel Cell Electric Buses An attractive Value Proposition for Zero-Emission Buses In Denmark - April 2020 - Photo: An Attractive Line Bloch Value Klostergaard, Proposition North for Denmark Zero-Emission Region Buses. in Denmark Executive Summary Seeking alternatives to diesel buses are crucial for realizing the Danish zero Zero–Emission Fuel Cell emission reduction agenda in public transport by 2050. In Denmark alone, public transport and road-transport of cargo account for ap- proximately 25 per cent of the Danish CO2 emissions. Thus, the deployment of zero emission fuel cell electric buses (FCEBs) will be an important contribution Electric Buses for Denmark. to the Danish climate law committed to reaching 70 per cent below the CO2 emissions by 2030 and a total carbon neutrality by 2050. In line with the 2050 climate goals, Danish transit agencies and operators are being called to implement ways to improve air quality in their municipalities while maintaining quality of service. This can be achieved with the deployment of FCEBs and without compromising on range, route flexibility and operability. As a result, FCEBs are now also being included as one of the solutions in coming zero emission bus route tenders Denmark. Danish municipalities play an important role in establishing the public transport system of the future, however it is also essential that commercial players join forces to realize the deployment of zero-emission buses. In order to push the de- velopment forward, several leading players in the hydrogen fuel cell value chain have teamed up and formed the H2BusEurope consortium committed to support the FCEB infrastructure.
    [Show full text]
  • Impact of Bus Electrification on Carbon Emissions: the Case of Stockholm
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) Accepted Manuscript Impact of bus electrification on carbon emissions: the case of Stockholm Maria Xylia, Sylvain Leduc, Achille-B. Laurent, Piera Patrizio, Yvonne van der Meer, Florian Kraxner, Semida Silveira PII: S0959-6526(18)33099-3 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.085 Reference: JCLP 14487 To appear in: Journal of Cleaner Production Received Date: 29 January 2018 Accepted Date: 09 October 2018 Please cite this article as: Maria Xylia, Sylvain Leduc, Achille-B. Laurent, Piera Patrizio, Yvonne van der Meer, Florian Kraxner, Semida Silveira, Impact of bus electrification on carbon emissions: the case of Stockholm, Journal of Cleaner Production (2018), doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.085 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Impact of bus electrification on carbon emissions: the case of Stockholm Maria Xyliaa,b *, Sylvain Leducc, Achille-B. Laurentd, Piera Patrizioc, Yvonne van der Meerd, Florian Kraxnerc, Semida Silveiraa a Energy and Climate Studies Unit, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden b Integrated Transport Research Lab (ITRL), KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden c International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria d Biobased Materials department, Maastricht University, Geleen, The Netherlands *corresponding author, e-mail: [email protected] ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1.
    [Show full text]
  • GREEN YOUR BUS RIDE Clean Buses in Latin America Summary Report
    Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized GREEN YOUR BUS RIDE Clean Buses in Latin America Summary report January 2019 Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized i Clean Buses in Latin American Cities Transport is the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, responsible for 23% of global CO2 emissions from fuel combustion. Driven by the unprecedented rate of urbanization and demand for transportation, transport has become the largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions in Latin America.1 1 IEA (2015), IADB (2013). ii Clean Buses in Latin American Cities Overview 1 1 Introduction 7 Overview of Clean Bus Technologies 8 2 Total Costs of Ownership 11 | World Bank TCO Estimates 12 3 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 15 4 Enabling Environment 21 What makes a good enabling environment for the implementation of clean buses? 22 Diagnosis of Current Situation A. Public Transport Systems 24 B. Environmental Policies 26 C. Energy Sector 28 D. Governance and Markets 30 E. Funding and Finance 32 Self Evaluations 33 5 General Recommendations 35 6 City-Specific Recommendations and Implementation Roadmaps 39 A. Buenos Aires 40 B. Mexico City 44 C. Montevideo 47 D. Santiago 50 E. São Paulo 53 Conclusions 57 References 59 Appendix A: Key Assumptions for World Bank TCO Analysis 61 Appendix B: TCO Estimates for each of the Five Cities 65 iii Clean Buses in Latin American Cities Acknowledgements This report is a product of the staff of The This report was developed by Steer for the World Bank with external contributions. The NDC Clean Bus in Latin America and the findings, interpretations, and conclusions Caribbean (LAC) Project led by Bianca expressed in this volume do not necessarily Bianchi Alves and Kavita Sethi, and the team, reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board including Abel Lopez Dodero, Alejandro of Executive Directors, or the governments Hoyos Guerrero, Diego Puga, Eugenia they represent.
    [Show full text]
  • Transit Talk Vol
    TRANSIT TALK VOL. 41 Edmonton Launches Battery Bus Service Eleven years after the City of Edmonton scrapped its 140 km electric trolleybus system in a backward move that will live in infamy, electric buses of sorts have returned to its streets. The new vehicles are battery buses, built by American manufacturer Proterra. Although only about half as energy efficient overall as trolleybuses, the vehicles are just as quiet and just as fume-free in the streets, where the noxious fumes from diesel buses have the greatest potential for harm. 21 of the new battery- electric buses debuted in August, with the remainder of an order of 40 vehicles to follow. Built in South Carolina, the buses run off long-range batteries, which are charged overnight using electricity from the grid at overhead charging stations in the garage. Edmonton is one of only a few cities in North America to employ this particular type of charging technology. The buses can travel up to 350 km on a single charge. The vehicles are considered a “long range battery bus”. Transit Branch Manager Eddie Robar explained: “We chose a long-range charge bus because that gives us effectively the same capability we have with our diesel buses today — we can do the same things with our electric bus. We get a full service day from that bus. We’re able to apply it to any route or any location in the city. We’re not restricted by where we need to charge the bus at what time of day. It goes back to the garage, it charges overnight and it’s back out for a full day of service the next day.” The 40-foot Proterra Catalyst E2 MAX vehicle boasts 660 kWh of onboard energy and Proterra’s DuoPower drivetrain.
    [Show full text]
  • Barriers to Adopting Electric Buses
    BARRIERS TO ADOPTING ELECTRIC BUSES RYAN SCLAR, CAMRON GORGUINPOUR, SEBASTIAN CASTELLANOS, AND XIANGYI LI WRIROSSCITIES.ORG Barriers to Adopting Electric Buses i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ABOUT THE AUTHORS This report was developed under the project “Transitioning to a zero-emission transport Ryan Sclar is a Research Analyst who world through bus electrification” along with its sister report, How to Enable Electric focuses on electric vehicles with the Ross Bus Adoption in Cities Worldwide. We are grateful for the financial support of Germany’s Center for Sustainable Cities program at WRI. Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development for this project. Contact: [email protected] We would like to express our gratitude to the many people whose ideas and contributions were invaluable to the structure and content of this report. Several staff contributed to its Camron Gorguinpour is the Senior Global creation. Emma Stewart was instrumental in helping to structure and initiate the report. Manager for Electric Vehicles with the Ross Our internal reviewers at WRI helped guide the direction of the report: Anne Maassen, Center for Sustainable Cities program at WRI. Anusha Chitturi, Celina Bonugli, Eric Mackres, Jone Orbea, Sergio Avelleda, Su Song, and Tolga Imamoglu. We would particularly like to acknowledge Renata Marson, Laura Contact: [email protected] Malaguzzi Valeri, Maria Hart, and Emilia Suarez for their dedication and support in the Sebastian Castellanos is an Associate research and review process. We also thank Emily Matthews and Sarah DeLucia for timely with the Ross Center for Sustainable Cities and crucial editorial support. We would like to thank the communications team—Romain program at WRI.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Workshop Will Begin Shortly
    Welcome Zero Emission Bus Public Workshop will begin shortly. El taller público sobre autobuses de cero emisiones comenzará en breve. 1 Introductions & Roles 2 Workshop Flow • Presentation provided in English and Spanish • How to submit/ask questions • Submit a question through the Q&A icon • Raise your virtual hand - MTS will call/unmute you to ask question • Polls will be conducted during presentation to collect feedback 3 Workshop Flow • Four presentation sections: MTS Electric Bus Pilot Update MTS Draft Transition Plan Greenhouse Gas Emission Benefit Study Implementation in Disadvantaged Communities • There will be a question and answer time period at the end of each section (please keep questions to appropriate sections) • Additional final question and answer session at the end of the presentation 4 Opening Remarks Nathan Fletcher MTS Board Chair San Diego County Supervisor, District 4 5 Opening Summary of Zero Emissions Bus Activities to Date Sharon Cooney MTS Chief Executive Officer 6 Poll What comes to mind first when you hear “zero emissions bus fleet?” A. Cleaner air/GHG reductions B. Adopting the latest transit technologies C. Quieter rides D. Healthier communities 7 Poll Prior to COVID-19, how often did you ride MTS? A. Never (non-rider or more than one year since riding) B. Rarely (once or twice a year, special events only) C. Occasionally (once or twice a month) D. Semi-Frequently (once or twice a week) E. Very Frequently (three or more times a week) 8 Poll How would you describe your level of knowledge about zero-emissions vehicles such as electric buses? A.
    [Show full text]
  • UC Davis Research Reports
    UC Davis Research Reports Title Technology and Fuel Transition Scenarios to Low Greenhouse Gas Futures for Cars and Trucks in California Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8wn8920p Authors Fulton, Lewis Miller, Marshall Burke, Andrew et al. Publication Date 2019-09-01 eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Technology and Fuel Transition Scenarios to Low Greenhouse Gas Futures for Cars and Trucks in California Lewis Fulton, Marshall Miller, Andrew Burke, Qian Wang, Chris Yang September 2019 Research Report – UCD-ITS-RR-19-35 Contents CONTENTS 1 LIST OF TABLES 3 LIST OF FIGURES 4 GLOSSARY 7 ABSTRACT 9 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 10 1.1 MAJOR FINDINGS ............................................................................................................... 12 1.2 PROJECTING TECHNOLOGY PORTFOLIOS IN TRANSPORTATION ....................................................... 13 1.3 IMPACTS ON FUEL CONSUMPTION AND GHG EMISSIONS ............................................................. 13 1.4 IMPACTS ON COSTS ............................................................................................................ 15 1.5 POLICY IMPLICATIONS ......................................................................................................... 17 2 INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND 19 3 APPROACH 19 3.1 GENERAL APPROACH .......................................................................................................... 19 3.2 MODELING APPROACH .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Electrification of Transportation Strategic Roadmap
    March 29, 2018 The Honorable Chair and Members of the Hawai 'i Public Utilities Commission ZOIB MAR 2CJ P 2: Li t; Kekuanaoa Building, 1st Floor PLJr' 1 iT'L 1··1·T--:c- 465 South King Street PU• ;.) ··' \,) j I ' .LJ ( ,. ('; ~ ....·' ~ l r:' :""· '·"' r- I I1 r'~~ I Honolulu, Hawai 'i 96813 . .. , I . , -..~· ..__) I ...... 1 Dear Commissioners: Subject: Docket No. 2016-0168 EV-F and EV-U Pilot Extension Electrification of Transportation Strategic Roadmap In accordance with Decision and Order Nci. 34592, 1 filed June 2, 2017 in the subject proceeding, the Hawaiian Electric Companies'2 respectfully submit their Electrification of Transportation ("EoT") Strategic Roadmap ("Roadmap"). The Roadmap represents a straightforward guide, based on input from stakeholders, transportation and technical experts, policymakers, non-government organizations and perhaps most importantly, customers, for turning the Companies' transportation transformation plans into actions. The Roadmap describes a number of steps to accelerate the EoT, including: (1) increasing electric vehicle ("EV") adoption by helping to lower costs and educating customers; (2) accelerating the buildout of EV charging infrastructure; (3) supporting the electrification of buses and other heavy equipment; (4) incentivizing EV charging to align with grid needs and save drivers and utility customers money; and (5) coordinating with ongoing grid modernization and planning efforts to help maximize the use of renewable resources. With these and other actions described in the Roadmap, the State can enhance its energy security and accelerate its transition from fossil fuels to renewable resources, both for the production of electricity and for ground transportation, while at the same time helping to facilitate more renewable resources online and helping to lower energy costs for customers.
    [Show full text]
  • TCRP Report 38: Guidebook for Evaluating, Selecting, And
    43 CHAPTER 7 LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS 7.1 OVERVIEW LPG and natural gas are often quite similar; the major difference is that the CNG system must be calibrated for a LPG is a by-product of both petroleum refining and higher volumetric fuel flow rate at a given load. natural gas processing plants. Approximately 60 percent of Automotive fuel-grade CNG has a substantially higher the LPG produced in North America comes from natural octane rating than automotive LPG; therefore, to prevent gas processing. Processing removes most of the ethane and combustion knock, a heavy-duty LPG engine is normally heavier HCs as well as carbon dioxide, which may exist in designed for lower peak combustion pressures than a the gas at the wellhead, to produce a pipeline gas with a similar CNG engine. This is accomplished by using a lower relatively consistent heating value. In North America, LPG compression ratio or a lower turbocharger boost pressure. is formulated to consist mainly of propane with minor Because of this octane limitation, an LPG engine would be amounts of propylene, butane, and other light HCs. LPG is expected to have somewhat lower fuel efficiency than a gaseous at room temperature and atmospheric pressure, but CNG engine operating in similar service. Because the LPG it liquefies at pressures greater than 120 psig. This property vehicle would almost certainly have a lighter fuel storage makes it convenient to store and transport LPG as a system than a similar CNG vehicle, the LPG vehicle would pressurized liquid. The stored liquid fuel is easily perform less work, with the result that actual in-service fuel vaporized into a gas with clean-burning combustion consumption (on a Btu/mi basis) probably would be quite properties similar to those of CNG.
    [Show full text]
  • Going Electric a Pathway to Zero-Emission Buses
    June 2021 Going electric A pathway to zero-emission buses Policy paper Going electric | A pathway to zero-emission buses | Policy paper June 2021 A Acknowledgements Disclaimer This policy paper has been prepared by David Leeder and Alok The contents of this publication reflect the opinions of the authors Jain (TIL consultants), Ian Jennings (EBRD Senior Urban Transport and do not necessarily reflect the views of the EBRD. Hyperlinks Specialist), Xiaolu Wang (EBRD Infrastructure Associate Banker) to non-EBRD websites do not imply any official endorsement of, or and Kjetil Tvedt (EBRD Senior Economist). responsibility for, the opinions, data or products presented at these locations, or guarantee the validity of the information provided. The The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) sole purpose of links to non-EBRD sites is to indicate that further gratefully acknowledges the support and contributions of its information is available on related topics. co-publishing partners, The International Association of Public Transport (UITP) (Arno Kerkhof and Aida Abdulah) and Deutsche © European Bank for Reconstruction and Development Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH One Exchange Square (Christian Mettke and Corinna Winter). London EC2A 2JN United Kingdom The EBRD also acknowledges the contributions of all participants and speakers at the Bank’s Going Electric conference, which took www.ebrd.com place in London in March 2019 and of those at the GIZ Berlin Transport and Climate Change Week conference, held in March All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced 2020. Staff of Go-Ahead London and Transport for London (TfL) or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying kindly provided assistance and cooperation in arranging site visits and recording, without the written permission of the copyright during the Going Electric conference.
    [Show full text]