12 OPERATIONS COMMITTEE May17, 2000
Los Angeles County SUBJECT: Metropolitan 370 LOWFLOOR BUSES Transportation ACTION: SELECT FUEL TYPE FOR 370 LOWFLOOR BUSES Authority
OneGateway Plaza Los Angeles,CA RECOMMENDATION 90012 Ao Receive the Cost Differential Calculation Report of the MTAEscrow Agent 213.922.6000 (AttachmentB) and authorize the 370 base buy as diesel, with recommendation for the option buses. (FOR COMMITTEE& BOARD
Nailing Address: ACTIONS) RO.Box ~94 After selecting the fuel type, openthe bids and awarda fixed price contract to Los Angeles,CA 90053 the lowest responsive, responsible bidder for the selected fuel type. (FOR BOARD ACTION ONLY) "\
RATIONALE
Replacing370 retirement eligible buses with newbuses by the end of fiscal year 2002 is required to ensure that we continue to meetour service demandsinto the future. This bus procurementis included in the adopted Accelerated Bus ProcurementPlan, and will ensure continued compliancewith the plan.
In 1993 the MTAadopted a policy whichrequires that all new bus purchases be alternate fuel powered.As a result, the MTAnow operates the nation’s largest fleet of alternate fuel buses with approximately850 CNGbuses in service and 720 additional CNGbuses under contract for delivery over the next two years. By 2002 the MTA will have at least 1570CNG buses in its fleet.
Since the adoption of the alternate fuel policy, there have been important changes whichmake it appropriate fbr the Boardto reconsider its policy in connectionwith the current bus order. The most significant changesare:
1) Extensive actual MTAoperating experience with both diesel and CNGwhich permit factual comparisonsof cost, reliability, performanceand safety differences. 2) Availability of newdiesel based technologywhich greatly reduces diesel engine emissions and narrows the gap between diesel and CNGemissions.
3) The adoption of the new California Air Resources Board (CARB)rules which will permit transit agencies following the alternate fuel path to buy (and operate) a maximumof 15% diesel poweredvehicles
To provide the Board of Directors with accurate cost information and maximumflexibility in the selection of a fuel type for the newbuses, the Invitation For Bid wasdesigned to provide alternate bids for both CNGand for diesel fueled buses. Bidders were required to submit a bid for each fuel type, and the absence of one fuel type wouldbe groundsto find that bidder non- responsive. To ensure that this methodologydid not prejudice any bidder, the MTAhad bidders submit sealed bids to Judicial Arbitration and MediationServices, Justice Steven J. Stone (RET.), whoacted as an independent EscrowAgent. A description of the escrow process contained in Attachment A.
The IFB also includes two options for additional buses, each option being for a minimumof 200 and a maximumof 350 additional buses. The first option is valid for 36 monthsfollowing execution of the contract and the second option is valid for 48 monthsfollowing execution of the contract.
FISCAL IMPACT
The following funds have been programmedfor bus procurements:
BUS FUEL FACILITIES
FY 01 $ 384.5 Million $ 5.732 Million
FY 02 $ 404.5 Million $ 8.108 Million
The proposed expenditures will not be knownuntil the fuel type has been selected and the bids have been opened.
FuelType Determination - 370 Low Floor Transit Buses Page2 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
A financial analysis was conductedto determine the cost impacts of fuel type on the capital and operating budgets. Information from this bid provided through the escrow process indicates that the capital cost difference betweenthe lowest responsive bid for CNGand diesel buses is $46,270per bus, or a savings in bus capital cost of $17.1 million for 370 diesel buses. If both options wereexercised for an additional 700 buses, the total cost differential is $49.5 million for 1070 buses.
The procurementof CNGbuses will also have an added impact on the capital budget due to infrastructure requirements. For every 200 newCNG buses, the agency will need to install one additional CNGfueling station and modifythe adjacent maintenancefacilities. Facilities Engineeringhas previously estimated that modifyingexisting fueling and maintenancefacilities to accommodatethe base buy of 370 CNGvehicles would cost up to $10 million. These costs maybe amortized over several years if the MTAuses another Public/Private Partnership as was done with Divisions 5, 7, and 1.
Fuel cost and availability are importantelements of overall cost, but are difficult to predict over a 12 year life-cycle. The cost of diesel fuel has varied from a low of $0.41 / gallon in February 1999to a high of $1.08 / gallon in March2000. The average cost of diesel fuel over the past five years was $0.70 / gallon. The cost of natural gas has remainedrelatively steady in past years. The averagecost of natural gas for the current fiscal year is $0.36 / therm. Whenthe energy costs for compressingnatural gas and the added cost of maintaining CNGfueling facilities are included (the cost for maintainingdiesel fueling systemsis minimal),the total cost of CNG approximately$0.50 / therm. Ona per mile basis, the total fuel cost for CNGis $0.227 / mile and diesel is $0.212 / mile. Whilediesel fuel costs historically have been slightly lower than CNG,the cost of diesel fuel mayfluctuate morethan natural gas over the next 12 years. The California EnergyCommission’s "Fuels Report" (dated 11/1998) indicated that diesel fuel prices will have a "Volatility" of up to $0.20. The samereport projects natural gas prices to be stable, varying only about 1.4% annually.
The added complexityof the engine, fuel, gas detection systems, and the higher operating temperatures on CNGbuses have resulted in higher costs to maintain CNGbuses than standard diesel buses. In general, the transit industry has reported a 20 percent increase in maintenance costs for CNGbuses, including maintenanceof fueling facilities and safety systems. CNG engine components,fuel systems, and maintenanceactivities unique to CNGsystems (e.g. tank inspections) are responsible for increased costs. The annual incremental operating and maintenancecost for 370 CNGbuses is projected to be $3.3 million higher than the annual operating and maintenance cost for 370 diesel buses. As CNGengine technology and maintenancepractices improve, this cost difference maybe reduced, especially as diesel engines also becomemore complexto meet more stringent emission standards.
Fuel Type Determination - 370 LowFloor Transit Buses Page 3 The following table summarizesthe anticipated life cycle cost differential for 370 CNGbuses versus diesel buses.
Table 1 - Life Cycle Cost Comparison- 370 buses Capital Costs Operating Costs (Annual) Total Cost Bus Price1 Fueling Facilitya Fuel3 Maintenance4 (12 Year Life-Cycle)
CNG $120.7 million $10 million $3.6 million $11.6 million $313 million
($326,270/bus) (2 Divisions)
Diesel $103.6 million $0 $3.4 million $8.5 million $246 million ($ :80, O00/bus)
Life Cycle notes: 1. The bus capital cost difference is the actual differential betweendiesel and CNGfrom the 370 bus IFB. Becauseonly the bid price differential is known,the purchase prices above are estimated based on earlier MTA bus bid prices. 2. Fueling facility costs are based on historical MTAcosts for building a CNGfueling facility, and for completing maintenancefacility safety modifications. Life cycle costs for fueling maybe slightly less if CNG public/private partnership used. Fuel cost assumptionsare 43,000 miles per bus, per year; 3.3mpgat $0.70/gallon for diesel; 2.2mptat $0.50/thermfor natural gas (including the cost of compressionand CNGfueling facility maintenance). Comparativedata for diesel and CNGmaintenance costs are from the Fuel Strategies Report. Maintenance costs are based solely on those FY99labor and material expensecodes that are unique to either CNGand diesel buses; these costs do not include those functions that are similar for both vehicle types (i.e. fueling and cleaning).
It should also be noted that as the MTAmoves closer to a 100%CNG fleet, other fiscal and operational impacts mayoccur. Presently, with a mixedfleet the MTAis able to utilize buses with the lower cost fuel type and longer range on longer routes. This flexibility and the ability to respond to emergencies(such as earthquakes where one fuel type maybe cut off) are diminished as the fleet mix movestoward a single fuel type. In addition, we expect that advancementsin newtechnology over the next few years will provide other options for clean fuel buses. To the extent that the MTAcontinues to invest exclusively in CNGbuses and facilities, the amortization of that sunk cost maydelay MTAfrom movingtoward newfuel technologies (e.g. hybrids, fuel cells, etc.) as they becomeviable.
Fuel Type Determination - 370 LowFloor Transit Buses Page 4 BACKGROUND
By June 2004, the MTAexpects to have approximately2400 buses in its active fleet (not including Contractor operated service). Four alternatives are described in the last section of this report for Boardconsideration. If the Boardwere to choose the diesel path permitted under the newly adopted California Air Resources Board (CARB)regulations and purchase only diesel buses from this procurement forward, then by 2005 the fleet mix would be 58%CNG and 42% diesel as shownbelow.
Alternative I -- Assumesall new buses are Diesel
DIESEL v. CNG FLEET COMPARISON
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Fiscal Year
Fuel Type Determination - 370 Low Floor Transit Buses Page 5 If this 370 bus procurement and all remaining options were exercised entirely as CNGbuses, then over 86%of MTA’sactive fleet would operate on CNGby the end of 2004; and, 99.3% by 2006. Alternative 2 --_Assumes all new buses are CNG DIESELv. CNGFLEET COMPARISON
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Fiscal Year
If the 370 bus buy is exercised with diesel engines, and all other future bus procurements are CNG, then approximately 20% of the MTAfleet would operate on diesel in 2005.
Alternative 3 --_Assumes 370 order Diesel--All others CNG DIESELv. CNGFLEET COMPARISON
9O% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 FiscalYear
Fuel Type Determination - 370 Low Floor Transit Buses Page 6 Table 2 belowsummarizes the fleet mix scenarios under these three alternatives.
Table 2 - Percent of MTAfleet that wouldbe CNGunder different fuel selections Fuel Type Selection 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Diesel Only (Alt 1) 41% 58% 59% 59% 58% 58% 57% CNGOnly (Alt. 2) 41% 58% 71% 79% 86% 93% 99% 370 Base Diesel - All 41% 58% 59% 65% 72% 79% 86% Future Buys CNG(Alt 3)
State and local air quality regulations are calling for increaseduse of alternative fuel in transit buses and proposed regulations maylimit MTA’sability to buy diesel buses in the future. The newly adopted CARBstatewide transit bus rule requires increasingly cleaner buses over the next 10 years, but it does not prohibit the use of any particular fuel technology.As such, transit agencies can committo an alternative fuel procurementpath (i.e., at least 85%of future buses must operate on non-diesel fuels) or a diesel path (i.e., diesel buses can be boughtfor several years in exchangefor more stringent future emission standards). However,the South Coast Air Quality ManagementDistrict (AQMD)has proposed a more stringent regulation (Rule 1192) wouldrequire local transit agencies to buy only alternative fuel buses in the future. Since this requirement could be effective upon adoption of the rule (proposed for June 16, 2000), only bus contracts executed before this date are likely to be exemptfrom this requirement. Evenif the MTAawards this contract for 370 diesel buses before June 16, 2000, Rule 1192 mayprohibit the MTAfrom exercising the options for additional diesel buses.
PROCUREMENT SUMMARY
In December1999, IFB No. OP33200634was issued for 370 LowFloor Transit Buses. The Invitation for Bids provides alternate bids for CNGand for diesel fueled buses. A summaryof the escrow process is contained in AttachmentA.
On April 17, 2000 three (3) bids were received by the MTAEscrow Agent. The Escrow Agent sent the non-priced bid forms to MTAstaff for review to determine responsiveness with the technical requirements of the bid and responsibility of the bidders. While all bidders completed the pre-qualification process and have been approved, MTAstaff determined that one bidder, Orion Bus Industries, was non-responsive to the technical requirements. On May5, 2000, Orion Bus Industries submitted a protest of the determination of non-responsiveness. On May11, 2000, the MTArejected the protest. A summaryof the procurement process is contained in Attachment C, Procurement Summaryand Attachment D, Technical Review Summary. Based on that review, MTAnotified the Escrow Agent of MTA’sdetermination of responsiveness based upon the non-priced bid forms. The Escrow Agent then reviewed the pricing forms to determine responsiveness and to calculate the difference in Unit Price between the lowest responsive Bids for Diesel (GroupA) and CNG(Group B), (the "Price Differential Calculation").
FuelType Determination - 370 Low Floor Transit Buses Page7 The price differential was utilized in this report to estimate the life cost comparison between diesel and CNGbus types.
SUMMARYOF BOARD ALTERNATIVES
The following section summarizesthe Board’s options in selecting a fuel type for this IFB. Followingselection of a fuel type, the bids will be "opened"to determine the lowest price proposal amongthe responsive and responsible bidders for the selected fuel type.
The Board’s alternatives for this procurementare as follows:
Authorizethe 370 base buy and all option buses as diesel. This would be contrary to the Board’s current adopted Alternative Fuel Policy and would committhe MTA to declare the diesel path on January 1, 2001 under newlyadopted CARBregulations. Furthermore, pending AQMDregulations, if adopted, could affect any contract(s) for diesel buses that are not executedbefore the effective date of any newregulation.
o Authorize the 370 base buy and all option buses as CNG.This would result in a fleet mix of 86%CNG and 14%diesel by the end of 2004, and cost an additional $68.5 million in capital and $114.5 million in operating expense comparedto diesel for the 1070 buses over the 12 year life cycle. This alternative wouldcontinue existing Board policy and complywith the adopted CARBalternative fuel path and proposed AQMDregulations.
o Authorize the 370 base buy as diesel, with no recommendationfor the option buses. Both this alternative and Alternative 1 wouldrequire execution of a purchase contract prior to the effective date of new regulations by AQMD,currently proposed for adoption in June 2000. This alternative wouldstill allow the Boardto declare the Alternative Fuel path under CARBregulations in January 2001.
° Authorize the 370 base buy as CNGwith no recommendationfor the option buses. This continues the Board’s Alternative Fuel Policy, and would cost an additional $27.1 million in capital and $39.6 million in operating expenses compared to diesel for the 370 buses over the 12 year life cycle.
Fuel Type Determination - 370 LowFloor Transit Buses Page 8 SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION
DBEparticipation in this procurement is covered under FTAregulations governing Transit Vehicle Manufacturers.
ATTACHMENT(S)
No Receipt of Bids, Role of the Escrow Agent and Contract Award B. Report of the Escrow Agent C. Procurement Summary D. Technical Review Summary
Thomas K. Conner G~endo~y Williams Executive Officer, Transit Operations Int~i~rn__~cutive Officer, Procurement
Fuel Type Determination - 370 LowFloor Transit Buses Page 9 ATTACHMENT A
RECEIPT OF BIDS, ROLE OF THE ESCROWAGENT AND CONTRACTAWARD
The procurementprocess for the 370 buses was conducted in the following manner:
Ao Bid Submittal 1. Bidders submitted separate Bids for Diesel and for CNGBuses in separate sealed envelopes.
Bo Bid Review and Award 1. The EscrowAgent confidentially, and without the participation of the bidders or MTA,opened the Bids and transmitted the Technical Requirementsand non-pricing Bid Forms to the MTAContracting Officer. 2. MTAstaff performed a compliance review of the non-priced bid forms and determinedthe Bidder’s responsiveness to the non-priced portion of the Bid Requirementsand responsibility of the Bidder. 3. MTAsubmitted its determination of the responsiveness of that portion of each Bid based upon the technical requirements and the non-priced Bid Formsto the Escrow Agent. MTAinstructed the Escrow Agent not to consider any Bid that MTAhad determinedto be non-responsivein its review of the non-priced Bid Forms.
o Immediatelyafter receipt of MTA’sdetermination of responsiveness, the Escrow Agent confidentially, and without participation of the Bidders or the MTA,reviewed the Bid Pricing Formsof the responsive Bidders and verified the mathematical accuracyof the pricing and determinedthe responsivenessof the bids. If required, the EscrowAgent was authorized to makemathematical corrections to the Bids as providedin the bid specifications. The EscrowAgent then calculated the difference in Unit Price betweenthe lowest responsive Bids for Diesel (GroupA) and CNG(Group B), (the "Price Differential Calculation"). The EscrowAgent then prepared a report to the MTABoard of Directors, through the Contracting Officer, whichcontains the EscrowAgent’s Price Differential Calculation. The identity of the Bidders and the Bid Prices were not disclosed.
o The Escrow Agent then resealed and placed the Bid Price Formssubmitted by each Bidder into larger envelopes whichfully identify the Bidder and Bid in the same manneras the original submittal. The EscrowAgent signed his nameacross the sealed portion of the envelope. The EscrowAgent in his report also affirmed the his uninterrupted possession and confidentiality of the Bid Pricing Forms. The Escrow Agenttransmitted the report to the MTAContracting Officer and retained the resealed Bidsstill in his possession. o At the Board Meeting, the MTABoard of Directors will consider the Board Report and the Price Differential betweenCNG and Diesel Bus Bids and other issues related in its choice of Bus Fuel types, and will be requested to choosea fuel type.
Fuel Type Determination - 370 LowFloor Transit Buses Page 10 9. Following the MTABoard determination of the selected Fuel type, the EscrowAgent shall deliver the sealed Bids for the approvedfuel type to the ContractingOfficer. The MTAstaff shall adjourn to an adjacent location and publicly open and read the Bids of the selected fuel type. 10. Followingthe public Bid Opening,the MTAstaff shall present the low bid(s) to the MTABoard for award. If the Board votes to award, the award shall be madein accordance with the section entitled AWARDBASIS. 11. The awardshall be subject to and conditional upon Bidder’s compliancewith all conditions to MTA’sexecution of the Formof Contract. 12. Following approval of the award recommendation,the recommendedfirm shall execute the Formof Contract for each Contract awarded. 13. The MTAshall not execute the Contract until completionof all conditions are met by the Contractor. 14. The bids for the buses with the fuel type which were not selected by the MTABoard will be retained by the MTAfor record purposes only.
Fuel Type Determination - 370 LowFloor Transit Buses Page 11 May 11,2000 ORIGINAL
TO: BOARDOF DIRECTORS,LOS ANGELESCOUNTY METROPOLITANTRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
VIA: MARGARETMERHOFF, CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION MANAGER
FROM: JUSTICESTEVEN J. STONE(RET.) - ESCROWOFFICER
SUBJECT: REPORTOF ESCROWOFFICER REGARDING ALTERNATE BIDS FOR DIESEL AND CNGPOWERED TRANSIT BUSES
Pursuantto the instructions containedin the Los AngelesCounty MetropolitanTransportation Invitation for Bid for 370Forty FootLow Floor Transit Buses,I wasretained throughJudicial Arbitration andMediation Servicesto receive alternate bids for diesel andCNG powered buses.
ProcessFollowed - As providedin the instructions:
1. Bids werereceived and accepted until 2:00 p.m. on Apdl 17, 2000.
Eachbidder submitted its bid in two packages,one containing pricing informationand the other containingtechnical andother required informationnot related to pdce.
After the expirationof time for receipt of bids I forwardedunopened all = packagescontaining the technical andother required informationnot related to pdceto MTA.
o OnApdi 25, 2000I receiveda report from MTArelated to the responsivenessof the bids basedupon its reviewof the technical and other requiredinformation. I eliminatedunopened all bids determined by MTAto be non-responsive.
5. OnApril 25, 2000I openedthe bids containingthe pricing information and reviewedthem for completenessand compliancewith the
12 L~CMT~Procurement Fax:213-922ilOOS Ma~ II "Uu 14:uu
requirementsof the Invitation for Bids. Basedupon the report from MTAand my review of the bids I determinedall bids to be responsive.
6. I verified the mathematicalaccuracy of the bid amountsand found no errors.
7. 1 determinedthe lowest responsive bidder for diesel poweredbuses and the lowest responsive bidder for CNGpowered buses.
i calculated the difference in the unit pdceper bus andthe difference in total price for 370 busesbetween the lowest responsivebid for diesel poweredbuses and the lowest responsive bid for CNGpowered buses.
9. OnApdi 25, 2000, I placed the bids in newenvelopes, sealed them and depositedthem in a locked cabinet in my office.
10. I will deliver the resealedbids to the MTAContracting Officer by hand- delivery on May25, 2000.
Determination
1. The lower bid is for the diesel poweredbus.
2. The difference in unit price per bus betweendiesel and CNGpowered busesis $46, 270- no delivery included.
3. The total difference in bid price betweendiesel and CNGpowered .buses for all 370 busesis $17,119,900no delivery included.
Custodyof Bids - Fromthe time of receipt of the bid packages containing price information on Apdi 17, 2000until they are delivered on May25, 2000in accordancewith the instructions, the bids have beenand will be in the continuouspossession of either meor my assistant, or were in a locked cabinet on the premisesof the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Service. Only I and my assistant viewedor had access to the bids during that time.
May1.1.., 2000 bate
13 BOARD REPORT ATTACHMENT C PROCUREMENT SUMMARY Procurement:OP33200634 370 LowFloor Transit Buses BoardDate: April 27, 2000 SEALEDBID
RecommendedVendor: To be determined at bid opening on May25, 2000. Name: City: Total Dollar Amount:$ including sales tax
Description of Equipmentor Material: 370 LowFloor Transit Buses including spare parts.
Issued and Advertised: December27, 1999 Advertised in - Daily News, Passenger Transport
DBEParticipation Goal? No - DBEcompliance is handled by FTA. Responsive? N/A No. of Bids Sent: 51 No. of Bids Picked up by Vendors: 0 Pre-Bid Conference: January 6, 2000 8. Date bids received by EscrowAgent: April 17, 2000
9. No. of bids received: 3
10. Staff analysis: The unit prices for the 370 LowFloor Transit Buses were: Bidder Base Bid Unit Price New Flyer to be determined North AmericanBus Industries to be determined
Tech Analysis-Responsiveness- The Staff reviewed the non-priced bid forms for compliancewith the bid requirements and technical specifications. Reference checks were conductedand Dun& Bradstreet reports were obtained for all three firms. All of the firms had acceptable references. All non-priced certificates were reviewed, were found responsive and the required Bid Bondswere provided. Each firm providedinformation regarding staffing, Quality Assurance,and facility capabilities. Basedupon the submitted information, it appearedthat each firm has the capability to produce the buses. Staff performeda detailed review of the technical submittals provided by each bidder to determine responsiveness to the MTAspecification requirements. The technical documentsubmitted by Orion Bus Industries contained material deviations from the specification and were determined to be non-responsive to the technical requirements. (See AttachmentD.) The technical documents submitted by North AmericanBus Industries (NABI)and by NewFlyer of America did not contain any material deviations from the specification. Basedon staff review, the Escrow Agent was instructed to review only the priced forms submitted by NABI and NFA.
Fuel TypeDetermination - 370 LowFloor Transit Buses Page 14 BOARD REPORT ATTACHMENT C PROCUREMENT SUMMARY Procurement:OP33200634 370 LowFloor Transit Buses BoardDate: April 27, 2000 SEALEDBID
11. Protest Received: Yes. Orion Bus Industries protest the determination of non- responsiveness on May5, 2000.
Disposition of Protest/Appeal: The MTArejected the protest on May11, 2000.
12. Award to Other than Low Bid? N/A Why?
13. Conflict of Interest form submitted to Ethics? Yes.
14. EO Evaluation Completed: NA
15. Pre-Qualification Completed?Yes. All bidders were determined to be Pre-Qualified on April 19, 2000.
16. Audit Report Status: Buy AmericaAudit is to be completed Post Awardbut prior to contract execution.
17. Contract Administrator: Margaret Merhoff Tel: 2-1073
18. Project Manager: Sal Gatdula Tel: 2-5843
Fuel TypeDetermination - 370 LowFloor Transit Buses Page 15 Attachment D TECHNICAL SUBMITTAL REVIEW LACMTA IFB OP33200634 370 CNG Low Floor Buses
EquipmentEngineering staff have completed a detailed review of technical submittals submitted by NewFlyer, NABI,and Orion Bus Industries which includes their proposed fuel capacity and supporting analysis.
Summaryof Findings- Analysis provided by NABIand New Flyer were determined to be responsive to the MTA’ssupport their proposed fuel capacity to meet the MTA’s400 mile range requirements. The MTAhas determined that the technical submittal and the non-priced bid forms submitted by Orion Bus Industries. Based on this review, the MTAhas determined that the technical submittal is non-responsive. This determination is based on the following items:
Group B - CNGTechnical Submittal
The technical submittal is non-responsive to the CNGfuel requirement. The specification required each Bidder to provide sufficient CNGfuel to meet a 400 mile range in the CBDcycle including idle time and residual fuel whichwould remain in the cylinders whenthe low fuel light was illuminated. Bidders were provided information regarding the requirement and howto perform the required calculations. Further, Bidders were required to provide the backupmaterial to enable the MTAto determine the accuracy of the calculations.
The technical submittal provided by Orion Bus Industries indicates the provision of 8 fuel cylinders with a combinedcapacity of 20,080 standard cubic feet (scf). This volumeis supported by the SCI letter whichwas also included in Tab No. 6 of the technical submittal.
The fuel calculation provided by Orion indicated a requirement for at least 21,062 scf of CNG fuel for the CBDcycle, idle cycle and residual fuel left in the cylinders once the low fuel light is illuminated. Hence, Orion’s bid submittal of 20,080 scfwas 982 scf less than their calculated fuel capacity requirement.
Orion’s calculations did showthat the proposedfuel cylinders could theoretically hold morefuel than the manufacturer’srated capacity. Byproviding a fuel capacity based on a fuel density of 226 kg/cubic meter at 3600 psi, the fuel cylinders could theoretically hold 21,900 scf of CNG fuel whichis 1,820 scfmore fuel than the manufacturer’srated capacity. However,the fuel density of 226 kg/cubic meter was not supported by any information provided by Orion. Further, this density is not supportedby any knownfuel density data, and this is a higher fuel density than is readily available anywherein the United States.
MTArequested current CNGfuel density information from two sources, the Gas Research Institute and Southern California Gas. The published fuel density from the Gas Research Institute was 209 kg/cubic meter at 3600 psi; Southern California Gas Companyindicated that fuel density for CNGreceived by the MTAis 201 kg/cubic meter at 3600 psi.
Fuel Type Determination - 370 LowFloor Transit Buses Page 16 Using fuel density published by the Gas Research Institute (the most advantageousfuel density estimate for Orion’s calculation purposes), the capacity of the fuel cylinders wouldtotal 20,253 scfat 3600 psi. This fuel quantity is 789 scfless than the volumerequirement calculated by the Orion Bus Industries. Thus, Orion’s CNGfuel capacity was determined to be non-responsive to the MTAspecification requirements.
Group A and Group B Technical Submittal
In No. 3 on the technical submittal, Bidders were to furnish engine speed versus maximum alternator output for both 12 volt and 24 volt systems. Orion Bus Industries noted "only 24V Alternator 270 AmpsMaximum @ 1852 Engine RPM."In the space for a 12 Volt Alternator, Orion noted that this was "not provided." In the space for voltage divider, Orion noted that this was "not required."
The responses are non-compliantregarding the requirement for both a 12 and 24 volt system. WhileOrion Bus Industries submitted a Requestfor Equal/Clarification for a single 24 volt system, the request was rejected. The Request for Reconsideration was also rejected. Thus, the technical submittal is non-compliantwith this item.
Based upon the review of the technical submittal and these findings, the MTAhas determined that the technical submittal is non-responsiveto the specification requirements. Therefore, the bid submitted by Orion Bus Industries for IFB No. OP33200634has been determined to be non- responsive, and the priced bid forms will be not reviewed.
On May5, 2000, Orion Bus Industries submitted a protest disputing the MTA’sfindings. As a result of the protest, the MTAaccepted the proposed methodologyregarding the proposed electrical system. Thus, this item is nowconsidered compliant with the technical requirements. However,the MTAdid not reverse its original determination of non-responsiveness because of lack of compliancewith the fuel range requirements. Therefore, the bid submitted by Orion Bus Industries for IFB No. OP33200634was determined to be non-responsive, and the Escrow Agent was instructed that the priced bid forms were not to be reviewed.
Summaryof Proposals- The following is a summaryof the proposed CNGfuel systems. The proposals were based on the MTAspecification Section 7.10 requiting a sufficient fuel capacity expressed in Standard Cubic Feet (SCF) to attain a 400 mile range prior to the low fuel warning light coming on. The 400 mile range is based on a specific Central Business District (CBD) operating cycle with additional engine idle time emulating MTA’soperating profile.
Fuel Type Determination - 370 LowFloor Transit Buses Page 17 Proposed Quantity of Cylinders 8 7 7 Proposed Total Volume (SCF) 20,080 21,161 22,191 Fuel Density SCF/lb. (3,600 psi) 22.73 SCF/lb. 21.74 SCF/lb. 21.83 SCF/lb. Residual Volume (SCF) 1,486 (300 psi) 2,328 (400 psi) 2,158 (350 psi) Engine Idle Fuel Rate 53.85 scf/20 min 52.3 scf/20 min 42.6 scf/20 min (Total Required) (3591.795 sef) (3488.41 scf) (2841.42 set)
CBDFuel Rate (SCF/Mile) 39.96 scf/mile 36.8 scf/mile 37.39 scf/mile (Total Required) (15,984 scf) (14720 scf) (14956 sef) Total Fuel Required (SCF) 21,062 scf 20,536 scf 19,955 scf (CBD + Idle + Residual)
Fuel TypeDetermination - 370 LowFloor Transit Buses Page 18 Item 12B
Recommendthe award of a fixed price contract for 3 70 low floor CNGbuses to North American Bus Industries(NABI) in the amount of $115,424,954 subject to successful completion of post award requirements and successful resolution of any protests received. DIRECTOR HAL BERNSON MOTION
Whereas, the MTAha~ the largest CNGand Alternative Fuel Fleet iz the world; aaad
Whereas, MTAcontinues to support the AFI and to reaffarm its commitmentto clema fuel technology;
Wlaereas, MTAhas not had the oppommityto conduct or complete a study to determi__ne the reliability of "GreenDiesel Buses"nor of Dieset buses using particulate traps and low sulfur fuel; t, HEREBYMOVE, that the recommendation on Item #12 on the May 25, 2000 agenda, inctude the following: a) Within30 days, staff initiate an expansionof~e existing ultra low sulfur diesel fuel (EC Diesel) test programto evaluate the installation of ¢oarizuously regenerating traps (CRT’s) other similar particulate filters on ten methanolconversion buses. b) That upon successful completion m February 2001 oftlae ultra low sulfur diesel fuel (EC Diesel) test programcurrently underwayat the Arthur Winstondivisiom stiff’be directed to initiate a programto install CRT’sor other similar particulate filters by. February2002 on tJ:te entire remainingdiesel fleet projected to remaitt in service after January2003.
C) Staffprovide status reports to ~e Boardon a quarterly basis on ttae udtra low sulfur diesel ’~est program;
AND,I FIdSRTHERMOVE that MTAcont’i~ue to be a leader ~ tlae area of clean fuel vehicle tecimology i~cludi~g the exploration of newtectmologies ~uch as fuel cells to accomplishthe goal of improvingambient air quality in the region.
.~1ay25.200o REGULAR BOARD MEETING ITEM 12 MAY25, 2000 Staff Presentation - 370 Bus Procurement
Item 12 on the NonConsent Calendar is a staff report requesting that the Board select CompressedNatural Gas (CNG)or diesel as the fuel type and award the contract for the next MTAbus procurement.
In 1998 the Board adopted the Accelerated Bus ProcurementPlan. Your intent was to greatly improvethe MTAbus fleet by replacing virtually all of the old buses with newbuses. The Board also adopted an Alternate Fuel policy for new bus purchases. As a result of your pioneering actions, the MTAnow leads the nation in operating the largest fleet of alternate fuel buses. Countingthe 900 CNG buses we operate today and the additional 670 CNGbuses which we have on order, by 2002 we will have 1570 CNGbuses in service. About 60%of the total MTAfleet will be CNG.
Dependingon a numberof factors, including the outcomeof our appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court regarding Consent Decree obligations, we need to purchase between 760 and 1070 more buses by year 2004 to carry out our Accelerated Bus ProcurementPlan. This is an appropriate time to review what we have learned relevant to our fleet fuel policy before committingto these additional procurements.
In August 1999, MTAstaff provided the Board with a Fuel Strategies Report whichevaluated a variety of existing engine and fuel system technologies to determine performance,reliability, operating cost and emission levels. The purpose of that report was to provide the Board with information which wouldbe useful in considering whetherto continue or modifythe fuel policy as we replace the remainderof the older buses.
In December1999, an Invitation For Bid (IFB) was issued for 370 newbuses (the base buy), with two options for 200 to 350 additional buses. The total IFB is for 1070 buses. Before issuing the IFB, our bus specifications were circulated to the industry and a consultant for commentsand we incorporated suggestions which wouldreduce the cost or improvethe quality of the coaches. The IFB required bidders to submit a bid for both diesel and CNGfueled buses.
-1- Three bids have been received and were placed, unopened in escrow under the supervision of retired Judge Steven J. Stone. The purpose of the escrow process was to allow the fuel choice discussion and decision to be made independent from the bid award to a particular manufacturer, but with current information to the Board on the cost differential between choosing diesel or CNGas the fuel type.
Judge Stone has provided staff with the non-priced bid forms submitted by the bidders for review. All bidders successfully completed prequalification, but staff has determined that one bidder, Orion Bus Industries, was non-responsive to the technical requirements. A protest was submitted by Orion and has been reviewed and rejected. Orion has submitted an appeal relative to this issue which is being reviewed. Judge Stone then provided us with just the difference in price between the lowest responsive diesel and lowest responsive CNGbid. That difference is $46,270 more for a CNGbus than a diesel bus. This information is incorporated into the Life Cycle cost analysis in the report which is before you today. I would also note that in recent bus procurements, grants to MTAaveraging $12,628 per bus procured have been available to help offset the higher capital cost for CNG buses. In summary,considering the capital cost of a bus and fueling facility and the operating and maintenance costs over a 12 year life cycle, the increased cost to buy, fuel and maintain CNGbuses rather than diesel buses over a 12 year life cycle, would be an estimated $67 million for the 370 bus base buy or $183 million for the base buy plus both options totaling 1070 buses.
Nowto the important decision on fuel type...Page 8 of the staff report summarizes four alternatives for Board consideration.
1. The first alternative, if exercised immediately,would result in the purchaseof up to 1070 DIESELbuses.
The second alternative is to purchase up to 1070 CNGbuses resulting in virtually the entire MTAfleet operating on CNGby 2006.
The third alternative would commit now to the purchase of 370 DIESELbuses, with a decision regarding the option buses to be madeat a later time.
The fourth alternative would commit now to purchase 370 CNGbuses with a decision regarding the option buses to be madelater.
-2- buses on the longer runs. If we could not do that we would have to restructure the lines, increasing operating cost. Recent news stories described the increased demandfor natural gas, which may increase the price volatility in the future. A mixed fleet of diesel and CNGallows the flexibility to utilize whicheveris the cheaper fuel on the longer bus lines.
Future Alternatives
The recently adopted California Air Resources Board (CARB)regulation allows transit properties to movetoward cleaner buses by following either a diesel or alternate fuel path. This encourages continued development of both cleaner diesel engines and altemate fuel power plants. The MTAis currently testing ARCOlow sulfur, EC diesel fuel with continuously regenerating traps (particulate traps) in 12 buses operating out of Division As provided to you in a recent Board Box report, the first results from tests conducted jointly by the Califomia Air Resources Board and the MTA showeda 78.7 percent reduction in particulate emissions, a 93.9 percent reduction in hydrocarbons and a 95.9 percent reduction in carbon monoxide. These results are similar to those claimed by the manufacturer. Our field test of low sulfur fuel and CRTtraps is expected to be completed by February 2001.
You have also been provided with a summaryof a recent study by the Harvard Center of Risk Analysis at the Harvard school for Public Health which concluded that there are environmental and health advantages and disadvantages to both natural gas and diesel as a fuel. They concluded that, environmentally, natural gas is better at reducing particulate and N0x emissions Diesel is better for reducing greenhouse gases and is a safer fuel to handle.
Considering all of this information, staff concludes that the MTAshould not continue to exclusively purchase CNGfueled buses nor continue to invest in the costly and safety sensitive infrastructure necessary to support the fueling and maintenance of CNGbuses. Rather, we should position ourselves to move more quickly on to the next viable clean fuel technology, whether it be hybrid or fuel cell technology. In the interim, we can also contribute to the research and field testing of cleaner diesel fuels and engines by completing our emissions and reliability testing of low sulfur fuel combinedwith CRTtraps, and then converting all of our diesel buses which can utilize this technology, including this base buy of 370 buses, to low sulfur diesel fuel. This strategy could achieve greater emission reductions sooner than required under the diesel path set forth in the newly adopted CARBregulations and it could help define and develop cleaner diesel engines which could be more readily adapted, not just by the transit industry, but by the much larger trucking industry. In this way the MTAcan maintain a leading role in operating Alternate Fuel buses and also provide leadership in developing and operating cleaner, heavy duty diesel engines. These actions together could have a greater overall impact on clean air than just continuing to exclusively purchase CNGbuses.
Wewill be happy to answer any questions.
T. K. CONNER 5-25-00 May 12, 2000
TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Los Angeles CounW FROM: THOMAS K. CONNER Metropolitan EXECUTIVE OFFICER Transportation TRANSIT OPERATIONS Authorit~ SUBJECT: STATUS OF EC DIESEL TEST PROGRAM OneGateway Plaza Los Angeles,CA 9ootz ISSUE
The California Air ResourcesBoard (CARB)will require use of low sulfur diesel fuel for transit buses beginningJuly 1, 2002. To evaluate emissionsbenefits and reliability issues with use of tow sulfur fuels, the MTAbegan testing ARCOEC Diesel in twelve transit buses in February2000. Data frominitial tests at the EmissionsTest Facility showa significant reduction in vehicle emissions using low sulfur diesel fuel and a continuouslyregenerating trap.
DISCUSSION
In February 2000, the MTAbegan a one-year test to identify emissions benefits and reliability issues of usinglow sulfur fuel in diesel transit buses. Thetest is being conductedat the Arthur WinstonDivision on twenty 1998 NewFlyer diesel buses. Of these buses, twelve buses are operating on ECDiesel and a control group of eight buses is operating on standard #2 diesel fuel.
The CARBhas mandateduse of low sulfur diesel fuel for transit buses in 2002. The low sulfur fuel is beneficial in that it allowsuse of exhaustafter treatmentdevices designed to significantly reduce particulate matter (PM). CARBwill require transit agencies to begin retrofitting older diesel buses with these devices by 2003to lower PMemissions by at least 85 percent. Twobuses in the test programthat are operating on ECDiesel are also equippedwith exhaust after treatment devices called continuously regenerating traps (CRT).
After several weeksof operation, three buses in the test programwere tested for emissions at the CARBEmissions Test Facility located in the MTA’sRegional Rebuild Center. The three buses undergoing the dynamometertesting included one bus fromthe control group that operated on standard #2 diesel fuel and one bus that operated on EC-Diesel fuel with the CRTtrap. The third bus was dynamometer tested using three fueling configurations in succession: EC-Dieselwith the trap BOARD OF DIRECTORS EC DIESEL TEST PROGRAM Page 2
device, EC-Dieselwithout the trap device, and standard #2 diesel fuel without the trap device. The first two test buses and each configuration of the third bus weretested on four different test cycles - CBD(Central BusinessDistrict), Arterial (city and higher speed freewaydriving conditions), UDDS(EPA Urban DynamometerDriving Schedule), and the NewYork City Test Cycle (simulates NewYork City driving conditions).
Data frominitial tests at the EmissionsTest Facility showa significant reduction in vehicle emissions using ECDiesel with a CRTtrap. As shownin the table below, particulate matter (PM) emissions were reduced by 78.7 percent, hydrocarbon (HC) emissions were reduced 93.9 percent, and carbon monoxide(CO) emissions were reduced by 95.9 percent in tests comparingEC Diesel with a CRTto a bus operating on standard #2 diesel fuel.
Emissions Reductions (EC Diesel with CRTcompared to standard #2 diesel fuel)
CBD 77% N/A 93% 14% 1% NYBC 85% 100% 96% -16% -9% Arterial 79% 85% 96% 18% 1% UDDS 74% 96% 99% 9% 3%
Note:Comparison of the secondtest bus(EC Diesel) to the first test bus(standard #2 dieset).
The oxides of nitrate (NOx)and carbon dioxide (CO2)emissions were not significantly changed the ECDiesel to the standard #2 diesel fuel. NOxemissions were reduced by 6.3 percent, and carbon dioxide (CO_,)emissions increased by 0.6 percent. The emissionsresults fromthese initial tests are consistent with tests conducted by the manufacturer of the CRT(Johnson Matthey) and ARCO. Johnson Matthey and ARCOhave reported PM, HC, and COemissions reductions of up to 90 percent for diesel vehicles operating on low sulfur diesel fuel in conjunctionwith a CR.Ttrap.
Tovalidate the initial emissionstests, a third bus in the test programis being tested in three different configurations: EC-Dieselwith the trap device, EC-Dieselwithout the trap device, and standard #2 diesel fuel without the trap device. Thedata from these tests will be compiledand included in a final report from the ARBin June 2000.
NEXT STEPS
The buses operating on EC-Dieseland CRT’swill continue to be tested for one year to identify any reliability issues with low sulfur diesel and the CRT.Further emissionstesting will also be conductedto evaluate the performanceof the CRTafter one year of operation. PRESS RELEASES
Diesel or NatnraI Gas? NewElarvnrd Study Finds Environmental Pros and Cons with Both
For immediate relense: NIonday, Jnnuary 10, 2000 ¯
Diesei is r.be 5ael of choic~now, but concernsabout par,dc’aiate aollution in diesel e.--.haust have ~romurcda movetoward akematives. The KCR.a.~naiysis 8nds that .aana-ai ~ ,-educm emissionsof ~neparticulates, those ~--.mailer:J:tazt 2.5 microns.3ut ~anu-al ~ may~ene.--ate more,aitra 5,..~,e particles ~ diesel T’nose ~ less .than. ! mi~omSeve~i studies mdicae that- ul~trn~ne par~ici~ mayhave an even moredramatic impac: on health than those ~ the fine category,.
The study finds tha~ becanse ~mmralg~ ks :~+.mariiy merl~e, relatively s-imt)ie moiec’ale, k combus~mo~ compie-.e!y than manyira!s, .~~mgfewer ~.~ni-csioms of several types. parac’aia.dy NOx,an ,,’mpormmconmbutor .:o ~tmdlevel ozone andr~e formation offine par~c,.dar~. The study finds thac European~gulators seem .:o be favoring diesel fuel as part of their effor~ to comply,,vk~ ~e Kyoto agreementsto stabilizeCO2 and o~er_ ~eenho )u~e = =~emdss~ons. They are usfi~g t~x Lncentives and emissions s:zn~ards encourage the use of new cleaner-bm-aing ~esel fuels. vehicle manufacturers appear to be increasing ~eL= application of gre.n diese! technology d~at captures s~_ ~.can: ~.znountsof pamculares.
Thestua.’y finds d~acdiesel has safe,.w ~dvaatages which is a more flammableand explosive :~,,e~ ,:o Eandle a.ud store. It finds ~ac diesel has a short-~e,.-’mcost 2dv~:.nta~e, natural gas migh~end up with roughly &e same costs k- e=g-mes and re&eling i~fi-astrucm.re becomecom~,.on.
For a complete copy of the report, plebe view :b,e December 1999 issue of ~k in P~rspec.~e (PDF, 205 K.B, ~ D F information).
TheHar!,’_ar_d_C’.-’>u.F_er t’or_RLsk Analysis prometes a mor~re~oned response :o health, safe.w,, and environme.~mi=sks.
For further information, ple.~se contact:
EdmondToy, !ead anthor,
DavidRopeik, Dtrec:or ofR/sk Commuzticadons.o" t ...... :---’--30 .I~, dro.ceik:.~ hsph.i:m’-,ard, edu
Email a colIeag~e or friend copy or" rlds press re!e~e: Email address:
Re."_’~:o News.=_:.’r.:s. and R.e ,ram :o :he HSPHHome Page
page is maintained by :he Web~-’~ec-,.dve Co,--~i~.
h---7:.. ".vww.h~.h.ha~’ard..~ut.:x=s.s,’.,m!~_ses,.mr~s i: OZCO0>h~ Particulate Matter and NOx Emissions From In-Use Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles
Mridul Gautam Nigel N. Clark Donald W. Lyons
National Research Center for Alternative Transportation Fuels, Engines and Emissions
l)elmrtment of Mechanical West Virginia University, and College of Engineering Morgantown, WV26506 Aerospace Engineering and Mineral Resources TOXICITY OF ULTRAFINES (MAUDERLYet al.)
II~FINERPARTIC ILES PEN ETRATE MORE READILY IN TO CELLS AND THROUGH TISSUE BARRIERS
~t’~FINER PARTICLES HAVE GREATER SURFACE AREA PER I II II _ I I liE UNIT MASS, AND A LARGE NUMBER OF TOXIC REACTIONS OCCUR AT THE SURFACE
~FINER PARTICLES DISSOLVE MORE READILY THAN LARGER PARTICLES THUS ENHANCING THE BIO- AVAILABILITY OF SOLUBILIZED COMPOUNDS
~EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES INDICATE THAT THE IMPORTANCE OF ULTRAFINES REMAINS SPECULATIVE
West Virginia University, College of Engineering ~ Morgantown,WV 26506 aml Mineral Resources CONCLUSIONS
~ARE MASS EMISSION RATES OF PARTICULATE MATTER REAL INDICATORS OF "CLEAN FUELS"?
~C~~VEHICIAgS EXIIIBIT VERY LOW PM MASS EMISSION RATES. BUT, NUMBER COUNT OF NANOPARTICLES MAY BE VERY HIGH.
¢~NO x EMISSIONS FROM CNG AND DIESEL VEHICLES ARE COMPARABLE.
CO (APPROX. 13% LOWER THAN CNG).
West Virginia University, College of Engineering Morgantown,WV 26506 and Mineral Resources ~CONCLUSIONS
~ CNG VEHICLES (BUSES) SUFFERED AN ENERGY- EQUIVALENT FUEL CONSUMPTION PENALTY OF 30% ON THE ~CBD CYCLE RELATIVE TO DIESEL. FUEL CONSUMPTION DIFFERENCES VARY WITH VEHICLE USAGE.
West Virginia [htiwrsity, College of Engineering M,,rgan,,,wn,W V 26506 and IVlineral Resources ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
~’U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, OFFICE OF TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY
~’THE STAFF AND ENGINEERS OF THE WVU ENGINE AND EMISSIONS RESEARCH GROUP
West Virginia IJniversily, College of" Engineering Morg:mtow,~,WV 265t)6 and Mineral Resources ALEY’SLNG TRUCK FLEET: FINALRESULTS
AlternativeFuel TruckEvaluation Project
Kevin Chanciler, Battelle Faul Norton, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) Nigel CLaxk, West ~nginia University
March 2000
The authors wish to acknowledge the help and cooperation of the staff at the host site, and in particular SumSasaki and the Raley’s office staff at the Distribution Center. The authors also acknowledge Ed Gamache at Ozark Trucking, and the editorial contributions of V’mcent Brownat Bat-mile and Ren~ Howard at NREL
World Wide Web: http://wwvc.a_fdc.doe.gov/~ #’:’~ ’ --~--"<" National Alternative Fuels Hodine: 1-800-423-1DOE Trucks
! Project Start-up at Raley’s
The LNGtrucks began operating in April 1997. Early in the deploy- What is a Diesel uivalent Gallon? ment of the LNGtrucks, several part quality, and hardiness issues BecauseLNG contains less energyper gallon than diesel fuel, compar- arose. Under the original equip- ing simple miles per gallons of LNGand diesel trucks wo~JIdnot accu- ment warranty, Cummins(the rately com0aretheir true fuel efficiencies. Diesel equivalentgallons manufxcmrer of the LNGengines) are commonlyused to solve this problem.A diesel equivalent, gallon changed wastegate vaives, serv iSthe quantity of LNG(orany other fuel) that contains the same sors, spark plugs and wires, energyas a gallon of diesel fuel. Because1.67 gallons of LNGcontain and igxxition modules on all of the sameenergyas 1 gallon of diesel fuel, 1.67 gallons of LNGare the trucks. 1 diese| equivalentgallon.
These start-up issues were resolved by January 1998. Trends observed in driver complaints confirmed that engine operation improved after that date. Because gallon ~ hasthe same 1.67gallons of the clif:~CLllties in project start. of diesel of LNG up, the dam,analys. is for both energyas diesel and LNGtrucks focuses on the 12-month period from January, to December 1998, which was considered to be the "data ~ dean point for the evaluation. During the start-up of operations at Raiey’s, the LNGtrucks had LNGEngine Issues problems that resulted in the engines txmrting rough. In addi- The primary difference between tion, the en~nes’ low power the LNGand diesel trucks noted sometimes prevented them by drivers during the project from going faster than 20 mph. start-up was the significantly Troubleshooting revealed several lower power of the LNGtrucks. issues. The wa.st~ valve Because the engines of the LNG design was hardened and the trucks had lower horsepower and ignition control module used torque ratings than the engines of on the LNGtrucks was found to the diesel trucks, this result is not have an electrical quality, control surprising. However, the LNG problem. While these problems truck~ did have sufficient power were being investigated, several to complete their assigned routes. sets of spark plugs and wires, as Tracking indicated that driver well as o .x~r~eDselxsors, were complaints of low power from replaced to try, to alleviate the the LNGtrucks were much more low power problem. Once the frequent when changes in drivers wastegate and i~nition control and routes caused operators who module problems were resolved, had been driving diesel trucks to the engines were much more begin driving the LNGtrucks. reliable. At the rime of the study, Raley’s operated more than 100 stores and employed about 14,000 peo- ple. At r.hat time, Raley’s was opcratxng in the Sacramento, San Jose, and I~ke Tahoe, California, areas as well as in Reno, Nevada. In 1999, Raiey’s was in the process of adding operations in Las Vegas, Nevada, and in ALbuque~°queand has Cruces, New Mexico.
The u’ue~ng operation at Raley’s expanded during the evaluation by adding service to Nob Hill grocery, locations in mid-1998. Storescurrently ope~tcd by the company include Raley’s Superstores and Supermarkets, The study compares LNGtrucks Bel Air Markets, Food Source, with L10 engines to diesel trucks and Nob Hill Foods. By the end with MI1 engines. The L10 diesel of this evaluation, Raley’s had a truck engine was discontinued of which 64-truck fleet, 56 were prior to the start of the study. We diesel and 8 were LNG. contacted CuzDmin~Engine Raley’s LNGTrucks
In April 1997, Raley’s began Table2. VehicleSystem Descriptions---Raley’s operating California’s first fleet of commercial trucks fueled by LNG.Specifica~y, Raley’s oper- Numberof Trucksin Study ated eight heavy-duty LNGtruck~. 8 3 Also evaluated as a "control ChassisManufacturer/Model KenwonhTSO0, Class 8 KenworthT400, Clas.s group" in this smd~we~ three of RaleT’s heavy-duty diesel uaacks. Chassis:Model-Year 1997 1996 EngineManufacturer/Model CumminsLIO-3OOG CumminsM11-330 Raiey’s operated all the trucks raking par~ in the study under a EngineRatings lease arrangement with the Max.Horsepower 300hp @2100 q0m 330hp @1600 rpm tx~acks’ owner, Ozark Trucking. In Max.Torque 900Ib-ft @1300 rpm 1250Ib-ft @1200 rpm addition co the eight heavy-duty FuelSystem 174LNG gallons total 114gallons LNGtrucks being studied, Raiey’s leased two LNGyard tractors StorageCapacity (104diesel energy equivalent gallons);2 LNGsaddle tank~ (Ottawa macks with Cummins formMVE, Inc. B5.gG engines), which were not formally eva~uaced in this study. Transmission FullerRT11710B, Fuller RTL12610B Manufacturer/Model 10speed I0 speed Table 2 shows the general specie-’ cations of the eight heavy-duty Catalytic.Converter Used? No I.NG trucks and the three diesel VehiclePurchase-Price in +$35,000 conta-ol trucks evaluated at Comparisonto Diesel A/temat~veFue/ Trucks
trucks were driven through a because they., are considered non- "S-mile route" that consisted of reac~ve in ozone formation.) In live acceleration-crmse-decelera- conwas~ the LNGumcks emi~.ed Uon ramps. The trucks were more carbon mdnoxide than the accelerated at their maximum ct~esei~:~rm-ol trucks. Appendi~B acceleration rate on each ramp. summarizes the emissions results. Each truck was driven through the 5 mile route at Mast three Some differences in the LNG times and the emissions averaged truck results occurred between for a single test result. the two testing visits. This is mos~ likely related to the changes to The average emi.~sion results for the engine configtwation and the diesel and LNGtrucks are some of the components that shown in Figure 9. The LNG were upgraded as part of the war- trucks averaged about 80%less rarity repairs. For the two sets of NOxemissions and about 96% diesel testing results, the NOx less PMmass emissions than the results are si~nificantly lower for diesel wack~ over both rounds of the second testing visit. This testing. This is a dramatic reduc- lower NOxmost likely results tion in the emL~sionsof highest fa’om engine map (~lihradon) concern for heavy-duty vehicles. and from which gears were used The LNGtrucks also emitted during the drive cycle. The con- less nonmethane hydrocarbons tmuous NOxdata suggest that an compared to the hydrocarbon off-cycle injection timing strategy. emissions of the diesel trucks. may have been at work for the (Methane emissions ~om natural diesel vehicles. gas engines are not regnflated Fina/ ~ Trucks
Table A-1. Raiey’s/Ozark Trucking (Sacramento,CA) Fleet SummaryStatistics
Fleet Operationsand Economics PMA4-7 PMA4-7 Diesel Control LNG Numberof Vehicles 3 8 Period Usedfor Fuel and Oil OpAnaysis 1/98 - 12/98 1/98 - 12/98 Total Numberof Monthsin Period 12 12 Fuel and Oil Analysis BaseFleet Mileage 200,961 396,118 Period Usedfor MaintenanceOp Analysis I 6/96 - 5/97 1/98 - 12/98 Total Numberof Monthsin Period 12 12 MaintenanceAnalysis BaseFleet Mileage I 222,844 438,191 AverageMonthly Mileage per Vehicle 6,182 4,489 Fteet Fuel Usagein Diesel #2 Equiv. Gal. 28,630 91,667 RepresentativeFleet MPG(energy equiv) 7.02 4.32 Ratio of MPG(AF/DC) 0.62 AverageFuel Cost as Reported(with tax) 1.01 0.74 per gal D2 per gal LNG AverageFuel Cost per Energy Equivalent 1.01 1.24 Fuel Cost per Mile 0.144 0.287 Total ScheduledRepair Cost per Mile 0.021 0.038 Total UnscheduledRepair Cost per Mile 0.026 0.058 Total MaintenanceCost per Mile 0.048 0.096 Total OperatingCost per Mile o.192 0.383
MaintenanceCosts Diesel Control LNG Fleet Mileage 222,844 438,191 Total Parts Cost 5,464.09 25,381.36 Total Labor Hours 103.5 331.7 Average Labor Cost (@ $50.00 per hour) 5,175.00 16,585.00 Total Maintenance Cost 10,639.09 41,966.36 Total Maintenance Cost per Truck 3,546.36 5,245.80 Total MaintenanceCost per Mile 0.048 0.096 Table B-1. Emissions Test Results (First Test)
Emissiol~s Stm~mary f~r I.NG-Powered Tractors in Sacramento, CA
Test ID WVll Ref Num Cycle ID Test Date Mileage CO NOx IIC PM MPG Btu OI4 NMIIC 973 RL)C-1501-LNG-SMILES-R5 Mile Route 7131197 13,600 7.60 3.06 20.55 1687 4.28 30024 18.16 0.65 974 RDC-1502-LNG-5MILES-R5 Mile Route 8/1/97 14,000 6.64 2.88 16.52 0.04 1588 4,57 28103 14.60 0.52 975 RDC-1503-LNG-5MILES-R5 Mile Route 812197 16,400 7.83 5.57 17.22 0.06 1564 4.63 27755 15.18 0.57 968 RDC-1504-LNG-5MILES 5 Mile Route 7125197 17,000 7.71 12.81 14.97 0.06 1631 4.46 28799 13.05 0.57 969 RDC-1505-LNG-SMILES 5 Mile Route 7126/97 10,800 7.16 5.00 18.41 0.09 1697 4.27 30069 16.18 0.66 970 RDC-1506-LNG-SMILES 5 Mile Route 7128197 15,100 6.82 4.50 15.48 0.05 1627 4.48 28729 13.60 0.56 971 RDC-1507-LNG-5MILES 5 Mile Route 7129197 14,800 6.58 3.65 18.31 0.07 1700 4.27 30100 16.13 0.62 972 RDC-1508-LNG-5MILES5 Mile Route 7130197 16.500 6.60 3.79 18.64 0.09 1765 4.12 31222 16.42 0.64 Average: 14,800 7.12 5.16 17.51 0.07 1657 4.39 29350 15.41 0.60
Emission Summary for Diesel-Powered Tractors in Sacramento, CA
TestlD WVURef Num Cycle ID Test Date! Mileage CO NOx PM C02 MPG Btu 976 RDC-t586-D2-SMILES-R2 5 Mile Route 814/97 160,900 2.02 28.46 1.56 1.34 1548 6.54 19880 978 RDC-IS92-D2-5MILES-R5 Mile Route 817197 132,900 1.96 35.18 1.28 0.75 1688 6.01 21652 977 I 5 Mile Route 816197 166,900 1.67 31.85 1.04 0.42 1624 6.24 20822 Average: 153,600 1.88 31.83 1.29 0.84 1620 6.26 20785 Cost Effectiveness of Emissions Reduction at Raley’s
Cleaning up emissions of NOxand PMis necessary if Next, the capital cost of the trucks needs to be dean air regulations are to be met. However, there taken into account. The incremental cost of the are costs associated with cleaning up emissions. LNGtrucks was $35,000 each. Based on a lO-year California, is willing (tnrough the local air quaiity life, this gives an annualized cost of $4,550 per year. managementdistrict) to pay as muchas $ 0,~,~.~p_er Overall, the potential cost effectiveness would be: ton of measurabie NOx reduction through the "Carl Moyer Program." Cost effectiveness = ($4,550/yr) / (1.22 tons/yr) = $3,730/ton of Emissions reductions for the Moyer Program, pre- sented in The Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, Part This cost effectiveness---comparedto the $~ 2,~.~000 II, are basedon engine certification data and on a per ton, of NOxreduction that the state is willing to conversion factor. pay for a given project--is extremely favorable for ¯ Heavy-duty line haul trucks: 2.6 bhp-h/mi the Raley’s project. ¯ Urban buses: 4.3 bhp-h/mi This analysis can be taken one step further by including other incremental costs for the fueling ¯ Other: 18.5 bhp-h/gallon of fuel used. s~ation, fuel, and maintenance.The fuel station is Only capital costs are considered in the cost of the assumedto have a 15-year life, and the trucks are emissions reductions, and a 10-year lifetime is assumedto operate 53,868 miles per year (average assumedfor heavy-duty l:ruck~ with a 5%capital for the LNGtrucks). recovery factor. Annualized Cost = Although Raley’s did not participate directly in the (annuaiized capital cost of truck + fuet station) Moyer Program, information from Raiey’s experience (incremental fuel cost) + (incremental maintenance can be used to develop a realistic prediction of the cost) = ($4,550 + $3,360) + ($5,841) + ($2,586) cost effectiveness other similar sites mayexpect from .’516,337 alternative fuel projects and emissionsreductions. Annualized Cost/Ton = Applying Ratey’s operating and cost data to the 5~6,337/1.22 = $13,391 /ton NOx. Moyer formula for calculating emissions reductions, With all the incremental costs taken into account, and using WVU’semissions testing results (rather the cos~ per ton of NOxreduction is 12%hitcher than engin~ification data), the annual NOx than ~he $12,000 per ton of NOx. Th~s analysis is reduction per truck for the Raiey’s project would be: presented to give one perspective of the cost per Annual NOx reduction = unit of NOxemission reduction, based on experi- (25.7 g/mi - 5.21 g/mi) ¯ (53, 868 miles/yr), (100% ence at Raley’s. in CA) * (ton/907,200 g) = 1.22 tons/yr
and oxygen sensors. The ignition Driver Complaints module problems in mm led to numerous spark plug, wire, and Driver complaints were collected ignition coil replacements during on the various .systems in the trucks being evaluated. These the evaluation. As shown in Figure 8, the warranty claims complaints were collected as part of Raiey’s norma] practice dropped dramatically by. r.he start of tracking and repol-ting mainte- of the fleet comparison study in December 1997. No win-rarity. nance that needed to be per- information was coIlec~ed for the formed by Ozark Truc~ring. Complaints on engine low power diesel macks.
OPeratioiial
¯ City oxporioncowitli two CNGvohlclos - Porforinnncoll~ohloiii - |Jailed rango - Pavioad Rodnction - Mailltolianco lillnnsivo - gilrolialilo Efforts Uililortakeit to IlodiJcoEmissioli
TonCARB Dlosol Rolilso trltcks wornoquilipofl willt PIW Iraps ( oneyear of tosllnol - Hodlsrllptloll Io Oltoratloti - NoPonfilty to fiiol consuitiltlioil - NoRodttclloii In Ilnllload - Hoincroaso In vohicln ntaiitloltfltico - Ho Soot emissioll