Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1994 0706 CC REG ITEM 11ATO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: OVERVIEW AGENDA REPORT CITY OF MOORPARK The Honorable City Council ITEM ' • • ,':CTION: h.CTlO' . a Baldemar Troche Public Works Management Analyst y June 10, 1994 (CC Meeting of June 15, 1994) Consider Report on the Ise of Alternative Fuels for City Vehicles This presents an analysis and comparison of a number of vehicle fuel sources other than gasoline BACKGROUND For years, gasoline has satisfied all necessary fueling requirements of vehicles. However, gasoline powered vehicles emit harmful emissions that pollute the air. Utilizing alternative fuels, through government intervention and support, can reduce vehicle emissions. Alternative fuels is a term used to refer to fuels other than gaso:li.ne. There are no current State or Federal requirements for the utilization of alternative fuel powered vehicles. However, vehicle fleet operators are able tc receive monetary incentives and /or credit programs for conversion of gasoline powered vehicles to operate on an alternative fuel. Staff has received tentative approval of a Regional. Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) grant fund in the amount of $10,500.00 for vehicle conversion to alternative fuel ( ret er tcp F'xhibits 'A' and 'B') . The California Clean Air Act of 1.988 mandates that two percent of all vehicles sold in California must meet zero emission requirements in the year 1998. Furthermore, ten percent of all vehicles sold in California in the year 2003 must meet zero emission requirements. According to Keith Duval, Manager of the Rule Development Section for the tentura County Air Pollution Control District (APCD), APCD has not. set any regulations or requirements for fleet. operators. 'Kr. Duval believes that once APCD's requirements are final;..zed anc� distributed, said regulations will "mirror" the ps? California Clean ,Air Act mandates. vehic es \fuel_93b.rpt Alternative Fuels June 1994 Page 2 The Federal government has introduced a number of legislative acts pertaining to the utilization and implementation of alternative fuels. Two such acts are the Federal Clean Air Act and the National Energy Policy Act. The Federal Clean Air Act of 1990 mandates a decrease in aii pollution caused by extraction, refining, and combusta.on of petroleum based fuels. In addition, this Act aims to increase energy security by encouraging conversion to vehicles operating on alternative fuels that can be produced and distributed in the United States. The intent of the National Energy Policy Act of 1992 is to reduce vehicular use of petroleum igasoline) fuels by 10% by the end of the century and 30% in the succeeding decade. DISCUSSION The alternative fuel options presented below were developed with assistance from Bob Miller, City cf Thousand Oaks; Roger Huff, Las Virgenes Water District; Wayne Tanaka of Southern California Gas Company; Ray Turpene, City of Simi Valley; and the article "Alternate Fuel Use in MSW Operations" by John Trotti. In addition, to the information presented below, Exhibit 'C' presents a summary of major c:omrarison:; between alternative fuels. A. Description of Alternative Fuels 1. Diesel -- Fleet managers from the City of Simi Valley and the City of Thousand Oaks are shifting their attention away from diesel fuel. I It ippears that diesel fuel can not be reformulated sufficiently to meet California clean air standards for the year 1994 and beyond. As such, diesel fuel as an alternative fuel option was not considered in this report.. 2. Reformulated Gas (RFG) -- One option to refining petroleum into gasoline is to add "oxygenates" (typically alcohols or ethers) which reduce carbon monoxide emission levels during cold weather. RFG has two great advantages over other alternative fuels: (1,; it requires no modification of existing fuel distributior and delivery facilities, and (2) it requires no modifi : -t on cf existing vehicle fuel systems. It is not currently possil.le to meet clean air act standards and keep fuel octane ratings high by using 100% petroleum based ingredient::. However, a Phase 2 reformulation process, scheduled for introduction in 1996, is expected to net greater reductions in overall emissions, not just carbon monoxide, when compared to all other alternative fuels. ?,t present time, Staff was unable to locate a reformu]a *eci q�s fueling station. Alternative Fuels June 1994 Page 3 3. Methanol .Z Ethanol a. Methanol -- Methanol j- -; a liquid that is clear, odorless, and tasteless. This fuel is utilized by race cars due to its higher octane which provides quick acceleration. Methanol is biodegradable and produces emissions low in nitrogen oxide (NOx) and particulates. This fuel is highly corrr,:,sive requiring many parts of the vehicles, fuel system be made of special materials such as stainless steel. As such, gloves must be worn and protective measures «taken when handling the fuel. According to Bob Miller, City of Thousand Oaks, methanol has less than i -xalf the power equivalent of diesel, is quite toxic, end can produce blindness or cause kidney failure in Inumans if ingested. Methanol combustion produces large amounts of formaldehyde, a cancer - causing substance,. Methanol is highly volatile, has a relatively low fl;nsh point, and burns with a colorless flame, making fuel fire very difficult to see. There is only one station in the area (Simi Valley) which carries methanol fuel. Two (2) gallons of methanol would be necessary in order to get the same MPG rating as one gallon :::rf gasoline. Methanol is more toxic but less expensive `o produce than ethanol. b. Ethanol -- Though ethanai. has ,i clean burn, it has about half the energy density of gasoline, is more expensive, and is energy - intensive to produce. Staff was unable to locate an ethanol fueling station or further research materia] . 4. Compressed Natural Gas (CNG; , Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) -- Though natural gas is combustible in its ambient form, it must be compressed (CNG) or liquefied (LNG) for efficient storage or transport. CNG il pipeline gas compressed to 3,500 psi for bulk storage. It is then transferred at 3,000 psi for vehicle usF. When natural gas is refrigerated to -260F, it tur is to liquid for high energy - density transport and storag,. Typ.i.cally, LNG is passed through a heat exchanger, vt e e -,t i.4 :returned to gas form prior to use in an engine. The following local public agencies are presently testing CNG as an alternative fuel: ^ty of Thousand Oaks, and Las Virgenes Water District. Bc >t; agencies have CNG stations located in their Maintenan( Yards, The City of Simi Valley will also be utilizing _-NG in the near future. Staff was unable to locate I -al agencies utilizing LNG. Alternative Fuels June 1994 Page 4 CNG has a much cleaner burr than the other fuels. When compared to gasoline, CN( produces 25% less carbon dioxide. Due to its clear burn, wear of the internal engine is reduced. Thereby eng:Lne maintenance costs (engine oil changes and engine tuneups) is reduced by approximately 25 %. CNG storage tanks must be 1,4 to 1/2 inch thick to retain the compressed gas (2,400 -- .,000 psi) and maintain a safe storage system. When compared to a vehicles' 12- gallon gasoline tank, CNG storage tanks require 3 to 4 times the allotted space. The CNG vehicle storage fuel tanks account for considerable space and add to vehicle weight. Conversion costs from gasoline to CNG is approximately $3,000 - $5,000. However the principal obstacle to widespread use of CNG is `he cost of compressors for refueling: $4,000 or more for a "slow- fill" overnight facility; and up to $17,Ooc� - $40,000 for a "fast- fill" facility which produces tte equivalent of 30 to 100 gallons of gasoline a day (3epend.ing on the unit). The "slow- fill" option is consicaerably less expensive at the sacrifice of the quicker (equivalent. to a gasoline service station) refueling option c fered by the more expensive compressors. Current f i :i. 1. f) I oc:,.a" ions are shown on the attached map (Exhibit 'D Staff met with Wayne Tanaka of Southern California Gas Company (SCGC) to discuss CNG as an alternative fuel option (refer to Exhibit f: ) SC:GC will co -fund up to 25% (not to exceed $1,750.()O incremental cost for each CNG vehicle converted. 5. Propane a Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) -- Propane is a mixture of petroleum and natural gases that becomes liquid under pressure or at reduced temperatures. Propane is non - toxic, and is odorized °=o make leak detection easy. LPG is used in a wide var.iet;. of residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural appilcat:.ions, motor engines, space heaters, stoves, and -her a�,rpliances. Propane reduces engine wear turfing c-,old starts due to its low pressure (12psi) when he fuel enters the engine. However, due to its low c,( ­-ane rating, a reduction in engine compression ratio ..> requ.1red. As a result, decreased fuel economy and engine performance (loss of 10 % -15% in motor power) res -ilts. In addition, vehicle storage fuel tanks are heav and bul.Ky in order to provide safety. The fuel system m�:- oe pressurized from 175psi to 250psi t.o keep the fue r ic:jaid state. Alternative Fuels June 1994 Page 5 Emissions emitted from a propane powered vehicle are not as good as those emitted from a CNG fuel powered vehicle. Propane fueling stations are available throughout the County, including one within: the City of Moorpark. When compared to gasoline, as shown on Exhibit 'F', a net loss is achieved. The available storage room capacity is greatly decreased to accommodate the propane tanks. 6. Electricity -- An electric motor vehicle produces zero emissions. It is estimated that vehicles produced to run on electricity are more expensive to purchase than other alternative fuel vehicles. Present vehicle electrical - batteries are heavy, take up considerable space, and do not provide sufficient storage capacity to enable a vehicle to travel over 100 n)iles Two types of batteries being -ested are nickel -iron batteries and sodium sulfur batteries. An electric powered vehicle using a nickel -iron battery, with a life expectancy of eight years or 100,000 miles, offers twice the storage capacity of tht- typical lead acid storage batteries in use today. Sc;dium si_il.fur batteries offer similar results. With access to electricity readily available, recharging capabilities are easy to accommodate. However, recharging methods will have to improve before refueling such vehicles can be accomplishes^ it a .relatively short time frame. B. Overview of Alternative Fuels Current stringent emissions standards will require the utilization of alternative fuel; in the near future. Consumers want a fuel that ;.s readily available and can provide milage cost - per -mile performance comparable to or better than gasoline. When alternative fuels are compared to gasoline in terms of range of travel, alternative fuels fall short. As such, alternative fueling methods will have to be further developed to provide 'onsumers a quack and easy method for refueling their v0-i le a.. With an increasing number of alternative fuel refueling stations available in the future, the driver will be assured of alternative fuel source avaalibility and will, therefore, be inclined to travel greaten listance. In the meantime extensive long -trip use will k e C. i.mit:.e(] . Alternative Fuels June 1994 Page 6 C. Conclusion - Recommended Alternative Fuel Option An attempt at quantifying the cost effectiveness of this and other alternative fuel sources is set forth in Exhibit 'F -. At this point in time, the use of alternative fuels is not cost effective when compared to gasoline. If the City Council wishes to proceed with t-he use of, or conversion to, an alternative fuel source in order to participate in efforts to reduce emissions, it is the opinion of staff, based on the above analysis, that the City select Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) . Presently, CNG appears to rank the highest as a long- term cost effective alternati,/(: fuel := ource. D. Conversion Costs The cost of converting one vehicle to operate on a CNG fuel source is summarized in Exhibit IGI. In addition to the estimated vehicle conversion cost of $5,000, it is recommended that a "slow- fill." refueling station be installed. This element of the project requires a one -time expenditure for a facility which would serve the first and all subsequent CNG powered vehic-les. The estimated cost of this facility is $4,300. Th..s facility allows for the overnight refueling of one CNG powered vehicle. Such a facility could be accomplished by installing a natural gas line from the Community Center building to a secured area within the maintenance storage area at the southwest corner of the Civic Center property. This re- fueling equipment can be relocated when the maintenance storage area is moved to its ultimate location. A mor(. (atai.led description of a slow -fill refueling station i.: el fai1:h in Exhibit 'H'. Alternative Fuels June 1994 Page 7 E. Grant Funding The potential grant funding to this project is summarized as follows: • Southern California Gas Company (SCGC) will co -fund up to 25% of the conversion cost ( r of to exceed $1,750.00) . The estimated SCGC rebate is $1 75C'.00 • Regional Surface Transpor',:.at on Program (RSTP) has approved a grant to the Cit,, it the amount of $10,500.00 (see Exhibits 'A' and 'B °), • Staff submitted a Clean Al.r Fund Grant Application, for the conversion of the 1991 asuzu Trooper as described in this report, in the amount 7f $5,920.00. At the April 28, 1994, Clean Air Fund Advisory Committee meeting, the Committee recommended conversion of new vehicles or purchasing gasoline /alternative fuel powered vehicles (see Exhibit 'I'). As such sail -application was denied. The total amount of grant funds ivailar,le for this program is $12,250.00. F. Selection of Candidate Vehicle A list of the City fleet of vehi les is displayed as follows: CITY OF MOORPARK FLEET VFMCI } LISr Vehicle No. License Numbei Milage Vehicle Ucscru,ti( 1 N 353464 5,3(10.4 )W-,c Haxota 2 F? 093152 63,8(10.3 a} or.i 1 35, I .0 3 E 479727 70,7(10.4 Of oro kangrr 4 E 360026 7,7502 ow 1 250 314 I'm 5 E 283577 18,430.8 4 'he,y i5(8i Dump Truck 6 1;087488 43.230.0 0 atr�r Any, 7 F, 334131 9,800.2 aU vmu l r(Xq,er 8 F 114394 47,3(1(1.8 ac ord '1 •1111") GI 9 Ii 341468 22,530.4 I 4 he � d.5(8 411 run 10 1; 285998 23,520.4 I he. q 15O(' Hal, Ion 11 1; 2(X) Bbl( l ten, d I i wi 12 E 362389 1W 1 144 dNundai Excel Alternative Fuels June 1994 Page 8 F. Selection of Candidate Vehicle (continued) If the City Council wishes to pi oceed with the CNG conversion of one of these vehicles, staff recommends that the Isuzu Trooper ( #7) be selected. This vehicle is driven locally by Code Enforcement and as such can be monitored for fuel efficiency. The Dodge Aries #5) is an older vehicle and is expected to be replaced in the near future. The pool cars ( #8 and #12) are driven to farther destinations, and as such are not recommended for conversion until CNG refueling locations are more readily available. Truck ( #1 - #5 and #9- #11) conversion to CNG would me,-in a .loss of storage capacity and, without "fast:- fill" fuelirg capability, these vehicles would not be readily available For =>mergency use. G. Fiscal Impact If the City Council decides to proceed with this project, the estimated total project cost is $19,030.00. Costs to facilitate this project include` vehicle conversion ($5,000.00), refueling station ($4,300.00), fence ($4,000.00), construction (4,.00.00) and a ten percent contingency ($1,730.00) . An itE -mized list of these costs are shown on Exhibit "G'. If approved, it is recommended that this amount be appropriated fr-)m the Equipment Replacement Fund (account no. 031.3.999.999) which has a FY 1993/94 balance of $106,393.22. Said appropriation will be partially off -set by the grant fund revent,ies described in section E of this report, in the amount Df >:12 , 2 5(1 00. The cost to the fund will only be ;6,780.00. The figures at the bottom o3 Exhit)i.t 'G', support the findings set forth in Section c above, that this program is not cost effective. It will fake ovet one hundred years to amortize the $6,780.00 net cst to the City. The only benefits of this program is a � r qua l" y benefits. Alternative Fuels June 1994 Page 9 H. Alternative Action Plans Should the City Council determine that air quality benefits warrant proceeding with alteriative fuels, the following three options are available: Option 1. Determine that conversion to CNG is not cost effective at present time. Direct staff to present a subsequent Alternative Fuel Report in 1 -2 years. Option 2. Direct staff to summit: a Clean Air Fund Grant Application for the purchase cf a new CNG powered vehicle including the installation of i "slow- fill" station at the City Hall yard. Staff will request from VCTC that the RSTP grant monies be appropriated `,- said expense. Option 3. Proceed with the conversion project as described in this report. The following steps would be required: A. Approve an appropriation oi: funds from the Equipment Replacement Fund and an amendment to the FY 1993/94 Budget to add said project in the - imount cf $19,030.00 (Account number 041.4.131.904); B. Develop plans and specificat_;ons for CNG conversion of the Isuzu Trooper, and for the installation of a "slow- fill" station at the City Hall y i„ 3; C. Solicit proposals for fuel so.arce conversion upon approval of RSTP grant monies from "CTC. VCTC expects Federal approval of the grant moni,?s in December, 1993. The project can not be advert sect urtil the approval is finalized; D. Obtain appropriate permit.; and proceed with the installation of a CNG "slow -fill" station at the Civic Center maintenance storage ,�-ea; and E. Proceed with the fuel sour--e conversion of the Isuzu Trooper and the procurement Anc in:,tallation of the CNG slow -fill equipment. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Counci take the following action: Determine that conversion to CNc_ i-s not cost effective at present time. Direct staff to prey ent a subsequent Alternative Fuel Report in 1 -2 years. Exhibit A _ %. M Z" - oA J/ 799 Moot p, 11v��nuc Moo ?;l November 8, 1993 Ventura County Transportation Commisf;T Attn: Ginger Gherardi 950 County Square Driv(, etc. 7-07 - Ventura, CA. 93003 Re: Fleet Alternative Fuels Convers :< r Pr-o e( t Dear Ms. Gherardi: Pursuant to your letter dated November 593 , copy enclosed, this is to request that Ventura County Tran:>F _-')rtati()n Commission (VCTC) serve as lead in filing the necessary d)cumentation for obtaining federal funds in the amount of $10,500.'' for the subject project. The City will meet the local match c >f 1 :7 (;L,360.00) for the project. The project descripticn calls for the develc,pment of plans and specifications for Compressed Natural cis (CN:I conversion of the Isuzu Trooper, and for the installation f I I's Low -f 11111 station at a site to be- determined: `rh-d e tzmated total j:)roject cost I or the project is $19,030.00 as shown on the tacker' exhibit. Thank you for your cooperation. I t` �)II I;a� e any questions or concerns, please contact me at (805) -68,4 :: -251. sincerely, i- Baldemar Troche Public Works Management Analyst cc: Ken Gilbert, Public Works Dire(t_a Mary Lindley, Assistant to the 1 i \citl—n \110897_1t, W LAWRASON JR SCOTT faONTC;O�si �' IiilCh � r, N'11); 11 -r, PA ;�,I +N I WOlr�lAh Exhibit B mr ; ;4YAfSd� OEM November 2, 1993 Mr. Baldmar Troche Management Analyst. City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 Dear Mr. Troche: ','I riIIII(A ( OurJI,I, I II/1tJ'.(, )(r ( fi I I( )N ( ( )MM11`,I ( )rJ RF�'F ►vFj) Nov Per our conversation last week, the Ventura County Transportat }re (VCTC) is willing to se--`e as Lead ir. filing Commission (' L necessary documentation for obtaining =odectl funds for d with Fleet Alternative Fuels Conversion p- 7 Regional Surface Transportation Progrmr, fund::, (RSTP) VCTC allocated a total of $8 in 'ioorpai kd and rOxn rd, With vehicles for use by the cities $1`>> 501' •< The will be Moo-park's federal share being a o *- 13..47% or responsible for providing the requ Lr c' s -] $1,360. ntains funds for :)oth the cities of Moorpark Since the project co VCTC is willing to serve as lead agency, especially and Oxnard, pro-, until next fiscal since Oxnard is not ready to move on ti ear Y - any other agency) cannot ot) igate t. -unds for the project VCTC (or until it is amended into the 1991-99 ojzeglowas submitted Improvement Program (RTIP). last u< and Federal approval is amendment into the RrIP December I. We r „' a L:so working to obtain the direct expected around required Master Agreement with Cal” +�. ualif as a gin_ q y a fully executed recipient of federal funds. We }1,( is ave agreement by December_. For our records, please provide us w .' , a letter requesting that we det. tiled description with serve as lead_ Also, provide us wi`.', funds will zs �c 3ppLi.ed and project cost. the project including how �` �hligatinq funds. This will allow us to begin the pt- re- Please note that because the p 1 �'� ' _.nvc�lves federal funds, a /requirements found simple agreement (containing federa: ondittons xx twc en our two agencies may in the Master Agreement with Caltrar s would simply include be required for our records. The t:reEmenr 1 q,wernment that the City those requirements imposed by the t >r your a��reement with of Moorpark is already subjected 11�•,,3,.r Caltrans for receipt. of ? odera l . ,, IALTERNATIVE Corrosive High cost FUELS COMPARISON Slow refueling Slow refueling Clean Diesel Reformulated Gas Methanol Ethanol CNG LNO LPG PRO Available Available High octane High octane Convertible Same engine as CNG wide distribution Minimal cost Minimal Cost Liquid storage Liquid storage US resource Low Cost Long history Better mileage All engines Blcndable Blend-able Low cost Low hazard Low emissions Lower emissions Lower emissions Low NOx Low NOx Low hazard Low emissions Fncrgy to hqucly 20% -30% less Bio-degradable Bio-dcgradablc Low emissions Minimum processing particulates Diverse sources Minimum processing CON Smoke New catalytic converter Corrosive High cost Slow refueling Slow refueling Slow refueling Spills /leakage High cost/milc Explosive vapor Limited production Limited distribution Limited distribution 60% energy of diesel Non - renewable Smog forming Limited production Limited distribution Quality variations Cryogenic handling Heavy vapors emissions spilUlcakage Limited distnbution Law Uorgy High pressure Requires venting Mcdium NOx Non renewable Low energy Energy output same Medium NOx Difficult storage Escrgy to liquefy Invisible name as input Fnergy to comprrss Mcdium NOx Toxic fomuldchydc Fncrgy to hqucly d-hv1r li Reference: "Alternate Fuel Use in MSW Operations ", by John Trotti MSW Management, May /June 1993, pg. 101. C r• rt ' r � Y t } �� � 1, t � ..i' 7` 771. i r'4 •1 ) i 1 f r r {`. ' _ S l r,t Qr 2' ryvi`.� 1 11: nn!���• �l'i� .� f+,,f iry l{•�C �', �•� aAr dot Iv AM CL Cc' i Ij O - _• • :�. o� �. :.� 3 o� V. �'. C. tai Ca �_.�, �.,a..y� 4,1>">i�ly��J n`•�1�:'� �� 1.> • ©AI•.. . , :. , . . i'� i •.reT � �y'� t �• - i _� Exhibit E Questions asked of Wayne Tanana, Southern California Gas Company. ALTF.RNATI.1'1,1:1 ;Upv,'Y Qn IE4T10NS 1. Why is CNG better than the other alternative fuel options 2. What is the CNG ratio to gasoline? 3. Where are CNG fill -up stations located /available? 4. What other Cities /Public agencies are utilizing CNG? 5. If our V -8 Ford Tempo gets 240 miles on a 12 gallon tank (20 r pg) how many CNG tanks would be necessary to accomplish the an milage ratio? A. What are the CNG tank dimensions? 6. What vehicle repair shops are available, in the area, that are a; uar with CNG components? 7. What is the cost to add the CNG fuel system to the existing t a,, nc fuel system (switch -over system)? 8. List of shops that perform conversion. 9. What are the operational cost comparison? 10. Amortization schedule_ 11. If at a later date we decide to convert back to a gasoline unw•c vehicle, what would the cost be? 12. What are the maintenance cost associated with CNG? 13. What benefits are available to the City of Moorpark for CN� conversion'? 14. Are there any conditions to he placed if CNG is utilized? 15. If a CNG fill -up station is installed in the City Hall Yard A permits would be required? A. What are the cost associated for installation /running the I AN_1VI7.RS S„c attachcd materials IS Therms per gallon of gas. 1 Thcrm = IoOMBTU's. See attachcd map. ch Districts: Lompoc, San Luis Obispo, LAUSD, Riverdale (7), Antelope Valley, Santa Goleta Union Citics: Irvine, San Luis Obispo, Long Beach ()ther: CALTRANS, SLO County, Santa Barbara County 3 to 4 space ration. (1 2 gallon gas tan}. = 36 to 48 gallon tank of CNG) Varies l•1r. Fanaka gave me a list which includes 5 companies. 53,000.00- 54,000.00 List of 5 companies. 25% less maintenance No Answer About S2,000.00 5 `'b less maintenance when compared to gasoline powered vehicles $1,500.00 rebate. None Sias /Electrical /Fire Dept. clearance trpproximately SO cents per gallon of CNG. ___ ____________________ __ =r= =—" ALTERNATIVE FUEL SAVINGS ANALYSIS 07 Page 1 21-Oct -93 Filenane: �pw�alt_fuel.wkl J 10s.i6 lul.8a cS.84 j DESCRIPTION Gasoline - - -- - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Propane i Methanol CNG Best Alternative Fuel Option Miles Driven 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 0,000.00 I I when Compared to Gasoline � L Miles per Gallon 16.00 I 13.60 8.00 ` 5.60 Monthly Savings When s Gallons per Year 625.00 I 135.29 I 1,250.00 I '1,785.11 xxxxx i (Line 1 / Line 2) I j I 5.33 , I --st of Fuel' per Gallon 1.28 1.50 0.87 0.45 I 1 I II _• .c.�.uv ��.w OU.UU 7U,1_U II Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) i „ 5 07 (Lines 5 +6 +7) M:;;thly Cost a7.i1 10s.i6 lul.8a cS.84 (Line 8/ 12) I I i I 10 Total Annual Savings - -- ------------------ I I when Compared to Gasoline � xxxxx (167.94) (152.50) 63.93 !I 11 Monthly Savings When Compared to Gasoline xxxxx (14.00) (12.711 5.33 Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Exhibit G ------------------------------------------------- Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Amorization Schedule ------------------------------------------------- DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ---------------------------------------------- 1 � Conversion Cost 5,000.00 2 3 14 17- Hay -94 Filename: \pw\cng_cost.wkl Remarks "Slow -fill" refueling station i 4 , 300.00 i *Fence (for overnight refueling) 4,000.00 *If done azter library improvements, cost would Therefore estimated Total Project Cost would be Construction of gas & electrical 4,000.00 j $14,630.0(. Net City Cost would b $2,380.00. line to the site e Number of months to recover investment of $2,380.00 -------- - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- is 446.5? 377 years), Total Capital Cost 1'7,300.00 10% Contingency 1,730.00 --------------------------------- I Estimated Total Project Cost 19,030.00 --------------------------- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- RSTP Grant ! 10,500.00 City Match (11.47 %) of RSTP Grant 1,360.00 iI City 5,420.00 Southern CA Gas Co Rebate 1, "50.00 --------------------------- - - - - -- - - -- Monies Available for Project 19,030.00 --------------------------- - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- Net City Cost 6,780.00 -- - - - - -- Monthly Savings of Utilizing CNG 5.33 Number of Months to Recover City 1,272.05 Investment of $6,780.00 Number of Years to Recover City 106.00 Investment of $6,780.00 See Exhibit 'D' jNet City ('Os-/Monthly CNG Savings of-.•rY r -s-' i w.. -... �...�� .,I:r.' i+�r..... � . --. .. �..�.�.�. -. 1 •• �� :R ,J_5 1 �•1 Announcing Convenient. On-Site Refueling `el *'.eNS f(r l'I C Ai7CfS and Glk ralOR ',41ural Gas \e!Iitles- Fucl\!aker r�c�< _ -asncally, even ehm,naled en:uclr r.,Ikmaker is Me wurw Ilrst personal use ;ears cf mwsive resca ch and development. Here's how It works After the appliance is tapped into any residential or commercial gas line and an electrical supply, It is ready to be connected to any F, s .` vehicle that is equipped for n Ilurll g I operaliun. tiwiiCh 1�_ a tl cEiaj!"l- r.rr l,it and Ihr urlil I. I ,. more— , ILe rc�, I:Ir low ' pressure g, into III,- vchl, Ids 1 furl inn{„ MAKING THE CONNECTION IS EASY C nun , IIII IbI IwiN.i61 r lo "''o el lnrh• lakes only ]III, It I .. yrihr(r(urlhuv 141 cn rt•fuchng is finished the appliance slops a llool.:u,.111? Unplug the refuchrig Lose frou: ] 111 1,r, it b,I,k '.1 III(, appliance AnU lll4 Un lle( I ;lie nose DUAL HOSES AND MULTIPLE FUELMAKERi ;1 hur;,1!ukcr appliance dchvcr; the nalur:ll I;as equivalent of 3 A hires fl U 5 I;allon) of gasoline per hour. And most light v, to, 1, 1, , m be rcLu k it w four to sin hours. Me apt Inn-- .uI fill unc .'chicle it a time, or ,iih the odddinn of a serund huso, I,ro vchii Ies sin4dtaneously. I.age tlrli ota r 1 I ul ly —IL WS�. i •,I.III m, h'I I o III, , I ILcIr pn:n, r r, fu on,,! II rd, 1 . UllonnI.yIonIit L. In,mi /nld x vrr.d I�urlAl.lkcrs �- It I, I hr r lu u' 1, l h, t;r vc hi, It Apt ,.In I „ , -uboil I oi1L wt I!,' ;1 nl.lt;r In pl uvillr ,I (.nl IIII Irn u. low , i,�l usrl.. ;1'I I j „I l;l pl' {:III.' II,­jI. "I'll lilt -,IAIcl_ INDEPENDENT METERING 11" Icl ul lr..111 FOR ACCURATE COST CONTROL t!I�i� -. i�•I. 11-1111tI. IIh 'It, IIII II�L ,I I 1— I.on,I," ".1 IpII, .I Ilwlldli,- I.,-dtJ I...IAI,L�I „JI :I��I�Ih ,I II:�III, I�II .1 •Ir. , I l it 1 I at r: x rt w EXHIBIT I Ventura County Air Pollution Control District May 9, 1994 Baldemar Troche City of Moorpark Public Works 799 Moorpark Ave. Moorpark, CA 93021 Mr. Troche: 702 County Squre L , t., 805 /645 -1400 Richard H. Baldwin Ventura, California 9 1> , 815/645 1944 Air Pollution Control Officer EC:d_r- MAY 1 1 1994 CITY OF MOORPARK I regret to inform you that the Clean Air Fund Advisory Committee did not approve funding for the City of Moorpark's proposal to convert one vehicle to compressed natural gas (CNG). However, the commiaec would still like to encourage the introduction of CNG vehicles by the City of Noorpark, The committee is likely to be more receptive towards a project that would introduce a new CNG vehicle rather than the conversion of an existing vehicle. Tli, s is due to the fact that, in general, conversions do not achieve the same level of ei siission reductions as new CNG vehicles. Please contact me at 645 -1412 or Joan at (45- 1, -1145 if you have any questions regarding this matter, Sincerely, Mike Villegas Engineer, Rule Development Section