Final Report City of Virginia Beach Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Conversion Feasibility Study Presented to: City of Virginia Beach Municipal Center, Building 1 2401 Courthouse Drive Virginia Beach, Virginia 23456 Presented by: SCS ENGINEERS 6330 North Center Drive, Building 13, Suite 100 Norfolk, VA 23502 (757) 466-3361 & GeoEnvironmental Resources Inc. 2712 Southern Boulevard, Suite 101 Virginia Beach, VA 23452 (757) 463-3200 August 15, 2011 File No. 02211006.00 Offices Nationwide www.scsengineers.com
69
Embed
City of Virginia Beach Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle ... · Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Conversion Feasibility Study ... Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Conversion Feasibility
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
F ina l Repor t
Ci ty of Vi rg in ia Beach Compressed Natura l Gas Vehic le
Convers ion Feas ib i l i ty S tudy
Presented to:
C i t y o f V i r g i n i a Be ac h
Municipal Center, Building 1
2401 Courthouse Drive Virginia Beach, Virginia 23456
Presented by:
S C S E N G I N E E R S
6330 North Center Drive, Building 13, Suite 100 Norfolk, VA 23502 (757) 466-3361
& G e o E n v i r o n m e n t a l R e s o u r c e s I n c .
2712 Southern Boulevard, Suite 101 Virginia Beach, VA 23452
(757) 463-3200
August 15, 2011 File No. 02211006.00
Offices Nationwide
www.scsengineers.com
F i n a l R e p o r t
C i t y o f V i r g i n i a B e a c h C o m p r e s s e d N a t u r a l G a s V e h i c l e C o n v e r s i o n F e a s i b i l i t y S t u d y
Presented to:
C i t y o f V i r g i n i a B e a c h Municipal Center, Building 1
2401 Courthouse Drive Virginia Beach, Virginia 23456
Presented by:
S C S E N G I N E E R S 6330 North Center Drive, Building 13, Suite 100
Norfolk, VA 23502 (757) 466-3361
& G e o E n v i r o n m e n t a l R e s o u r c e s I n c .
2712 Southern Boulevard, Suite 101 Virginia Beach, VA 23452
(757) 463-3200
August 15, 2011 File No. 02211006.00
C N G F e a s i b i l i t y S t u d y , F i n a l v 1 . 0 i 8 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 1
2.1 Alternative Fuel Vehicles Types and Information ................................................................... 3 2.1.1 Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) ................................................................................. 3
2.1.1.1 Status of Deployment in US ....................................................................... 3 2.1.1.2 Types of Vehicles Typically in This Category ......................................... 4 2.1.1.3 CNG Fuel Dispensing Requirements/Types ............................................ 4 2.1.1.4 CNG Fuel Station Costs .............................................................................. 7 2.1.1.5 CNG Vehicles Cost ...................................................................................... 8 2.1.1.6 CNG Vehicle Maintenance ......................................................................... 9 2.1.1.7 Maintenance Facility Requirements .......................................................... 9 2.1.1.8 Resale Value of Vehicles .......................................................................... 10 2.1.1.9 Incentive Programs..................................................................................... 10 2.1.1.10 Advantages and Disadvantages of CNG ............................................. 11
2.1.2 Electric/Hybrids ............................................................................................................ 13 2.1.2.1 Status of Deployment in US ..................................................................... 13 2.1.2.2 Types of Vehicles Typically in this Category ........................................ 14 2.1.2.3 Fuel Dispensing Requirements/Types ..................................................... 14 2.1.2.4 Costs ............................................................................................................. 14 2.1.2.5 Incentive Programs..................................................................................... 14 2.1.2.6 Advantages and Disadvantages ............................................................ 15
2.1.3 Electric ............................................................................................................................. 15 2.1.3.1 Status of Deployment in US ..................................................................... 15 2.1.3.2 Types of Vehicles Typically in this Category ........................................ 16 2.1.3.3 Vehicle Charging Requirements/Types ................................................. 16 2.1.3.4 Costs ............................................................................................................. 17 2.1.3.5 Incentive Programs..................................................................................... 17 2.1.3.6 Advantages and Disadvantages ............................................................ 18
2.2 Survey of Users of Alternative Fuel Vehicles ....................................................................... 18 2.2.1 Agencies/Cities/Businesses Contacted ..................................................................... 18
2.2.1.1 City of Richmond ........................................................................................ 18 2.2.1.2 City of Chesapeake .................................................................................. 21 2.2.1.3 HRT ............................................................................................................... 23 2.2.1.4 City of Smithtown, New York ................................................................... 23 2.2.1.5 Lake Jackson, Texas .................................................................................. 24
2.3 2011 Federal Initiative for Fuel Efficiency .......................................................................... 25
2.4 Natural Gas Supply in City .................................................................................................... 26
3.0 City of Virginia Beach Fleet Management ..................................................................................... 28
3.4 Modifications to Maintenance Facilities ................................................................................ 32 3.4.1 Gas Detection System .................................................................................................. 32 3.4.2 Electrical System Upgrades ........................................................................................ 34 3.4.3 Mechanical Ventilation System ................................................................................... 35 3.4.4 Cost Estimate for Modifications to Maintenance Facility ...................................... 35
4.0 Evaluation of CNG Conversion for City’s Solid Waste collection Fleet .................................... 36
4.1 Scenarios and Assumptions...................................................................................................... 36 4.1.1 Assumptions and Variables ......................................................................................... 37 4.1.2 Pro Forma Model Results ............................................................................................. 42
Exhibit 1. Former City of Virginia Beach Landstown CNG Facility .................................................. 2 Exhibit 2. Alternative Fuel Vehicles ........................................................................................................ 3 Exhibit 3. CNG Time-Fill Station ............................................................................................................. 6 Exhibit 4. CNG Quick-Fill Station ........................................................................................................... 6 Exhibit 5. CNG Combination Fill Station ............................................................................................... 7 Exhibit 6. CNG Prices in Hampton Roads, Virginia ............................................................................ 8 Exhibit 7. Maintenance Intervals Comparing CNG to Diesel Engines ............................................. 9 Exhibit 8. Electric Vehicle Charging Station (Level 2) ...................................................................... 17 Exhibit 9. Virginia Natural Gas Supply Network, State-wide ....................................................... 26 Exhibit 10. Virginia Natural Gas City Supply Network Near Holland Road and Landstown
Facilities .................................................................................................................................. 27 Exhibit 11. Virginia Beach Holland Road Solid Waste Management Facility ............................... 30 Exhibit 12. City Public Utilities Landstown Facility .............................................................................. 31 Exhibit 13. Department of Solid Waste Refuse Collection Fleet ..................................................... 31 Exhibit 14. Location of City’s Fueling Facilities .................................................................................... 33 Exhibit 15. Public Works Landstown Fueling Facility .......................................................................... 34 Exhibit 16. Planned Vehicle Replacement ............................................................................................ 35 Exhibit 17. Solid Waste Collection Vehicle Replacement Schedule ............................................... 37 Exhibit 18. Conceptual Layout of CNG Fueling Station, Holland Road Site .................................. 40 Exhibit 19. City of Richmond CNG Facility ........................................................................................... 41 Exhibit 20. Diesel and CNG Price Projections ...................................................................................... 43 Exhibit 21. Estimated O&M Costs for a CNG Time Fill/Quick Fill Station ..................................... 43 Exhibit 22. Input Assumptions Table (Partial) ....................................................................................... 46 Exhibit 23. Example Output of the Pro Forma Model, Diesel Escalator 5%,
C N G F e a s i b i l i t y S t u d y , F i n a l v 1 . 0 i i i 8 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 1
Exhibit 24. “Base Case” Scenario Pro Forma Analysis for Time-Fill/Quick-Fill Combination Station, 20% Vehicle Purchase Premium, 15% Vehicle Maintenance Factor, Variable Fuel Escalator ........................................................................................................ 48
Exhibit 25. “Best Case” Scenario Pro Forma Analysis for Time-Fill/Quick-Fill Combination Station, 15% Vehicle Purchase Premium, 10%Vehicle Maintenance Factor, 9% Fuel Efficiency Penalty Variable Fuel Escalators .................................................................... 48
Exhibit 26. Sensitivity Analysis, Higher Starting Diesel Price Pro Forma Analysis for Time-Fill/Quick-Fill Combination Station, 20% Vehicle Purchase Premium, 15% Vehicle Maintenance Factor, 13% Fuel Efficiency Penalty Variable Fuel Escalators(Base Case Scenario) ....................................................................................................................... 49
Exhibit 27. Sensitivity Analysis, Higher Starting Diesel Price Pro Forma Analysis for Time-Fill/Quick-Fill Combination Station, 15% Vehicle Purchase Premium, 10% Vehicle Maintenance Factor, 9% Fuel Efficiency Penalty Variable Fuel Escalators(Best Case Scenario) ................................................................................................................................. 50
Exhibit 28. Diesel and CNG Pricing Trends 2006 - 2011 ................................................................ 51 Exhibit 29. Projected Diesel/CNG Fuel Usage Trends for Transition to CNG Fleet .................... 52 A p p e n d i c e s A City of Virginia Beach Department of Solid Waste Refuse
Collection Vehicle Inventory, (January 31, 2011)
C N G F e a s i b i l i t y S t u d y , F i n a l v 1 . 0 E S - 1 8 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 1
EXECUT IVE SUMMARY
Private and municipal enterprises across North America have successfully converted their light
and heavy duty truck and bus fleets (in whole or in part) to alternative fuel vehicles such as
natural gas vehicles (NGV), compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG),
hybrids, and electric. The reasons for the conversion include economic, philosophical, political,
and environmental considerations. There are concerns regarding the rising costs of petroleum
fuels, stability of the Middle East countries, and dependence on foreign oil. Natural gas (CNG or
LNG) can be supplied primarily from sources in North America, and is expected in the near-term
to be a lower cost alternative fuel source. According to Washington, DC-based NGV America, a
non-profit organization that advocates for greater use of NGVs, the price of a barrel of oil
historically has been about six times that of a thousand cubic feet of natural gas. Today, that ratio
has jumped to as high as 12-to-1. Stricter federal vehicle emissions requirements and concerns
regarding greenhouse gas emissions also are factors. Alternative fuel vehicles are reported to
have lower emissions compared to diesel and gasoline counterparts.
Natural gas is abundant and domestic. Roughly 85 percent (%) of the natural gas used in the
United States is produced in the United States. Natural gas is mostly methane, a simple molecule
comprising of just one carbon atom and four hydrogen atoms, making it an extremely clean and
energy dense fuel with very few emissions. This is increasingly important as tough new federal
emissions guidelines kick in on medium- and heavy-duty trucks and buses. Natural gas vehicles
also produce far fewer greenhouse gas emissions than either diesel or gasoline vehicles. The
clean burning attributes of NGVs are a significant reason some transit agencies – and a growing
number of airport and refuse fleets – are opting to switch to run on natural gas. An NGV’s
purchase price is more than that of its gas or diesel counterpart, but fuel costs are typically lower
so that the savings over the life of the vehicle may pay back the premium depending on a number
of factors as discussed in this report. Recently enacted federal tax incentives for vehicles,
fueling stations and natural gas fuel use – including measures that allow local governments to
capture their value – have improved NGVs’ economic advantage, although most of these expired
at the end of December 2010 or will expire at the end of 2011.
While the 2,500 natural gas refuse trucks currently on the road account for only a small
percentage of the 175,000 collection, recycling and transfer trucks in service today, a synergy of
market factors is prompting municipal refuse departments and contract haulers that already use
them to order more and catalyzing those that don’t use them to rethink their position. One of the
most important reasons for the move to natural gas is the cost of the fuel compared to diesel on
an equivalent energy basis. Refuse truck duty-cycles, low mileage-per-gallon ratings and yearly
engine operating hours translate into high fuel use. Typical refuse truck fuel use averages
between 8,500-10,000 gallons per year. With the growing differential between natural gas and
diesel fuel (on an equivalent energy basis), city or contractor-operated trucks can save as much
as 30-50% on fuel costs. Previous federal tax incentives of up to $32,000 per truck significantly
reduced the purchase price premium for natural gas trucks so the remaining premium is quickly
paid back in operating savings, generating savings over the rest of the life of the vehicle.
However, the incentives have expired. The payback and life-cycle savings will vary based on
local fuel costs, tax incentives, credits and available federal, state and regional grants. Other
market drivers favoring natural gas refuse trucks include the fact that they have lower air
C N G F e a s i b i l i t y S t u d y , F i n a l v 1 . 0 E S - 2 8 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 1
pollutant emissions and are 90% quieter than diesel powered trucks, two attributes that resonate
with city and county residents. Most of the major refuse truck chassis suppliers offer factory-
installed natural gas engine options. Peterbilt, Crane Carrier, Autocar, McNeilus, and American
LaFrance-Condor all offer the Cummins Westport 8.9-liter ISL-G natural gas engine. In addition,
Emission Solutions Inc and Baytech Corporation have 7.6-liter and 8.1-liter gaseous fuel options
to retrofit International or GMC refuse trucks, respectively, and Westport Innovations offers the
powerful 15-liter ISX-G for larger transfer truck applications.
The following advantages and disadvantages have been identified if the City were to transition
its current diesel-fuel refuse collection fleet to CNG-fueled vehicles:
Advantages of CNG
- Lower fuel costs. CNG fuel prices are lower compared to diesel on an equivalent
energy basis (the price depends on the price of the natural gas and electricity at
the point of refueling). For example, the City of Virginia Beach currently pays
$3.017 per gallon for diesel (DGE), and CNG is approximately $0.86 DGE at
$6.64/MMBtu (this price does not include the storage, capital, and O&M for the
fuel station). The price of CNG at the one commercial station in Norfolk as of
August 2011 was approximately $1.88/DGE ($1.66/gasoline gallon equivalent
(GGE)). Use of CNG potentially provides a hedge against accelerating fossil fuel
costs. Energy forecasts are highly variable and there appears to be no discernable
trend comparing future pricing for CNG and diesel. The following table
summarizes the basic USEIA forecasts for diesel and CNG (USEIA, 2011b).
The USEIA’s energy pricing forecast for 2011-2012 shows CNG increasing at a
higher rate (7.7%) than diesel (2.1%). However, diesel fuel prices experienced
significant increases of 21.5% and 29.4% per year in the previous two years. If
anything, the escalation rates for diesel assumed in this report appear to be
conservatively low.
- Reduced reliance on imported fossil fuels. The fuel source for CNG is primarily
from domestic sources, and use of CNG would reduce reliance on imported fossil
fuels.
- Emissions. CNG vehicles have signicantly lower fuel emissions compared to
diesel fuel vehicles (Inform, Inc., 2003). The following shows the percentage
reduction in air pollutants of using CNG versus diesel fueled vehicles.
Energy Item 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012
Diesel (retail) 21.5% 29.4% 2.1%
CNG (Henry Hub) 11.2% -3% 7.7%
CNG (Residential) -7.8% 1.5% 7.4%
C N G F e a s i b i l i t y S t u d y , F i n a l v 1 . 0 E S - 3 8 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 1
Impact Pollutant Percentage
Reduction, Natural Gas Trucks
Air Pollution Particulate Matter Nitrous Oxide Non-Methane Hydrocarbons
67-94% 32-73% 69-83%
- Reduced environmental controls and monitoring requirements. CNG is not a
petroleum based fuel; therefore, a CNG facility (equipment area, fuel storage, and
parking) does not require oil spill prevention, control and countermeasures
(SPCC), and monitoring of fuel tanks (if underground).
- Lower engine noise. CNG engines are reported to be significantly quiter than
comparable diesel engines. Inform Inc. reported that noise levels beside an idling,
behind and inside a moving CNG truck were reduced by 98%, 50%, and 90%,
respectively (Inform, Inc., 2003).
- Ease of installation. CNG systems can be installed in all places supplied with gas
and power. The compression and gas conditioning systems can be easily
relocated if needed. The fueling infrastructure can be constructed relatively
quickly.
- Ease of fueling operation. Prior to refueling, the hose is connected to the
vehicle’s filling valve, then the START button is pushed; after refueling, the hose
is disconnected; and there are only minimum requirements for maintenance.
- Fully automated operation. Vehicle refueling is fully automated; once the
maximum permissible pressure is reached, the appliance is turned off
automatically; an electronic system diagnoses the operation of the appliance (i.e.
input and output pressure, ambient temperature, operating hours); and
compensation of the maximum filling pressure depending on the ambient
temperature.
- Safety. Automatic interruption of refueling when the gas leaks or the hose is
damaged.
- Independence. Can be independent of the infrastructure of public natural gas
filling stations, and independent of the filling stations for conventional fuels.
- Engine durability. Natural gas engine durability is equivalent to diesel fuel
engines.
C N G F e a s i b i l i t y S t u d y , F i n a l v 1 . 0 E S - 4 8 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 1
Disadvantages of CNG
- Increased capital costs for fueling station and maintenance facilities and CNG
fleet vehicles. The infrastructure to support a CNG fueling station (supply
pipeline, compressors, gas treatment and cooling, storage, controls, fill stations,
other equipment, and modifications to existing maintenance facilities to
accomodate CNG vehicles) is a significant capital investment. The following
additional facility and equipment capital costs are estimated for the City to
implement a CNG-fuel refuse collection fleet:
- Higher life-cycle costs. Life-cycle cost analysis allows for the comparison of
scenarios with differing cash flows over a specified time period by calculating the
net present value (NPV) of the cash flows of each scenario at a specified discount
rate. The cost analysis presented in Section 4.0 evaluated the following two
scenarios for the period of 2011-2024: 1) base case scenario (CNG vehicle
purchase premium of 20%, maintenance factor of 15%, and fuel efficiency
penalty of 13%) with CNG and diesel escalating at the same rate (CPI) and diesel
escalating at a higher rate than CNG (i.e., 5%/3% and 7%/2%), and 2) ―best case―
scenario (CNG equipment purchase premium of 15%, maintenance factor of 10%,
and fuel efficiency penalty factor of 9%). The base case life-cycle cost for the
CNG fleet operation was estimated to be higher than diesel-only fleet operation
for all the fuel esclation ranges considered, although at the highest fuel price
escalation differential (i.e., 7%/2%, diesel/CNG), the life-cycle costs are close to
the same. However, under the ‖best case― scenario, the CNG fleet operation has
a lower life-cycle cost than the diesel only fleet operation when diesel fuel prices
escalate at a higher rate than CNG.
- Increased O&M costs for fill station operation. CNG facilities incur additional
costs to operate the fill station, including electrical and routine and non-routine
equipment maintenance and repairs. Annual O&M costs of up to $54,000 were
estimated for a time-fill/quick-fill station (See Section 4).
- Reduced thermal efficiency. Natural gas transit vehicles use spark ignition
engines, which have lower thermal efficiency than compression ignition (diesel)
(U. S. Department of Transportation, 2011).
- Reduced fuel economy. Natural gas transit vehicles have a significant fuel
economy penalty compared to diesel. The U. S. Department of Transportation
Capital Item Cost Range
Filling Station (time-fill/quick-fill combination) $1.0 million - $1.65 million
Maintenance Facility Upgrades $450,000 to $600,000
Equipment purchase premium (20%) $3.4 million
Total $4.85 million to $5.65 million
C N G F e a s i b i l i t y S t u d y , F i n a l v 1 . 0 E S - 5 8 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 1
reports 12% lower fuel economy, while the American Trucking Association
references a range of 7 to 10% (American Trucking Association, 2010).
- Increased vehicle maintenance costs. Inform, Inc. reports that that maintenance
costs for natural gas trucks can be 20% higher than those of diesel trucks,
although as natural gas technology has matured some improvement is reported on
maintenance intervals for natural gas trucks thereby reducing costs. (Inform, Inc.,
2003)
- Dual fuel operation. If the City converted its refuse collection fleet to CNG, it
would still need to maintain its diesel fuel transfer and storage facilities to service
its other fleet vehicles that use diesel fuel.
- Increased vehicle weight. Fuel tanks used to store CNG are heavier than
comparable diesel tanks, which reduces the payload that a truck can legally carry.
For example, a typical CNG truck equipped with five 15 gallon tanks (300-350
mile operating range) would add 1,200 pounds compared to its diesel counterpart
(American Trucking Association, 2010).
- Uncertain secondary resale market. At the present time, there is not an
established market for the resale of used CNG fleet vehicles, which could further
increase the life-cycle cost of the CNG vehicle purchase. However, as more
collection operations convert to CNG fleets, the secondary resale market will
become better established and more predictable.
C N G F e a s i b i l i t y S t u d y , F i n a l v 1 . 0 1 8 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 1
1 .0 INTRODUCT ION
1 . 1 P U R P OS E A ND S C OP E O F S T U D Y
The City of Virginia Beach was awarded a federal grant under the Federal Stimulus Package to
study the feasibility of replacing its current diesel-fueled solid waste refuse collection fleet with
CNG-fueled vehicles. These fleet vehicles are assigned to the City’s Holland Road facility.
GeoEnvironmental Resources (GER) and SCS Engineers (SCS) were retained by the City under
a subcontract with HDR Engineering, Inc. to conduct the study. The purpose of this report is to
present the findings of the study. The City also manages other vehicle fleets (cars, light and
heavy duty trucks, heavy equipment, and buses) to support its public utilities and school
operations; however, the feasibility of replacing these fleet vehicles is beyond the scope of this
study, although some discussion of these fleets is provided in this report.
This feasibility study addresses the historical and current uses of compressed natural gas vehicles
throughout North America, with an emphasis on refuse collection trucks. Background on other
alternative fuel vehicles such as hybrids and electric vehicles also is provided, although the
economic feasibility of replacing existing vehicles with these alternative vehicles is beyond the
scope of this study. The age and replacement schedule for the City’s refuse vehicles is
considered. Life cycle cost analysis is presented comparing the options of keeping the current
diesel-fueled truck fleet to phasing in CNG-fueled vehicles as new vehicles are purchased in the
normal replacement cycle. The capital costs for a new CNG fueling station(s), increased costs
for the purchase and operation and maintenance of CNG vehicles, required upgrades to the
City’s maintenance facilities to manage a CNG fleet, and potential fuel cost savings is estimated.
Logistical factors such as the availability of CNG (location and capacity), and site features at the
City’s Holland Road Facility are also addressed. The study provides a summary of the
advantages and disadvantages of converting to a CNG fleet.
1 . 2 H I S T OR I C A L U S E O F C NG B Y C I T Y D EP A R TM E NT O F P U B L I C W OR K S
The City previously constructed and operated a CNG fueling facility at the Dam
Neck/Landstown Facility. The facility had time fill and quick fill connections and was used by
several vehicles and equipment. The CNG facility currently is not operational (See Exhibit 1)
and is in disrepair. Its only value at this juncture is as scrap metal and possibly reuses of the
pressure storage vessels (assuming they were tested).
C N G F e a s i b i l i t y S t u d y , F i n a l v 1 . 0 2 8 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 1
Compressors and Time Fill Station
CNG Pressure Storage Vessels
Time Fill Station
Quick Fill Station
E x h i b i t 1 . F o r m e r C i t y o f V i r g i n i a B e a c h L a n d s t o w n C N G F a c i l i t y
C N G F e a s i b i l i t y S t u d y , F i n a l v 1 . 0 3 8 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 1
2 .0 TECHNOLOGY REV I EW
2 . 1 A LT ER NA T I V E F U E L V EH I C L ES TY P ES A ND I N FOR MA T I ON
Various types of alternative fuel vehicles are available for passenger car, sport utility vehicles
and pickup trucks, light and heavy-duty trucks and equipment, and buses. Although not widely
used for passenger type vehicles due to lack of available dispensing infrastructure, Ford, General
Motors, and Honda have introduced several recent models in the market (e.g., the 2011 Honda
Civic GX).
E x h i b i t 2 . A l t e r n a t i v e F u e l V e h i c l e s
2 . 1 . 1 C o m p r e s s e d N a t u r a l G a s ( C N G )
CNG is natural gas under pressure which remains clear, odorless, and non-corrosive. Although
vehicles can use natural gas as either a liquid (LNG) or a gas (CNG), most vehicles use the
gaseous form compressed to pressures above 3,100 pounds per square inch (psi). It is essentially
the same natural gas that is delivered to most homes to use for cooking, heating water, and
forced air heat. CNG is used mostly in mass transit and large fleet commercial vehicles. The blue
diamond sticker is used mostly in North America to indicate that the vehicle is CNG powered.
CNG fuels an internal combustion engine much like a diesel engine (NGVi, 2009).
2.1.1.1 Status of Deployment in US
From Colorado, Idaho, Arizona, California, and Washington to Florida, New York, Texas,
Massachusetts, and New Jersey - solid waste hauling providers and municipalities are actively
transitioning their fleets from diesel to CNG power. Waste Management, Inc., the largest solid
wastes collection company in the United States, has an internal initiative to replace its existing
C N G F e a s i b i l i t y S t u d y , F i n a l v 1 . 0 4 8 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 1
diesel-fuel refuse collection vehicles with natural gas (LNG or CNG) vehicles as they are
scheduled for replacement. For example, in 2009, Waste Management invested $29 million in
106 new vehicles and an additional $7.5 million to build a compressed natural gas fueling station
in Seattle. The facility is open to the public and within five years all 180 collection trucks in the
Seattle fleet will be fueled by CNG. Waste Management reported that it expected to have 500
LNG vehicles and 299 CNG vehicles in service (Hurst, 2009).
2.1.1.2 Types of Vehicles Typically in This Category
CNG vehicles have been introduced in a wide variety of commercial applications:
Light-duty trucks and sedans (i.e. taxi cabs, maintenance trucks, and small city
vehicles)
Medium-duty trucks (i.e. delivery vans and large equipment trucks)
Heavy-duty vehicles (i.e. transit buses, street sweepers, refuse trucks, and school
buses)
2.1.1.3 CNG Fuel Dispensing Requirements/Types
CNG is dispensed either through a time fill, quick fill station, or combination time fill and quick
fill. Basic schematics of each type fill station are presented in Exhibit 3, Exhibit 4, and Exhibit
5, respectively. A time fill station slowly fills the vehicle fleet over an extended period (8 to 12
hours). A quick fill station performs similar to a normal diesel or gasoline pump. The number of
vehicles, the filling frequency, and the total quantity of fuel to be dispensed during the filling
period is used to size the facility compression and storage components.
2.1.1.3.1 Time-Fill Station
Time-fill (also known as slow-fill) fueling is usually recommended for fleets that utilize onsite
fueling with vehicles that return to a central location for a period of 6 to 8 hours, during which
they can be refueled. Many fleet operators use time-fill fueling because the fueling station
equipment required is often the least expensive.
The major components of a typical time-fill natural gas fueling station include:
Compressor
Time-Fill Dispensers
Using time-fill, vehicles refuel more slowly and therefore receive gas directly from the
compressor through special time-fill dispensers. This eliminates the need for a high-pressure
storage system. Time-fill fueling stations are available in a variety of sizes to meet all kinds of
customer needs, including the vehicle refueling appliance that can fuel vehicles at home or at a
business (International CNG, 2010).
C N G F e a s i b i l i t y S t u d y , F i n a l v 1 . 0 5 8 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 1
2.1.1.3.2 Quick-Fill Station
Quick-fill (also known as fast-fill) is usually used when vehicles must be refueled in a time
period similar to that of other conventional fuels, approximately 3 to 7 minutes for automobiles
and light-duty trucks. All public natural gas fueling stations are quick-fill.
The major components of a typical quick-fill natural gas fueling station include:
Compressor
High-Pressure Storage
Gas Reservoirs
Gas Dryer
Expansion Tank
Quick-Fill Dispenser(s)
Credit Card Reader (optional)
At a quick-fill fueling station, natural gas is compressed by the compressor and stored in the high
pressure storage system. The compressor of a fuel station receives natural gas from a connection
pipe. After drying (removing any condensate and impurities), gas is pressurized in several
compression stages to 30 Mpa (4,350 psi). Compressed natural gas is stored in high-pressure
reservoirs. To facilitate the transfer of gas to vehicles, reservoirs are usually divided into three
parts: a high-, mid-, and low-pressure section. Natural gas is filled through a gas pump. The
filling connector of the pump hose is attached with a fastener to the filling valve on the vehicle,
and compressed natural gas is transferred to the vehicle's pressurized gas tanks. Modern gas
pumps are equipped with devices that measure the weight, temperature, and pressure and an
electronic system that ensures that gas tanks are filled up to the set operating pressure of 20 - 22
Mpa (2,900 - 3,200 psi).
When vehicles are being fueled and the pressure of the fuel supply in the storage system begins
to drop, the compressor is automatically activated, causing it to replenish the supply of natural
gas in the storage system. If desired by the fueling station operator, a credit card allows access to
the dispenser, which meters and dispenses natural gas into the fuel storage cylinder(s) onboard
the vehicle (International CNG, 2010).
2.1.1.3.3 Combination Time Fill/Quick Fill Station
Another natural gas fueling configuration for onsite fleet applications is the combination station,
which includes both time-fill and quick-fill capabilities. This type of fueling may be used when
some vehicles return to a central location for refueling, usually at night, and when other vehicles
need to be refueled in a fairly short period of time and cannot wait for time-fill.
The major components of a typical combination natural gas fueling system include:
Compressor
High-Pressure Storage
Gas Reservoirs
Gas Dryer
C N G F e a s i b i l i t y S t u d y , F i n a l v 1 . 0 6 8 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 1
Expansion Tank
Quick-Fill Dispenser(s)
Time-Fill Dispensers
Credit Card Reader (optional)
When fueling through the quick-fill dispensers, natural gas is provided from the high-pressure
storage system to the vehicles’ onboard fuel storage cylinders. When fueling through the time-
fill dispensers, natural gas is provided to vehicles directly from the compressor. Combination
stations are ideal for onsite fueling that need both quick and time-fill options. (International
CNG, 2010)
Source: Natural Gas Vehicles (NGV) http://ngv.ie/station.htm 2007
E x h i b i t 3 . C N G T i m e - F i l l S t a t i o n
Source: Natural Gas Vehicles (NGV) http://ngv.ie/station.htm 2007
E x h i b i t 4 . C N G Q u i c k - F i l l S t a t i o n
C N G F e a s i b i l i t y S t u d y , F i n a l v 1 . 0 2 5 8 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 1
Decision to go CNG was primarily driven by Clean Air-Low Emissions, not money. At the time,
cities all over Harris County and surrounding counties were being urged to adopt programs to
relieve pollution, because the area did not meet federal pollution guidelines.
Initial Costs:
$250,000 for fueling station (2003) and another $200,000 in 2008 to upgrade
Refuse trucks $50,000 more per vehicle
Completed On-Site Station w/ Timed and Quick-Fill in July 2003
Light Duty vehicles use Quick-Fill
CNG Refuse Vehicle Type:
8 Residential Rear Loaders, Autocar with Cummins Engine – Crane Carrier with John
Deere
4 Commercial Side Load
2 Commercial Roll-Off
Challenges:
Equipment Availability
Fueling Infrastructure
Stations costly to build
Vehicles cost more
On-Board Fuel Storage
Vehicles have less range
Opportunities:
Lower Fuel Cost
Grant Funding for Incremental Cost/Tax Incentives
Operator and Citizen Satisfaction
Other Fort Jackson CNG Vehicles
14 Pick-ups – Ford F150, 7700 Series, 5.4 Liter Dedicated (No longer offered)
5 Honda Civics
Daewoo Forklift
2 . 3 2 0 1 1 F ED ER A L I N I T I A T I V E F OR FU E L E F F I C I E NC Y
In early August 2011, President Obama announced the first of their kind fuel efficiency and
greenhouse gas pollution standards for work trucks, buses, and other heavy duty vehicles. The
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
developed the standards in close coordination with the trucking industry. The joint DOT/EPA
program will include a range of targets which are specific to the diverse vehicle types and
purposes. Vehicles are divided into three major categories: combination tractors (semi-trucks),
heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, and vocational vehicles (like transit buses and refuse trucks).
C N G F e a s i b i l i t y S t u d y , F i n a l v 1 . 0 2 6 8 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 1
Within each of those categories, even more specific targets are laid out based on the design and
purpose of the vehicle. This flexible structure allows achievable fuel efficiency improvement
goals charted for each year and for each vehicle category and type. Garbage trucks are supposed
to achieve a 10 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption by 2018.
These projected reductions are not addressed in the alternatives analysis presented in Section 4.0
of this report.
2 . 4 N A T U R A L GA S S U P P LY I N C I TY
Natural gas is supplied by various local distribution companies (LDCs) in Virginia as shown in
Exhibit 9. Virginia Natural Gas (VNG) is the LDC in Virginia Beach. VNG indicates that it has
natural gas lines with sufficient capacity and pressure to service the City’s refuse and public
works fleets at the Holland Road and Landstown Facilities. The location of the VNG main lines
closest to these facilities is shown in Exhibit 10.
E x h i b i t 9 . V i r g i n i a N a t u r a l G a s S u p p l y N e t w o r k , S t a t e - w i d e
C N G F e a s i b i l i t y S t u d y , F i n a l v 1 . 0 2 7 8 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 1
E x h i b i t 1 0 . V i r g i n i a N a t u r a l G a s C i t y S u p p l y N e t w o r k N e a r H o l l a n d R o a d a n d L a n d s t o w n F a c i l i t i e s
N No Scale
City’s Holland Road, Solid Waste Facility
City’s Landstown Facility
C N G F e a s i b i l i t y S t u d y , F i n a l v 1 . 0 2 8 8 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 1
3 .0 C ITY OF V IRG IN IA BEACH F LEET MANAGEMENT
3 . 1 F L E E T MA NA GEM E N T
The Department of Public Works Fleet Management is responsible for management of over
3,600 major pieces of equipment for the following City fleet assets.
Police Vehicles
Fire and Rescue Apparatus
Refuse Collection Trucks
Beach Cleaners/Sewer Cleaners/Street Sweepers
Construction Equipment (Dump Trucks, Bulldozers, etc.)
Roadway Equipment (Asphalt Pavers, etc.)
Traffic Message Boards/Arrow Boards
Bookmobile
Lawn Equipment
Aviation Equipment
Marine Equipment
Generators (stationary and portable)
Pumps
Fleet Management acquires, maintains, fuels, repairs, and disposes of the fleet.
A brief description of Solid Waste and Public Works fleets and associated fueling facilities is
provided below.
Solid Waste Department. The City’s solid waste collection vehicles are parked and maintained
at its Holland Road Facility (See Exhibit 11). The City services 123,600 municipal solid waste
(MSW) residential customers which average a total of 6.4 million collections per year (152,000
tons/year) (Briefing to City Council, 1/25/2011). The City provides MSW collection service
Tuesdays through Fridays which includes thirty-eight (38) routes per day using 42 full-time
employees. The City owns, operates, and maintains a fleet of approximately 100 refuse
collection vehicles (rear loading, side loading, and grapple trucks for bulky waste) ranging in
capacity from 18 to 29 cubic yards. MSW collection and disposal costs average $14.8 million
per year which breaks down into $104.00 per ton ($39.00 collection/$65.00 disposal). The
average collection truck runs about 127 miles per day. Their tank size allows the trucks to run
1.25 days between fill-ups. The City indicates that its collection vehicles consume
approximately 70 gallons of diesel between fills. Routine and major maintenance is provided at
the Holland Road Facility. The Holland Road Facility does not have any fueling operations.
Refuse vehicles are fueled at the fueling facility at the Public Works Facility off Dam Neck
Road.
Public Works Department (Landstown Facility). The City’s Public Works Department parks
and maintains its light and heavy duty trucks and equipment that are used to maintain roads and
other public works facilities at the Landstown Facility, which is located directly across from the
C N G F e a s i b i l i t y S t u d y , F i n a l v 1 . 0 2 9 8 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 1
Southeastern Public Service Authority’s (SPSA) Landstown Transfer Station (See Exhibit 12).
Public Works has a fleet of vehicles, which includes cars, light-duty pickup trucks and sport
utility vehicles, and heavy duty trucks and equipment. This facility also includes one of the
City’s main fuel storage and dispensing facilities, which includes 20,000 gallons of unleaded
gasoline and 20,000 gallons of diesel in underground storage tanks, six fueling islands, with
eight pumps each (48 total pumps).
Public Works Department (Pungo Mosquito Radio Tower). This facility is used by various City
vehicles for fueling. The facility includes 6,000 gallons of unleaded gasoline and 1,000 gallons
of diesel in underground storage tanks and one fueling island with two dual-product fuel
dispensers.
Public Works Department. The City has a fueling facility at Euclid Road which serves cars,
light-duty pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles, and heavy duty trucks and equipment. The
fueling facility includes 20,000 gallons of unleaded gasoline and 20,000 gallons of diesel in
underground storage tanks, four fueling islands, with four dual product dispensers each (32 total
dispensers).
3 . 2 I NV EN T OR Y O F R E FU S E C O L L EC T I ON V EH I C L ES
Public Works Fleet Management provided the Project Team the inventory list of all City’s refuse
collection vehicles. The inventory list includes the type, make, capacity, purchase date, purchase
amount, model year, and the yearly and total fuel and maintenance costs for each vehicle. The
solid waste vehicle inventory is included in Appendix A. A summary of several key statistics for
the fleet including vehicle count, average age, average fuel use per year per vehicle, total fuel
usage per year per vehicle type, and average yearly fuel and maintenance costs per vehicle is
provided in Exhibit 13. The average age of the fleet is 7.4 years. Fuel consumption has
averaged approximately 380,000 gallons per year of diesel over the life of the fleet. At diesel
fuel price of $3.017 per gallon, this equates to approximately $1.2 million per year.
3 . 3 F U E L I N G OP ER A T I ONS
The City has 14 automated fueling locations. The two large, multi-pump fleet fueling facilities
are located at Landstown and Euclid (See Exhibit 14). Nine of these locations dispense both
unleaded and diesel fuel; three sites offer diesel only; one site offers unleaded only; and, one site
offers compressed natural gas (CNG) (not operational). The City’s main fueling sites are
accessible 24/7. (City of Virginia Beach, June 2009)
The City’s fueling operations are the responsibility of Public Works Fleet Management. This
responsibility includes ensuring adequate fuel resources are available for all City agencies.
Public Works Fleet Management relies on reports generated from the automated systems below
to oversee and monitor fuel operations:
C N G F e a s i b i l i t y S t u d y , F i n a l v 1 . 0 3 0 8 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 1
E x h i b i t 1 1 . V i r g i n i a B e a c h H o l l a n d R o a d S o l i d W a s t e M a n a g e m e n t F a c i l i t y
Refuse Vehicle
Parking Area
Ops Support
And Admin Bldgs
C N G F e a s i b i l i t y S t u d y , F i n a l v 1 . 0 3 1 8 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 1
E x h i b i t 1 2 . C i t y P u b l i c U t i l i t i e s L a n d s t o w n F a c i l i t y
E x h i b i t 1 3 . D e p a r t m e n t o f S o l i d W a s t e R e f u s e C o l l e c t i o n F l e e t
Note: Information presented in this table is for demonstration purposes of the structure of the pro forma model. Actual final results may vary for the specified scenario.
C N G F e a s i b i l i t y S t u d y , F i n a l v 1 . 0 4 8 8 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 1
E x h i b i t 2 4 . “ B a s e C a s e ” S c e n a r i o P r o F o r m a A n a l y s i s f o r
T i m e - F i l l / Q u i c k - F i l l C o m b i n a t i o n S t a t i o n , 2 0 % V e h i c l e P u r c h a s e P r e m i u m ,
1 5 % V e h i c l e M a i n t e n a n c e F a c t o r , V a r i a b l e F u e l E s c a l a t o r
Fuel and Fueling Station Configuration
Diesel
Fuel
Escalation
Factor
CNG
Fuel
Escalation
Factor
CNG
Maintenance
Factor
CNG
Vehicle
Purchase
Premium
Factor
CNG Fuel
Eff.
Penalty
Factor
Starting
Fuel
Price
($/gal-DGE)
NPV
($)
Time-Fill/Quick-Fill Combination
Diesel Status Quo 3% 3.017 58,105,000
CNG-4 3% 3% 15% 20% 13.00% 60,783,000
Time-Fill/Quick-Fill Combination
Diesel Status Quo 5% 3.017 61,886,000
CNG-4 5% 3% 15% 20% 13.00% 63,209,000
Time-Fill/Quick-Fill Combination
Diesel Status Quo 7% 3.017 66,307,000
CNG-4 7% 2% 15% 20% 13.00% $65,993,000
E x h i b i t 2 5 . “ B e s t C a s e ” S c e n a r i o P r o F o r m a A n a l y s i s f o r
T i m e - F i l l / Q u i c k - F i l l C o m b i n a t i o n S t a t i o n , 1 5 % V e h i c l e P u r c h a s e P r e m i u m , 1 0 % V e h i c l e M a i n t e n a n c e F a c t o r ,
9 % F u e l E f f i c i e n c y P e n a l t y V a r i a b l e F u e l E s c a l a t o r s
Fuel and Fueling Station Configuration
Diesel
Fuel
Escalation
Factor
CNG
Fuel
Escalation
Factor
CNG
Maintenance
Factor
CNG
Vehicle
Purchase
Premium
Factor
CNG Fuel
Eff.
Penalty
Factor
Starting
Fuel
Price
($/gal-DGE)
NPV
($)
Time-Fill/Quick-Fill Combination
Diesel Status Quo 3% 3.017 58,105,000
CNG-2 3% 3% 10% 15% 9.00% 3.017 58,182,000
Time-Fill/Quick-Fill Combination
Diesel Status Quo 5% 3.017 61,886,000
CNG-2 5% 3% 10% 15% 9.00% 3.017 60,505,000
Time-Fill/Quick-Fill Combination
Diesel Status Quo 7% 3.017 66,307,000
CNG-2 7% 2% 10% 15% 9.00% 3.017 63,014,000
C N G F e a s i b i l i t y S t u d y , F i n a l v 1 . 0 4 9 8 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 1
E x h i b i t 2 6 . S e n s i t i v i t y A n a l y s i s , H i g h e r S t a r t i n g D i e s e l P r i c e P r o F o r m a A n a l y s i s f o r
T i m e - F i l l / Q u i c k - F i l l C o m b i n a t i o n S t a t i o n , 2 0 % V e h i c l e P u r c h a s e P r e m i u m ,
1 5 % V e h i c l e M a i n t e n a n c e F a c t o r , 1 3 % F u e l E f f i c i e n c y P e n a l t y
V a r i a b l e F u e l E s c a l a t o r s ( B a s e C a s e S c e n a r i o )
$57
$58
$59
$60
$61
$62
$63
$0.00 $0.20 $0.40 $0.60 $0.80 $1.00 $1.20
NP
V, $
Mill
ion
s
Diesel Surcharge on Base Rate, $/gallon
NPV v. Diesel Surcharge3%/3% Escalation (Diesel/CNG)
Diesel, NPV
CNG, NPV
$61
$62
$63
$64
$65
$66
$67
$68
$0.00 $0.20 $0.40 $0.60 $0.80 $1.00 $1.20
NP
V, $
Mill
ion
s
Diesel Surcharge on Base Rate, $/gallon
NPV v. Diesel Surcharge5%/3% Escalation (Diesel/CNG)
Diesel, NPV
CNG, NPV
Base Rate=$3.017/gallon
$65
$66
$67
$68
$69
$70
$71
$72
$73
$0.00 $0.20 $0.40 $0.60 $0.80 $1.00 $1.20
NP
V, $
Mill
ion
s
Diesel Surcharge on Base Rate, $/gallon
NPV v. Diesel Surcharge7%/2% Escalation (Diesel/CNG)
Diesel, NPV
CNG, NPV
Base Rate=$3.017/gallon
C N G F e a s i b i l i t y S t u d y , F i n a l v 1 . 0 5 0 8 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 1
E x h i b i t 2 7 . S e n s i t i v i t y A n a l y s i s , H i g h e r S t a r t i n g D i e s e l P r i c e P r o F o r m a A n a l y s i s f o r
T i m e - F i l l / Q u i c k - F i l l C o m b i n a t i o n S t a t i o n , 1 5 % V e h i c l e P u r c h a s e P r e m i u m ,
1 0 % V e h i c l e M a i n t e n a n c e F a c t o r , 9 % F u e l E f f i c i e n c y P e n a l t y
V a r i a b l e F u e l E s c a l a t o r s ( B e s t C a s e S c e n a r i o )
$57
$58
$59
$60
$61
$62
$63
$0.00 $0.20 $0.40 $0.60 $0.80 $1.00 $1.20
NP
V, $
Mill
ion
s
Diesel Surcharge on Base Rate, $/gallon
NPV v. Diesel Surcharge3%/3% Escalation (Diesel/CNG)
Diesel, NPV
CNG, NPV
$60
$61
$62
$63
$64
$65
$66
$67
$68
$0.00 $0.20 $0.40 $0.60 $0.80 $1.00 $1.20
NP
V, $
Mill
ion
s
Diesel Surcharge on Base Rate, $/gallon
NPV v. Diesel Surcharge5%/3% Escalation (Diesel/CNG)
Diesel, NPV
CNG, NPV
Base Rate=$3.017/gallon
$62
$63
$64
$65
$66
$67
$68
$69
$70
$71
$72
$73
$0.00 $0.20 $0.40 $0.60 $0.80 $1.00 $1.20
NP
V, $
Mill
ion
s
Diesel Surcharge on Base Rate, $/gallon
NPV v. Diesel Surcharge7%/2% Escalation (Diesel/CNG)
Diesel, NPV
CNG, NPV
Base Rate=$3.017/gallon
C N G F e a s i b i l i t y S t u d y , F i n a l v 1 . 0 5 1 8 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 1
E x h i b i t 2 8 . D i e s e l a n d C N G P r i c i n g T r e n d s 2 0 0 6 - 2 0 1 1
y = 0.0548x + 2.0762
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
$3.50
$4.00
$4.50M
ay-0
9
Aug
-09
No
v-0
9
Feb
-10
May-1
0
Aug
-10
No
v-1
0
Feb
-11
Avera
ge P
rice p
er
Gall
on
Months
Average U.S. Diesel Prices from May 2009 to April 2011
y = 0.0042x + 2.9129
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
$3.50
$4.00
$4.50
$5.00
Ap
r-06
Jul-06
Oct-
06
Jan-0
7
Ap
r-07
Jul-07
Oct-
07
Jan-0
8
Ap
r-08
Jul-08
Oct-
08
Jan-0
9
Ap
r-09
Jul-09
Oct-
09
Jan-1
0
Ap
r-10
Jul-10
Oct-
10
Jan-1
1
Ap
r-11
Avera
ge P
rice p
er
Gall
on
Months
Average U.S. Diesel Prices from April 2006 to April 2011
y = -0.0695x + 8.079
$0.00
$2.00
$4.00
$6.00
$8.00
$10.00
$12.00
$14.00
May-0
6
Aug
-06
No
v-0
6
Feb
-07
May-0
7
Aug
-07
No
v-0
7
Feb
-08
May-0
8
Aug
-08
No
v-0
8
Feb
-09
May-0
9
Aug
-09
No
v-0
9
Feb
-10
May-1
0
Aug
-10
No
v-1
0
Feb
-11
Do
llars
/Mil
BT
Us
Months
Average U.S. Natural Gas Prices from April 2006 to April 2011
Linear Trend Line
y = 0.0158x + 3.9525
$0.00
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
$5.00
$6.00
$7.00
May-0
9
Aug
-09
No
v-0
9
Feb
-10
May-1
0
Aug
-10
No
v-1
0
Feb
-11
Do
llars
/Mil
BTU
s
Months
Average U.S. Natural Gas Prices from May 2009 to April 2011
Linear Trend Line
C N G F e a s i b i l i t y S t u d y , F i n a l v 1 . 0 5 2 8 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 1
E x h i b i t 2 9 . P r o j e c t e d D i e s e l / C N G F u e l U s a g e T r e n d s f o r T r a n s i t i o n t o C N G F l e e t
C N G F e a s i b i l i t y S t u d y , F i n a l v 1 . 0 5 3 8 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 1
5 .0 REFERENCES
All Hybrid Cars. ―Hybrid Cars Pros and Cons.‖ http://www.allhybridcars.com/hybrid-cars-pros-
and-cons.html. 2011
American Trucking Association. ―Is Natural Gas a Viable Alternative to Diesel for the Trucking
Industry?‖ http://www.truckline.com. June 2010.
Burdelski, J., Cannon, J.S., Gordon, D. ―Greening Garbage Trucks: New Technologies for
C N G F e a s i b i l i t y S t u d y , F i n a l v 1 . 0 8 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 1
A p p e nd i x A . C i t y o f V i r g i n i a B e a c h D e p a r t me n t o f S o l i d Wa s t e R e f u s e C o l l e c t i o n V e h i c l e I n ve n t o r y
( Ja n ua ry 3 1 , 2 0 1 1 )
Appendix ACity of VB Refuse Collection Fleet Inventory
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACHDEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS / FLEET MANAGEMENTHISTORICAL COSTS OF WASTE COLLECTION VEHICLESCity Supplied Information SCS Added Columns
Code Description Replacement DescriptionVolume
(CY) Equip # Year
ModelAge
(Years)
TargetReplacement
Age
YearsUntil
Replacement
ProjectedReplacement
Date
OwnedDuration(Days)
OwnedDuration(Years) Manufacturer Model Resource Class
Appendix ACity of VB Refuse Collection Fleet Inventory
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACHDEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS / FLEET MANAGEMENTHISTORICAL COSTS OF WASTE COLLECTION VEHICLESCity Supplied Information SCS Added Columns
Code Description Replacement DescriptionVolume
(CY) Equip # Year
ModelAge
(Years)
TargetReplacement
Age
YearsUntil
Replacement
ProjectedReplacement
Date
OwnedDuration(Days)
OwnedDuration(Years) Manufacturer Model Resource Class
Last Meter Read Purchase Date
Original Cost ($)
City Estimated
ReplacementValue
($)3DF REFUSE COMP ART ARM 18 19YD REFUSE SIDE LOAD , 28 YD TANDEM 18.5 141204 2000 11 13 2 2013 4,150 11.37 CCC LET26E 2000-CCC -LET2 79,625 9/22/1999 $138,935 $228,6603DF REFUSE COMP ART ARM 18 19YD REFUSE SIDE LOAD , 28 YD TANDEM 18.5 141210 2000 11 13 2 2013 4,150 11.37 CCC LET26E 2000-CCC -LET2 81,221 9/22/1999 $138,935 $228,6603DF REFUSE COMP ART ARM 18 19YD REFUSE SIDE LOAD , 28 YD TANDEM 18.5 141394 2001 10 12 2 2013 3,855 10.56 CCC LET20E 2001-CCC-LET2 74,779 7/13/2000 $138,935 $228,6603DF REFUSE COMP ART ARM 18 19YD REFUSE SIDE LOAD , 28 YD TANDEM 18.5 141396 2001 10 12 2 2013 3,855 10.56 CCC LET20E 2001-CCC-LET2 77,220 7/13/2000 $138,935 $228,6603DF REFUSE COMP ART ARM 18 19YD REFUSE SIDE LOAD , 28 YD TANDEM 18.5 141398 2001 10 12 2 2013 3,855 10.56 CCC LET20E 2001-CCC-LET2 102,001 7/13/2000 $138,935 $228,6603DF REFUSE COMP ART ARM 18 19YD REFUSE SIDE LOAD , 28 YD TANDEM 18.5 141402 2001 10 12 2 2013 3,855 10.56 CCC LET20E 2001-CCC-LET2 87,684 7/13/2000 $138,935 $228,6603DF REFUSE COMP ART ARM 18 19YD REFUSE SIDE LOAD 28 YD TANDEM 18 5 141404 2001 10 12 2 2013 3 855 10 56 CCC LET20E 2001 CCC LET2 87 563 7/13/2000 $138 935 $228 6603DF REFUSE COMP ART ARM 18 19YD REFUSE SIDE LOAD , 28 YD TANDEM 18.5 141404 2001 10 12 2 2013 3,855 10.56 CCC LET20E 2001-CCC-LET2 87,563 7/13/2000 $138,935 $228,6603DF REFUSE COMP ART ARM 18 19YD REFUSE SIDE LOAD , 28 YD TANDEM 18.5 141406 2001 10 12 2 2013 3,855 10.56 CCC LET20E 2001-CCC-LET2 85,123 7/13/2000 $138,935 $228,6603DF REFUSE COMP ART ARM 18 19YD REFUSE SIDE LOAD , 28 YD TANDEM 18.5 141408 2001 10 12 2 2013 3,855 10.56 CCC LET20E 2001-CCC-LET2 72,803 7/13/2000 $138,935 $228,6603DF REFUSE COMP ART ARM 18 19YD REFUSE SIDE LOAD , 28 YD TANDEM 18.5 141736 2002 9 10 1 2012 3,427 9.39 FREIGHTLIN CONDOR 2002-FREI-COND 103,633 9/14/2001 $141,139 $228,6603DF REFUSE COMP ART ARM 18 19YD REFUSE SIDE LOAD , 28 YD TANDEM 18.5 141737 2002 9 10 1 2012 3,427 9.39 FREIGHTLIN CONDOR 2002-FREI-COND 84,921 9/14/2001 $141,139 $228,6603DF REFUSE COMP ART ARM 18 19YD REFUSE SIDE LOAD , 28 YD TANDEM 18.5 141738 2002 9 10 1 2012 3,427 9.39 FREIGHTLIN CONDOR 2002-FREI-COND 87,597 9/14/2001 $141,139 $228,6603DF REFUSE COMP ART ARM 18 19YD REFUSE SIDE LOAD , 28 YD TANDEM 18.5 141740 2002 9 10 1 2012 3,427 9.39 FREIGHTLIN CONDOR 2002-FREI-COND 91,101 9/14/2001 $141,139 $228,6603DF REFUSE COMP ART ARM 18 19YD 18.5 141939 2003 8 10 2 2013 3,120 8.55 FREIGHTLIN CONDOR 2003-FREI-COND 67,356 7/18/2002 $141,1393DF REFUSE COMP ART ARM 18 19YD 18.5 141940 2003 8 10 2 2013 3,120 8.55 FREIGHTLIN CONDOR 2003-FREI-COND 69,920 7/18/2002 $141,1393DF REFUSE COMP ART ARM 18 19YD 18.5 141941 2003 8 10 2 2013 3,120 8.55 FREIGHTLIN CONDOR 2003-FREI-COND 92,565 7/18/2002 $141,1393DF REFUSE COMP ART ARM 18 19YD 18.5 141942 2003 8 10 2 2013 3,120 8.55 FREIGHTLIN CONDOR 2003-FREI-COND 102,105 7/18/2002 $141,1393DF REFUSE COMP ART ARM 18 19YD 18.5 141943 2003 8 10 2 2013 3,120 8.55 FREIGHTLIN CONDOR 2003-FREI-COND 76,262 7/18/2002 $141,1393DF REFUSE COMP ART ARM 18 19YD 18.5 141944 2003 8 10 2 2013 3,120 8.55 FREIGHTLIN CONDOR 2003-FREI-COND 81,822 7/18/2002 $141,1393DF REFUSE COMP ART ARM 18 19YD 18.5 141948 2003 8 10 2 2013 3,120 8.55 FREIGHTLIN CONDOR 2003-FREI-COND 73,379 7/18/2002 $141,1393ZL BULKY REFUSE W BOOM 28 29YD BULKY REFUSE TRUCK W BOOM, 29 YD TANDEM 28.5 120952 1996 15 16 1 2012 5,600 15.34 INTL 4700 1996-INTL-4700 167,489 10/3/1995 $72,883 $185,4003ZL BULKY REFUSE W BOOM 28 29YD BULKY REFUSE TRUCK W BOOM, 29 YD TANDEM 28.5 140956 1999 12 13 1 2012 4,155 11.38 INTL 4700 1999-INTL-4700 79,182 9/17/1999 $81,228 $185,4003ZL BULKY REFUSE W BOOM 28 29YD BULKY REFUSE TRUCK W BOOM, 29 YD TANDEM 28.5 140958 1999 12 13 1 2012 4,155 11.38 INTL 4700 1999-INTL-4700 78,852 9/17/1999 $81,228 $185,4003ZL BULKY REFUSE W BOOM 28 29YD BULKY REFUSE TRUCK W BOOM, 29 YD TANDEM 28.5 141238 2000 11 12 1 2012 4,107 11.25 INTL 4700 2000-INTL-4700 87,577 11/4/1999 $81,228 $185,4003ZL BULKY REFUSE W BOOM 28 29YD BULKY REFUSE TRUCK W BOOM, 29 YD TANDEM 28.5 141532 2001 10 11 1 2012 3,750 10.27 INTL 4700 2001-INTL-4700 65,903 10/26/2000 $87,869 $185,4003ZL BULKY REFUSE W BOOM 28 29YD BULKY REFUSE TRUCK W BOOM, 29 YD TANDEM 28.5 141534 2001 10 11 1 2012 3,750 10.27 INTL 4700 2001-INTL-4700 92,900 10/26/2000 $87,869 $185,4003ZL BULKY REFUSE W BOOM 28 29YD BULKY REFUSE TRUCK W BOOM, 29 YD TANDEM 28.5 141803 2002 9 11 2 2013 3,421 9.37 GMC C8500 2002-GMC -8500 87,033 9/20/2001 $82,997 $185,4003ZL BULKY REFUSE W BOOM 28 29YD BULKY REFUSE TRUCK W BOOM 29 YD TANDEM 28 5 141804 2002 9 11 2 2013 3 421 9 37 GMC C8500 2002 GMC 8500 97 000 9/20/2001 $82 997 $185 4003ZL BULKY REFUSE W BOOM 28 29YD BULKY REFUSE TRUCK W BOOM, 29 YD TANDEM 28.5 141804 2002 9 11 2 2013 3,421 9.37 GMC C8500 2002-GMC -8500 97,000 9/20/2001 $82,997 $185,4003ZL BULKY REFUSE W BOOM 28 29YD BULKY REFUSE TRUCK W BOOM, 29 YD TANDEM 28.5 141805 2002 9 11 2 2013 3,421 9.37 GMC C8500 2002-GMC -8500 97,426 9/20/2001 $82,997 $185,4003ZL BULKY REFUSE W BOOM 28 29YD BULKY REFUSE TRUCK W BOOM, 29 YD TANDEM 28.5 141806 2002 9 11 2 2013 3,421 9.37 GMC C8500 2002-GMC -8500 109,134 9/20/2001 $82,997 $185,4003ZL BULKY REFUSE W BOOM 28 29YD BULKY REFUSE TRUCK W BOOM, 29 YD TANDEM 28.5 146710 2006 5 7 2 2013 2,140 5.86 INTL 7300 2006-INTL-7300 55,901 3/24/2005 $106,074 $185,4003ZL BULKY REFUSE W BOOM 28 29YD BULKY REFUSE TRUCK W BOOM, 29 YD TANDEM 28.5 146981 2007 4 7 3 2014 1,736 4.76 INTL 7300 2007-INTL-7300 49,013 5/2/2006 $106,074 $185,4003ZL BULKY REFUSE W BOOM 28 29YD BULKY REFUSE TRUCK W BOOM, 29 YD TANDEM 28.5 146982 2007 4 7 3 2014 1,554 4.26 INTL 7300 2007-INTL-7300 47,957 10/31/2006 $106,074 $185,400
A-3
Appendix ACity of VB Refuse Collection Fleet Inventory
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACHDEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS / FLEET MANAGEMENTHISTORICAL COSTS OF WASTE COLLECTION VEHICLESCity Supplied Information
Code Description Replacement Description3DF REFUSE COMP ART ARM 18 19YD REFUSE SIDE LOAD , 28 YD TANDEM3DF REFUSE COMP ART ARM 18 19YD REFUSE SIDE LOAD , 28 YD TANDEM3DF REFUSE COMP ART ARM 18 19YD REFUSE SIDE LOAD , 28 YD TANDEM3DF REFUSE COMP ART ARM 18 19YD REFUSE SIDE LOAD , 28 YD TANDEM3DF REFUSE COMP ART ARM 18 19YD REFUSE SIDE LOAD , 28 YD TANDEM3DF REFUSE COMP ART ARM 18 19YD REFUSE SIDE LOAD , 28 YD TANDEM3DF REFUSE COMP ART ARM 18 19YD REFUSE SIDE LOAD 28 YD TANDEM
3DF REFUSE COMP ART ARM 18 19YD REFUSE SIDE LOAD , 28 YD TANDEM3DF REFUSE COMP ART ARM 18 19YD REFUSE SIDE LOAD , 28 YD TANDEM3DF REFUSE COMP ART ARM 18 19YD REFUSE SIDE LOAD , 28 YD TANDEM3DF REFUSE COMP ART ARM 18 19YD REFUSE SIDE LOAD , 28 YD TANDEM3DF REFUSE COMP ART ARM 18 19YD REFUSE SIDE LOAD , 28 YD TANDEM3DF REFUSE COMP ART ARM 18 19YD REFUSE SIDE LOAD , 28 YD TANDEM3DF REFUSE COMP ART ARM 18 19YD3DF REFUSE COMP ART ARM 18 19YD3DF REFUSE COMP ART ARM 18 19YD3DF REFUSE COMP ART ARM 18 19YD3DF REFUSE COMP ART ARM 18 19YD3DF REFUSE COMP ART ARM 18 19YD3DF REFUSE COMP ART ARM 18 19YD3ZL BULKY REFUSE W BOOM 28 29YD BULKY REFUSE TRUCK W BOOM, 29 YD TANDEM3ZL BULKY REFUSE W BOOM 28 29YD BULKY REFUSE TRUCK W BOOM, 29 YD TANDEM3ZL BULKY REFUSE W BOOM 28 29YD BULKY REFUSE TRUCK W BOOM, 29 YD TANDEM3ZL BULKY REFUSE W BOOM 28 29YD BULKY REFUSE TRUCK W BOOM, 29 YD TANDEM3ZL BULKY REFUSE W BOOM 28 29YD BULKY REFUSE TRUCK W BOOM, 29 YD TANDEM3ZL BULKY REFUSE W BOOM 28 29YD BULKY REFUSE TRUCK W BOOM, 29 YD TANDEM3ZL BULKY REFUSE W BOOM 28 29YD BULKY REFUSE TRUCK W BOOM, 29 YD TANDEM3ZL BULKY REFUSE W BOOM 28 29YD BULKY REFUSE TRUCK W BOOM 29 YD TANDEM