UTA & Alternative Fuel Vehicles GOVERNOR’S ENERGY DEVELOPMENT SUMMIT June 2014

1

UTA & Alternative Fuel VehiclesGOVERNOR’S ENERGY DEVELOPMENT SUMMITJUNE 2014

2

Strategic and Board Goal Alignment

2020 Strategic Plan‘Operate a balanced fleet of alternative fuel vehicles’

2014 Board Goal‘Complete construction of an on-site CNG fueling facility’

3

Why Alternative Fuels?

• Vehicle fuel consumption is the second largest operating expenditure at UTA (Labor is #1)

• Spread risk associated with future fuel volatility

• Participation in new funding resources:• Utah Clean Cities Coalition – nearly $2

million in alternative fuel vehicles

• Better air quality

• Leveraging evolving efficiency technologies

• Since 1995, use of diesel fuel at transit agencies across the country has decreased more than 20% while the combined used of alternative fuel types* has increased more than 800%

67%

15%

12%

6%

Labor

Fuel

Other

Parts

*

* Includes electricity for rail propulsion

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Diesel Other

1995 2009

*

* GNC, LNG, gasoline, and Bio-diesel

4

UTA’s Fleet Mix

Today 2023*

45%42%

6%7%

Diesel (Pre-2006)

Clean Diesel

Hybrid

CNG77%

6%

17%

Clean Diesel

Hybrid

CNG

* Based on 2014 Bus Replacement Schedule

5

Fuel Volatility

20102011

20122013

20142015

20162017

20182019

20202021

20222023

20242025

20262027

20282029

20302031

20322033

20342035

20362037

20382039

2040 $-

$0.20

$0.40

$0.60

$0.80

$1.00

$1.20

Projected Fuel Cost ComparisonsPer Mile*, in 2013 Dollars

Diesel Diesel ProjectedNatural Gas Natural Gas ProjectedElectric Electric Projected

*Assumptions2010 Diesel (MPG): 4.3

CNG (MPGe): 3.5Electric (@ 2.3 kWh/Mile)*: 17

Source: ANNUAL ENERGY OUTLOOK 2014, US Energy Information Administration

6

Diesel Buses

• Currently four hundred fifty five (455) in the UTA Fleet• Pre-2006 Diesel Vehicles – 239• “Clean Diesel” Vehicles – 216

• Most common, reliable, highest horsepower technology available

• Existing infrastructure for fueling and maintenance

7

CNG Buses

• Currently twenty four (24) in the UTA Fleet

• Technology is being used by more than 40 transit agencies in North America

• Fuel can be locally sourced

• Lower emissions of criteria air pollutants• Compared to a model year 2000 diesel bus, a model year 2012 CNG

bus emits:• 80% less NOx• 99% less PM• 100% less Hydrocarbons

8

Hybrid Buses

• Currently thirty two (32) in the UTA Fleet

• Technology is being used by more than 60 transit agencies in North America

• Diesel-electric technology combines two energy converters:• An internal combustion engine• Electric battery powered drive

9

Electric Buses

Current Top Manufacturers• Proterra• BYD• Compete Coachworks

Charging Technologies• Conduction

• Overhead• Embedded (WAVE)

• Overnight (Plug in)

Current US Agencies Using the Technology

Proterra

BYD

Complete Coach Works

10

Capital Cost Comparisons

Diesel B

us

CNG Bus

Hybrid

Bus

Electric

Bus (CCW

- WAVE)

Electric

Bus (BYD - C

onductive

)

Electric

Bus (BYD - O

vernight)

Electric

Bus (Proterra

- Conduct.

..$0

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

$1,400,000

$1,600,000

Bus Capital Costs (Including Charging Infrastructure & Battery)

Base Bus Cost Charging Infrastructure & Battery

11

Electric Buses – Capital Costs

Proterra

BYD

Complete Coach Works

Electric Bus (CCW - WAVE)

Electric Bus (BYD - Conductive)

Electric Bus (BYD - Overnight)

Electric Bus (Proterra - Conductive)

$0

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

$1,400,000

$1,600,000

Electric Bus Capital Costs Breakdown*

Base Bus Cost Charging Infrastructure Battery Cost

* Costs are for one (1) bus and (1) set of Infrastructure, economies of scale can be realized with larger fleet sizes

12

Projected Lifecycle Operations and Maintenance Cost Comparisons

*Assumptions:- Twelve (12) year vehicle life- 34,000 annual miles (UTA average)- 7% annual fuel price increase- 3% annual electricity cost increase- At least one (1) battery replacement for electric vehicles- Bus systems and infrastructure estimated to last 8 years; 8 year amortization for all systems & infrastructure- Numbers shown are in Net Present Value (NPV)

Electric

Bus (CCW

- WAVE)

Electric

Bus (BYD - O

vernight)

CNG Bus

Diesel B

us

Electric

Bus (BYD - C

onductive

)

Hybrid

Bus

Electric

Bus (Proterra

- Conducti

ve)

$0

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

Vehicle Lifecycle Costs (12 Years)

Base Bus Cost Fuel/Energy Costs O&M

13

Depot District Service Center

Sustain operations• Support maintenance and fueling

of existing fleet in a safe, efficient, well-designed facility

Increase options• Allow expansion of Central Garage

fleet• Facilitate exploration of other fuel

types• Conduit for charging future electric

vehicles• Flexibility to accommodate other

vehicle types

14

Key Issues

• Initial capital costs

• Operations & Maintenance• Training• Facilities

• Additional public infrastructure required

• Unproven Technology

15

Thank you!

G.J. LaBontyManager, Long Range & Strategic Planning

Utah Transit Authority