Alternative Transportation Fuels and Vehicles:
Energy, Environment, and Development Issues

Brent D. Yacobucci

Environmental Policy Analyst
Resources. Science, and Industry Division

December 5, 2000

RL30758

Summary

The sharp increase m petroleum prices beginning in mid-1999, and experiences with tighter supply, have renewed concern about our dependence on petroleum imports. One of the strategies for reducing this dependence is to produce vehicles that run on alternatives to gasoline and diesel fuel. These alternatives include alcohols, gaseous fuels, renewable fuels, electricity, and fuels derived from coal. The push to develop alternative fuels, although driven by energy security concerns, has been aided by concerns over the environment, because many alternative fuels lead to reductions in emissions of toxic chemicals, ozone-forming compounds, and other pollutants, as well as greenhouse gases.

Each fuel (and associated vehicle) has various advantages and drawbacks. The key drawback of all alternative fuels is that because of higher fuel and/or vehicle prices, the cost to own alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) is generally higher than for conventional vehicles. And while most AFVs have superior environmental performance compared to conventional vehicles, their performance in terms of range, cargo capacity, and ease of fueling does not compare favorably with conventional vehicles. Furthermore, because there is little fueling infrastructure (as compared to gasoline and diesel fuel), fueling an AFV can be inconvenient.

Any policy to support AFVs must address the performance and cost concerns, as well as the issue of fueling infrastructure. Within this context, a "chicken and egg" dilemma stands out: The vehicles will not become popular without the fueling infrastructure, and the fueling infrastructure will not expand if there are no customers to serve.

Three key laws, the Alternative Motor Fuels Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-494), the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (P.L. 101-549), and the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-486), as well as three Executive Orders, support the development and commercialization of alternative fuels and alternative fuel vehicles. These legislative acts and administrative actions provide tax incentives to purchase AFVs, promote the expansion of alternative fueling infrastructure, and require the use of AFVs by various public and private entities.

Several bills in the 106th Congress proposed to expand these programs or create further incentives for alternative fuel and vehicle use. Opponents argue that there are other, more cost-effective ways of promoting clean air and energy conservation. This report reviews these issues. It will be updated as events warrant.

Contents

Introduction
Legislative Background
The Alternative Motor Fuels Act of 1988
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 
Fleet Requirements
Tax Incentives
Executive Orders
Alternative Fuels
Propane (LPG

Consumption
Cost
Infrastructure
Performance
Safety
Other Issues

Natural Gas

Consumption
Cost
Infrastructure
Performance
Safety
Other Issues

Biodiesel

Consumption
Cost
Infrastructure
Performance
Safety
Other Issues

Ethanol

Consumption
Cost
Infrastructure
Performance
Safety
Other Issues

Methanol

Consumption
Cost
Infrastructure
Performance
Safety

Fuel Cells
Electricity

Consumption
Cost
Infrastructure
Performance
Safety

Fuel Cell and Hybrid Vehicles
Hydrogen
Coal-Derived Liquid Fuels
Conclusions
Congressional Action 

List of Tables

Table 1. History of U.S. Alternative Fuel Vehicle Policies
Table 2. Light-Duty Alternative Fuel Vehicle Purchase Requirements under the Energy Policy Act
Table 3. Summary of Alternative Fuels

Appendix 1. Electric and Hybrid Vehicles Bills in the 106Lh Congress

Appendix 2: Other Alternative Fuels and Vehicles Bills in the 106fh Congress

Alternative Transportation Fuels and Vehicles: Energy, Environment, and Development Issues

Introduction

Is there any practical replacement for gasoline and diesel fuel in automobiles? Since the oil crises of the 1970s and the rise in the awareness of environmental and . security issues, policy makers have often considered this question. For many reasons, the United States has searched for alternatives to petroleum fuels. These reasons include limiting dependence on imported petroleum, controlling the emissions of pollutants into the air, and limiting the emissions of greenhouse gases.

Several fuels are considered alternative transportation fuels by the federal government. These fuels include electricity, natural gas, propane (liquefied petroleum gas, or LPG), ethanol, methanol, biodiesel, and hydrogen. Some of these fuels are similar to conventional fuels, and can be used in conventional vehicles with little or no modification to the engine and fuel system. However, some of these fuels are significantly different, and require the use of completely different engine, fuel, and drive systems. Consequently, cost as well as performance of the associated alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) must be part of the discussion. Key factors in the ultimate success or failure of any alternative fuel include the relative cost of the fuel, the ability to develop and expand fueling stations, and the performance and safety of the fuel.

For various reasons-notably cost, performance, and availability-alternative fuels have yet to play a major transportation role in the United States. Many argue that the government must step in. Congress, recent Administrations, and state governments have instituted some key programs to promote the use of alternative fuels. These programs include tax incentives for the purchase of alternative fuels and alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs), purchase requirements for government and private fleets, and research grants for the study of alternative fuels. Despite these efforts, only 0.2% of motor fuel demand (125 billion gallons of gasoline and 38 billion gallons of diesel) is met by alternative fuels today. 1

Legislative Background

The three most important statutes concerning alternative fuels are the Alternative Motor Fuels Act of 988 (AMFA, P.L. 100-494), the Clean Air Act Amendments c 1990 (CAAA, P.L. 101-549). and the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct, P.L. 102486). AMFA promoted federal government use of alcohol- and natural gas-fueled vehicles. EPAct requires that federal and state agencies, as well as private firms that distribute alternative fuels, must purchase for their fleets a certain proportion of vehicles that are capable of being fueled by specific non-petroleum fuels. Furthermore, EPAct grants the Department of Energy (DOE) the authority to make similar requirements of local governments and private fleets. In addition, EPAct grants tax incentives for private purchases (both individual and commercial) of AFVs that are not required under the act. CAAA requires government and private fleets in cities with significant air quality problems to use low-emission, "clean-fuel" vehicles.

In addition to these laws, recent executive orders have also shaped alternative fuels policy in the United States. These include: E.O. 12844, which urges federal agencies to exceed EPAct purchase requirements; E.O. 13031, which requires that federal agencies meet EPAct requirements regardless of budget; and E.O. 13149, which aims to drastically reduce federal government petroleum consumption through the use of AFVs and hybrid vehicles.

The major alternative fuels legislation and relevant Executive Orders are summarized in Table 1 and discussed further below.

Table 1. History of U.S. Alternative Fuel Vehicle Policies

The Alternative Motor Fuels Act of 1988

Beginning in FY1990, the Alternative Motor Fuels Act called for the federal government to acquire the "maximum practicable" number of light-duty alcohol and natural gas vehicles. In addition, AMFA established an Interagency Commission on Alternative Motor Fuels to develop a national alternative fuels policy. Furthermore, the act established a commercial demonstration program to study the use of alcohol and natural gas in heavy duty trucks. Since 1991, DOE has supported projects in these areas, making the data publicly available through its Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC). 2

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 established the Clean Fuel Fleet Program (CFFP).3 This program requires cities with significant air quality problems to promote vehicles that meet clean fuel emissions standards. In metropolitan areas in extreme, severe, or serious non-attainment for ozone 4 or carbon monoxide, fleets of 10 light-duty vehicles or more face purchase requirements similar to those for EPAct (discussed below). However, under CFFP, conventional vehicles are admissible if they meet National Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) standards. Another key difference between the CFFP requirements and the EPAct requirements is that under CFFP, a vehicle must always be operated on the fuel for which it was certified. For example, if a dual-fuel ethanol vehicle is certified LEV using ethanol, but not using gasoline, the vehicle must be operated solely on ethanol. This provision avoids the perceived "loophole" in EPAct.

The Energy Policy Act of 1992

The Energy Policy Act of 1992 was enacted to promote energy efficiency and energy independence in the United States. It includes programs that require or promote alternative fuel vehicles, as well as commercial and domestic energy efficiency, natural gas imports, and nuclear power. Two key programs concerning alternative fuels are the AFV purchase requirements for federal, state, and alternative fuel provider 5 fleets, and the AFV tax incentives.

Fleet Requirements. EPAct 6 requires that a certain percentage of new light-duty vehicles (passenger cars and light trucks) purchased for certain fleets must be fueled by an alternative fuel. 7 Covered fleets are those that operate 50 or more light-duty vehicles, of which at least 20 operate primarily in a metropolitan area. Furthermore, the fleets must be capable of being fueled at a central location, such as the fleet motor pool. Law enforcement vehicles, emergency vehicles, non-road vehicles, and vehicles used for testing are exempted from the requirement. Federal, state, and alternative fuel provider fleets are currently mandated to purchase AFVs, and DOE is currently considering whether to include municipal and private fleets in the program. 8 The purchase requirements are phased in between 1997 and 2001. (See Table 2.)

Table 2. Light-Duty Alternative Fuel Vehicle Purchase Requirements under the Energy Policy Act

Source: National Alternative Fuels Hotline, Department of Energy, September 1998.

DOE currently recognizes the following as alternative fuels: methanol an« denatured ethanol as alcohol fuels (mixtures that contain at least 70% alcohol) natural gas (compressed or liquefied), liquefied petroleum gas (LPG),hydrogen, coal derived liquid fuels, fuels derived from biological materials, and electricity.9 Covered vehicles may be dedicated 10 or dual fuel. 11

There have been mixed results from the program. According to DOE, some federal and state agencies are exceeding their mandates, while others are far below  their quota. As a whole, the federal government is in compliance, mainly due to large purchase of ethanol vehicles by the U.S. Postal Service in 1998. 12 Most of the AFVs operated by the federal government are fueled by natural gas. States are generally in compliance as well. However, questions have been raised about the success of the program since many covered fleets, especially fuel provider fleets, have not reported their purchases to DOE.13

A key concern over the fleet requirements is whether they actually support the goals of EPAct. This is because EPAct does not require the use of alternative fuels, only the purchase of AFVs. Fleets can purchase dual-fuel vehicles, operate them solely on gasoline or diesel fuel, and still meet the EPAct requirements. The fleet program has been criticized because this use of dual-fuel vehicles is seen by some as a "loophole."

Tax Incentives. Another key provision of EPAct is a set of tax incentives for the purchase of new AFVs. is The act provides an electric vehicle (EV) tax credit of 10% of the purchase price, up to a maximum of $4,000. In addition, it provides a Clean Fuel Vehicle (any alternative fuel) tax deduction of $2,000 for light-duty vehicles, $5,000 for heavy-duty vehicles up to 26,000 pounds, and $50,000 for heavier trucks and buses. Vehicles are not eligible for both incentives, and vehicles purchased to meet mandated fleet requirements are ineligible for either incentive. The EV tax credit is scheduled to be phased down starting in 2001, reaching zero in 2004; the Clean Fuel Vehicle tax deduction will be phased down starting in 2002, reaching zero in 2005.

Executive Orders

Three Executive Orders have also played a key role in developing alternative fuels policies. Executive Order 12844, issued on April 21, 1993, urged federal agencies to make every effort to exceed the mandatory purchase requirements set in EPAct. The order argued that the federal government could provide impetus for the development and manufacture of alternative fuel vehicles, and the expansion of fueling stations and other infrastructure to support privately-owned AFVs.

Executive Order 13031, issued December 13, 1996, expanded the Administration's policy on EPAct fleets. The order required that federal agencies must comply with EPAct regardless of their budgets. The order also required that agencies must submit a yearly progress report to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) along with their yearly budgets. Further, it established penalties for failing to meet the EPAct requirements. If an agency reports to OMB that it did not meet its EPAct requirements, that agency must submit a detailed plan for meeting the requirements the next year. The Order also established credits for the use of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and EVs to meet the requirements.

Most recently, the Administration issued Executive Order 13149 on April 21, 2000. This order presents the goal of reducing the federal fleet's annual petroleum consumption by 20% below the FY1999 level by the end ofFY2005. The order suggests several strategies for attaining this goal, including using alternative fueL vehicles and fuel-efficiency hybrids.

Alternative Fuels

As noted above, several fuels are considered alternative fuels. This report will address alternative fuels recognized by EPAct. Many technical and market factors . affect the usability and ultimate success of these fuels as alternatives to petroleum- based fuels. Since many of these fuels require entirely new powertrains, or extensive modifications to conventional vehicles, the characteristics of both alternative fuels and alternative fuel vehicles must be discussed together. Fuel cost and fueling infrastructure, vehicle cost, fuel and vehicle performance, and other factors for each fuel will be addressed in turn in the discussion below. Table 3 presents a summary of the various alternative fuels.

Table 3. Summary of Alternative Fuels

Note: all data are for 1999, except fueling sites.
Source: Department of Energy and California Energy Commission.

a GEG: Gasoline Equivalent Gallon. To compare various fuels, an equivalency factor is \ in this case, it is the amount of energy in one gallon of gasoline. b As of November 16, 2000.
c This does not include additional infrastructure/fueling equipment costs or additional cycle vehicle costs (e.g. maintenance, resale).
d All biodiesel is blended with conventional diesel.
e Biodiesel is used in conventional diesel engines
f 890 million GEG including ethanol in blended gasoline
g This does not include flexible fuel ethanol/gasoline vehicles that operate primarily or exclusively on gasoline.

Propane (LPG)

Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) is produced as a by-product of natural gas processing and petroleum refining. 15 Because the components of LPG are gases at normal temperatures and pressures, the mixture must be liquefied for use m vehicles. In addition to vehicles, propane is also used in home heating as well as recreational activities.16

Consumption. LPG is the most commonly used alternative fuel. Domestic consumption was approximately 244 million gasoline equivalent gallons (GEG) 17 in 1999, or about 0.2% of gasoline demand. 18 This is greater than all other alternative fuels combined. 19 Propane is used in both light- and medium-duty vehicles, and there were approximately 270,000 LPG vehicles on the road in 1999, 20 or about 0.1% of the approximately 210 million gasoline and diesel-fueled vehicles. 21 In 1998, the federal government operated only 175 LPG vehicles. 22 LPG vehicles tend to be custom vehicles; in fact, the only light-duty production vehicle with an LPG option is the Ford F150 pickup.23

Cost. On a GEG basis, fuel costs for LPG are approximately equal to those of gasoline, and tend to fluctuate with gasoline prices. Between January and May 2000, the price for LPG averaged approximately $1.38 24 to $1.62 25 per GEG. While fuel costs are approximately equal, there is an incremental purchase cost for an LPG vehicle, which ranges between $1,000 and $2,000.26 This additional cost covers modifications to the fuel system and the addition of a high-pressure fuel tank. Some of this incremental cost currently may be defrayed by federal, state, local, or manufacturer incentives that promote the purchase of alternative fuel vehicles.

Infrastructure. Because of its many uses 27 the refueling system for LPG is extensive. There are approximately 3,700 refueling sites in all 50 states, 28 which corresponds to 3.4% of the approximately 124,000 gasoline stations in the United States. 29 Because of its wide use, if the demand for LPG as an alternative fuel were to expand, it is likely that the supply infrastructure could expand proportionally.

LPG is delivered to retailers through a pipeline and tanker truck system much like the gasoline delivery system. Therefore, an expansion of the LPG supply infrastructure would face few technical barriers. However, because the fuel must be kept under pressure, special equipment is required to transfer LPG to a vehicle. Addition of new refueling equipment would lead to additional capital costs for retailers.

Performance. In terms of environmental performance, LPG vehicles tend to produce significantly lower ozone-forming emissions, although it can be difficult to quantify the differences. According to the California Energy Commission, LPG vehicles emit up to 33% fewer VOCs, 20% less N0„ and 60% less carbon monoxide. 30

A key performance drawback to LPG is the somewhat decreased range as compared to gasoline. However, because LPG has the highest energy content (by volume) of the alternative fuels, this range reduction is only about 26%. Further, larger LPG vehicles can carry a larger tank, and tend to maintain a range of between 300 and 400 miles. However, to allow longer range, payload is diminished due to the size and weight of the LPG tank. 31

Safety. LPG has a higher ignition temperature than gasoline, making it safer in that respect. 32 Furthermore, LPG must be present in greater concentrations than gasoline to ignite. 33 Because LPG is stored under pressure, it must be stored in heavy duty tanks. In order to prevent failure of the fuel tank, LPG tanks must undergo rigorous testing. Further, LPG is odorless, so an odorant is added to make it detectable in air. 34

Other Issues. There are few major issues involving LPG fuels and vehicles other than those issues relevant to all alternative fuel vehicles, such as the need to expand fueling infrastructure. However, because LPG is often derived from petroleum refining, it may do little to diminish petroleum dependence.

Natural Gas

Natural gas is a fossil fuel produced from gas wells or as a by-product of petroleum production. Natural gas is composed of hydrocarbons, mainly methane. 35 It is used extensively in residences and by industry, and is therefore widely available. Because of its gaseous nature, natural gas must be stored onboard a vehicle either as compressed natural gas (CNG) or as liquefied natural gas (LNG). CNG is generally preferred for light-duty applications such as passenger cars, while LNG is generally used in heavier applications, such as buses.

Consumption. Vehicles consumed 92 million GEG of natural gas in the United States in 1998 (mostly as CNG).36 This was less than 0.1% of gasoline demand, although consumption has been rising steadily over the past ten years. After propane, CNG is the second most widely used pure alternative fuel. 37

Approximately 91,000 natural gas vehicles were in operation in the United States in 1998, and the number has been growing by approximately 20% per year. 38 These include CNG passenger cars such as the Honda Civic, Toyota Camry, and Chevrolet Cavalier, as well as natural gas transit buses. 39 In 1998, the federal government operated approximately 13,000 CNG vehicles, and 14 LNG vehicles. 40 In fact, the federal government operates more CNG vehicles than all other alternative fuel vehicles combined.

Cost. Using natural gas can cut fuel costs significantly, since natural gas is a relatively inexpensive fuel. The price for one GEG of CNG ranged from $0.58 41 to $1.10, 42 between January and May 2000, and the price for LNG was comparable. In addition to the low cost of the fuel, natural gas is also subject to a much lower federal excise tax rate (5.4 cents per GEG 43) than the gasoline excise tax rate (18.3 cents per gallon). With current fuel prices, natural gas vehicles can reduce annual fuel costs by $200 for smaller cars and up to $300 for larger vehicles. 44

While fuel costs tend to be lower for natural gas than for gasoline, equipment costs tend to be higher. Equipping a light-duty vehicle to operate on CNG typically costs between $4,000 and $6,000, though some of this incremental cost may be defrayed through government incentives. In addition, although there are some public fueling stations, if in-home fueling is desired, a small slow-fill unit can be installed for approximately $3,500. 45

Infrastructure. Refueling infrastructure for CNG is more broadly available than for most alternative fuels. There are approximately 1,200 public CNG refueling sites in 46 states. 46 Again, this number is small compared to the number of gasoline refueling stations. However, with the extensive natural gas system in the United States, the CNG refueling network could be greatly expanded. Furthermore, since slow-fill refueling systems are available for home installation, consumers could fuel their vehicles overnight, and would only need to access public stations on longer trips. However, because the technology differs significantly from a gasoline pump, vehicle users or station operators might need to be trained in the use of natural gas pumps.

Performance. Compared to gasoline vehicles, the environmental performance of natural gas vehicles is exceptional. Particulate emissions are virtually eliminated, carbon monoxide emissions are reduced by as much as 65% to 95%, hydrocarbon emissions are reduced by up to 80%, and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions by as much as 30%. 47 Furthermore, greenhouse gas emissions are also reduced compared with gasoline vehicles. 48

The key performance drawback to natural gas vehicles is their significantly shorter range. Most natural gas passenger cars can only travel 100 to 200 miles on a full tank of fuel.49 This is significantly less than the range of 300 to 400 miles for most gasoline-powered passenger cars. 50 For this reason, natural gas vehicles have been popular for use as delivery trucks or other fleets that operate in cities or other localized areas.

Safety. Natural gas tends to be safer than gasoline for many reasons. First, the fuel is non-toxic, although in high gaseous concentrations it could lead to asphyxiation. Second, natural gas is more difficult to ignite than gasoline, and tends to dissipate more quickly due to its lower density. However, since natural gas is colorless and odorless, like LPG, an odorant is added to the fuel to make the fuel detectable in air. 51

A key safety concern with natural gas has to do with on-board storage. Because CNG is compressed under such high pressures, the rupture of a fuel tank would be extremely dangerous. For this reason, CNG tanks must undergo "severe abuse" tests such as collisions, fires, and even gunfire. 52

Other Issues. Besides the environmental benefits of natural gas, another benefit is the fact that over 80% of natural gas used in the United States comes from domestic sources. 53 Therefore, it has been argued that natural gas vehicles can help promote energy security in this country by lowering our reliance on imported fuel.

Biodiesel

Biodiesel is a synthetic diesel fuel that is produced from fatty feedstocks such as soybean oil and recycled cooking oil. 54 Although more expensive than conventional diesel, it has some important advantages. The most notable advantage is that because biodiesel is very similar to conventional diesel, the fuel can be used in existing diesel engines. 55

Consumption. Currently, domestic production is between 30 and 60 million gallons per year 56 as compared to approximately 31 billion gallons per year of conventional diesel. 57 Because biodiesel can be used in existing diesel engines, there are no vehicles designed specifically for its use.

Cost. The most significant drawback to biodiesel is its increased cost as compared to conventional diesel. Wholesale diesel prices have averaged between $0.55 and $0.67 per gallon over the past five years, although they are currently relatively high (generally between $1.05 and $1.10 per gallon 58). Currently, wholesale prices for biodiesel range between $ 1.3 3 and $1.73 per gallon for biodiesel made from recycled oil, and between $1.94 and $2.26 for biodiesel made from virgin soy. 59 Therefore, even current diesel prices are not yet high enough to make biodiesel competitive.

However, there is one key cost advantage of biodiesel relative to other alternative fuels. It can be used in existing diesel vehicles with little or no modification. Therefore, covered EPAct fleets-and others interested in reducing their petroleum consumption and improving their environmental performance-may use biodiesel without the capital investments necessary for other alternative fuels.

Infrastructure. Because biodiesel is chemically very similar to conventional diesel, it could be placed in the existing diesel distribution system with only a few modifications. Most importantly, since biodiesel is a more effective solvent than conventional diesel, it can cause deterioration of rubber and polyurethane materials (e.g. seals). Currently, supply of biodiesel involves purchase contracts by fleet owners, and delivery of biodiesel to fleet-owned dispensing sites.

Performance. Biodiesel is generally mixed with conventional diesel at the 20% level. The resulting fuel, B20, can be used in existing diesel engines with few or no engine modifications. Higher concentrations can be used, however, especially with newer equipment. The use of biodiesel (B20 or higher concentrations) leads to substantial reductions in emissions of unburned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter. 60 Therefore, there are fewer public health concerns with biodiesel than with conventional diesel.

Other than the improvements in emissions, there seems to be little, if any, difference in performance between biodiesel and conventional diesel. Payload and range remain the same, and maintenance costs may actually be decreased due to the lower sulfur content of the fuel. Some minor modifications may be necessary with concentrations above 20%, due to fact that biodiesel is a very effective solvent and can corrode engine seals. 61

Safety. There seem to be few additional safety concerns for biodiesel. Its safety properties are consistent with conventional diesel. However, it does have one advantage over conventional diesel. Because biodiesel has a higher flash point 62 than conventional diesel, it is more difficult to ignite. 63

Other Issues. Biodiesel currently faces two key issues. The first has to do with the tax structure for biodiesel. Because biodiesel is a renewable fuel, there is interest in creating a tax incentive similar to the ethanol tax incentive. This incentive, supporters argue, would allow biodiesel to compete and play a larger role in our fuel supply. However, because of the cost disparity between biodiesel and conventional diesel, any incentive would have to be very large to be effective.

The second issue involves a 1998 amendment to EPAct. This amendment 64 grants credits to owners of covered fleets who purchase biodiesel. These credits count toward the purchase requirements for alternative fuel vehicles. Every 450 gallons of biodiesel purchased earns one credit. This allows fleet owners to meet their EPAct requirements without purchasing new vehicles and without modifying their existing fueling infrastructure. Environmentalists have charged that because the fuel is then blended at the 20% level, there is little impact on oil consumption or vehicle emissions. 65

Footnotes

1 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (EIA), Alternatives Traditional Transportation Fuels 1998. January 2000.

2 [ http://www.afdc.doe.gov/.   ]

3 P.L. 101-549, section 246.

4 Ozone standards are maintained by limiting emissions of the three key components of ozone: nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide.

5 An alternative fuel provider fleet is a fleet of vehicles owned and operated by a private company that sells or distributes alternative fuels.

6 P.L. 102-486. sections 303. 501. and 507.

7 EPAct defines an alternative fuel as "any fuel the Secretary [of Energy] determines, by rule is substantially not petroleum and would yield substantial energy security benefits and substantial environmental benefits."

8 63 Federal Register 19372. April 17, 1998.

9 Some fuels may actually be covered by more than one category. For example, most ethanol (an alcohol fuel) is derived from corn or other agricultural products (biological materials)

10 Dedicated: operated solely on an alternative fuel.

11 Dual-fuel: capable of being operated on both conventional and alternative fuel. There a two types of dual-fuel vehicles, bi-fuel and flexible fuel. Bi-fuel vehicles can only be operated) on one fuel at a time. while flexible fuel vehicles can operate on any mixture of the two fuels.

12 In 1998, the U.S. Postal Service placed an order with Ford for 10,000 specially-designed Ford Explorers. The redesigned sport-utility vehicles use flexible fuel ethanol/gasoline engines.

13 U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), Limited Progress in Acquiring Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Reaching Fuel Goals. February 2000. p. 9.

14 P.L. 102-486. section 1913.

15 LPG is a mixture of hydrocarbons, mainly propane (C,H,), but also propylene (CjH6), butane (C4H10), and butylene (04Hs).

16 Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC), Propane (LPG) General Information. [ http://www.afdc.doe.gov/altfuel/lpg_general.html. ] Updated My 31,2000.

17 Since all fuels have different energy contents, to compare performance factors (e.g. fuel economy and fueL cost) an equivalency factor is used. The most common factor is to determine the amount of alternative fueL needed to generate the energy in one gallon of gasoline. This amount is called a gasoline equivalent gallon (GEG). While some publications refer to this as a gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE), this report uses GEG throughout for clarity.

18 EIA, Alternatives to Traditional. Table 10.

19 Excluding ethanol in gasoline. When used as a blending agent, ethanol does not qualify as an alternative fuel.

20 EIA, Alternatives to Traditional. Table I.

21 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Pocket Guide to Transportation - 1998. December 1998.

22 EIA, Alternatives to Traditional. Table 20.

23 National Alternative Fuels Hotline, Model Year 2000: Alternative Fuel Vehicles. July 2000.

24 GAO, Limited Progress. Appendix 1. (Data from U.S. Department of Energy.)

25 U.S. Department of Energy, Clean Cities Program, The Alternative Fuel Price Report. May 5,2000.

26 California Energy Commission, Liquefied Petroleum Gas / Propane-Powered Vehicles [ http://www.energy.ca.gov/afvs/lpg/propane.html.   ] Updated March 10, 1999.

27 Including home heating and outdoor grills.

28 Department of Energy, Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC), Refueling Sites. [ http://www.afdc.doe.gov/refuel/state_tot.shtml.   ] Updated November 16, 2000.

29 Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, County Business Patterns for the United States, [ http://www.census.gov/epcd/cbp/view/cbpview.html   ]

30 California Energy Commission, Liquified Petroleum Gas.

31 In the case of a passenger car, the tank usually reduces available trunk space.

32 This is the range of concentrations in air that a fuel can ignite. Below the lower limit, the mixture is too "lean" to ignite; above the upper limit, the mixture is too "rich."

33 In fact, propane can ignite through a slightly wider range of concentrations (in air) than gasoline. However, the lower flammability limit for LPG is higher than gasoline, making it generally more difficult to ignite. Below this concentration, the mixture is too "lean" to ignite. Source: Alternative Fuels Data Center, Properties of Fuels. August 28, 2000.

34 National Propane Gas Association, Consumer Info. [ http://www.npga.org/. ]

35 The chemical formula for methane is CH₄. Natural gas also contains minor amounts of ethane (C₂H₆), propane (C3H8), butane (C₄H₁₀) and pentane (C₅H₁₂).

36 EIA, Alternatives to Traditional. Table 10.

37 More ethanol is consumed, but most of this is blended with conventional gasoline.

38 EIA, Alternatives to Traditional. Table I.

39 National Alternative Fuels Hotline, Model Year 2000.

40 EIA, Alternatives to Traditional. Table 20.

41 GAO, Limited Progress. Appendix 1.

42 Clean Cities Program, Alternative Fuel.

43 Based on a tax rate of 48.44 cents per 1000 cubic feet of natural gas and approximately 112 cubic feet per GEG. Source: ATA Foundation, Alternative Fuels Task Force, 1998-1999 Tax Guide for Alternative Fuels, [ http://www.afdc.doe.gov/documents/taxindex.html.   ]

44 This is based on a natural gas price of $0.77 per GEG, and a gasoline price of $1.20 per gallon. Source: John DeCicco, Jim Kleisch and Martin Thomas, CEEE 's Green Book: The Environmental Guide to Cars and Trucks, 2000.

45 California Energy Commission, Frequently Asked Questions About Natural Gas Vehicles. [ http://www.energy.ca.gov/afvs/ngv/ngvFAQs.html. ] Updated March 10, 1999.

46 AFDC, Refueling Sites.

47 Hydrocarbon and nitrogen oxide emissions contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone, the main component of urban "smog."

48 California Energy Commission, Natural Gas Vehicles: Fuel and Vehicle History and Characteristics, [ http://www.energy.ca.gov/afvs/ngv/ngvhistory.html ], updated March 10, 1999; James S. Cannon, Paving the Way to Natural Gas Vehicles, 1993.

49 Larger vehicles such as pickup trucks and vans can utilize larger fuel tanks by occupying some of the storage area of the vehicle.

50 National Alternative Fuels Hotline, Model Year 2000.

51 California Energy Commission, Frequently Asked Questions About Natural Gas Vehicles. [ http://www.energy.ca.gov/afvs/ngv/ngvFAQs.htm. ] Updated March 10, 1999.

52 The Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition, Questions and Answers about Natural Gas Vehicles [ http://www.ngvc.org/qa.html. ] Updated March 16, 2000.

53 Energy Information Administration, Natural Gas Monthly. October 2000.

54 Biodiesel is mixture of various compounds called mono alkyl esters.

55 National Biodiesel Board, General Interest, [ http://www.biodiesel.org. ] Updated November 10,2000.

56 Personal conversation with Roy Truesdale, Director of Operations, National Biodiesel Board. September 25,2000.

57 EIA, Alternatives to Traditional. Table 10.

58 Platt's Oilgram Price Report, September 21, 2000.

59 Roy Truesdale. personal conversation.

60 Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC), Biodiesel General Information. [ http://www.afdc.doe.gov/altftiel/bio_general.html .] Updated August 31, 1999.

61 Roy Truesdale, personal conversation.

62 The flash point is the minimum temperature at which chemical can ignite under normal conditions.

63 National Biodiesel Board, General Interest.

64 P.L. 105-388, section 312.

65 "Committee Backs Biodiesel," The Oil Daily. August 6, 1998.