HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09252001 - C.78 c, U
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
n ;. s Costa
DATE: SEPTEMBER 25, 2001
sT'4 00013'
SUBJECT: CLEAN AIR VEHICLE POLICY County
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. ACCEPT report prepared by the General Services Department on the County's experience with
clean air vehicles.
2. ENDORSE the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's Model Clean Air Vehicle Ordinance
and DIRECT the County Administrator to adapt that Ordinance into a County policy for
dissemination to all County departments and Board-governed districts.
3. DIRECT the County Administrator to revise existing Administrative Bulletins and/or create new
Bulletins to communicate the updated policy to County personnel responsible for vehicle
acquisition.
4. REQUEST the County Administrator and General Services Director to explore the feasibility of
converting the existing compressed natural gas (CNG) fueling site to a direct supply gas line to
increase fill-up speed and reduce costs per unit of energy.
BACKGROUND:
On August 1, 2000 the Board of Supervisors adopted a policy on the purchase of zero emission
vehicles (ZEVs) that is scheduled to take effect in FY 2003-2004. The Board also directed the
General Services Department and County Administrator to work with the Internal Operations
Committee in identifying potential ZEV purchases in each County department, estimating the costs
for such purchases and fine-tuning what is able to be done under the policy.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
'�4�,,
SIGNATURE(S):
JOHN GIOIA, CHAIR MARK DeSAULNIER
ACTION OF BOARD OV September 25, 2001 APPROVE AS RECOMMENDED XXX OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
�g UNANIMOUS(ABSENT None ) AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE
AYES: NOES: SHOWN.
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
ATTESTED September 25, 2001
CONTACT: JULIE ENEA(925)335-1077 JOHN SWEETEN,CLERK OF THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
CC: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE STAFF
GENERAL SERVICES DIRECTOR
GSD FLEET MANAGER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY DEPUTY
Clean Air Vehicle Policy September 25, 2001
Internal Operations Committee Page 2
A survey was made of County departments in October 2000 to which five departments expressed
either immediate interest in ZEVs or future interest when ZEV technology becomes more
affordable. The continuing study of the applicability of the ZEV policy to the County fleet was
referred to the 10 Committee.
On April 2, 2001, the 10 Committee received a report from the General Services Department on
the status of ZEV purchases for this fiscal year 2000-2001 and cost data on maintaining ZEVs and
gas-powered vehicles. The Committee asked the Department to prepare an analysis of
maintenance life cycles for different ZEVs as compared to gas-powered cars, and a plan to
document future maintenance savings. Supervisor Uilkema also requested that the Committee
consider the attached analysis prepared by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
comparing the County's ZEV policy to the California Air Resources Board's revised ZEV mandate
and the Air District's Model Clean Air Vehicle Ordinance.
At its September 17, 2001 meeting, the 10 Committee discussed with staff the provisions of the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District's Model Clean Air Vehicle Ordinance, and determined that
the Model Ordinance could reasonably be applied to County operations. Thus, we are
recommending that the County Administrator be directed to adapt the provisions of the Model
Ordinance into a County policy to be disseminated to County departments.
The Committee also received an update from the General Services Director and the new Fleet
Manager on the County's experience with electric, CNG and hybrid clean air vehicles and
determined that the hybrid (electric/CNG) vehicle technology provides the County the most
flexibility, providing air quality benefits and more driving distance. The General Services
Department prepared a fiscal analysis (contained in the attached report) that showed that the costs
($150,000) for equipment needed to provide the necessary fueling infrastructure for CNG or hybrid
vehicles could be recovered through energy savings in three to five years. Since the County has
adopted a clean air vehicle policy, our Committee believes it is important to provide the necessary
infrastructure to support clean air vehicles in a cost-effective manner.
RESPONSE TO IO COMMITTEE FOR SEPTEMBER 17, 2001
I. Contra Costa County Policy on Purchase of Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEV's) for
County Fleet as compared to Model Clean Air Vehicle Ordinance approved by the Bay
Area Air Ouality Management District on April 18, 2001.
The response to Supervisor Uilkema's inquiry is correct in that the County policy is
primarily an acquisition policy, not a comprehensive policy to promote use of ZEV's in
Contra Costa County. General Services supports the Air Board and the Board of
Supervisors' goals to promote the use of clean air vehicles, however, the technology for
zero-emission vehicles is still in development, and County experience with highway-ZEV's
has demonstrated that these vehicles are generally inadequate to meet the transportation
needs of most of our customer departments.
There are several reasons why the highway-ZEV's have proven to be inadequate to meet the
transportation needs of our customer departments. The County covers a large geographic
area and departments with client support services and field services travel many miles
around the County. However, electric vehicles leased by the County can only travel
approximately 126 miles with a full charge. In addition, it takes approximately eight hours
to fully charge the battery from zero. Due to these and other factors, we have found that the
ZEV's have not been very practical for Contra Costa County. However, we will look at
other counties to see if ZEV's have been useful for them, and if so, in what setting, and
thereby hopefully discover how they can be useful for the County.
While the County has experienced some problems with ZEV's, the County continues to
expand its Ultra Low Emission Vehicles (ULEV's) and Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicles
(SULEV's) with the purchase of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) vehicles. Compared to
other fossil fuels, CNG is a relatively clean fuel and substituting natural gas for gasoline
reduces carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons. In addition, with the proper vehicle tank size,
CNG vehicles can deliver standard driving ranges. The County has 34 Alternate Fuel
Vehicles (AFV's) in service, the oldest of which was purchased in September 1994.
During the past six months, County departments have purchased 22 Compressed Natural
Gas vehicles, 15 of which were pickups or vans. The County has recently purchased eight
CNG small fuelmakers, which have been added to two already in service and the large
fueling trailer at the County fueling site. However, the current fueling trailer is a single
nozzle fuel pump and fills at the rate of one hundred standard cubic feet per minute, which
is only approximately half as fast as the average standard gasoline service station. In
addition, when the fueling trailer runs low, it has to be picked up, taken off site, and re-
filled, which could leave the County without CNG during an emergency.
Therefore, as the County continues to expand its CNG vehicle program, its CNG fueling
infrastructure needs improvement (see"Cost Analyses" below). We are currently exploring
the feasibility of converting the CNG fueling site to a direct supply gas line with a two
nozzle, fast fill fuelmaker system, (3600 PSI) and the existing slow fill nozzle (3000 PSI).
This would enable CNG vehicles to be fueled with two hundred standard cubic feet per
minute per nozzle upon demand, which is approximately equivalent to that of a standard
gasoline service station fuel pump.
Page 1 of 5
The cost of this equipment is estimated to be $150,000, and the General Services
Department is looking at the possibility of securing grant funding and/or applying for
Productivity Investment Funds. The addition of this direct line fuelmaker will make it much
more attractive for County departments to purchase CNG vehicles and, at the same time,
save the County thousands of dollars. Based on past CNG usage and future usage
projections for newly purchased CNG vehicles, the direct line fuel site would pay for itself
in three to five years.
COST ANALYSES
,...,......
DE IRED.. =D
. ,,::
YS.
.. ..,.... .. ......... ...:.::
CURREN CN SY M ;:�..;�. : �� :,�:.t .�.J:,•�
STE ,
Qs:
Fully burdened cost $297 Fully burdened cost $•61
per therm trailerper therm
DIRECT LINE SAVINGS PER THERM=$2.36
,._..
- Cy, - 'Jt
, �`ASO � STEP R ..�
- <CURRENT G IINE::CO E
-,CURRENT_..CNG.:COST PER.GALLON
.c..., -. .. ...w... . .. Vii{._• -
Fully burdened cost $3.79 Fully burdened cost $1.51
per gallon trailer per gallon
CNG COST PER GALLON MORE THAN GASOLINE_$2.28
"DESIRED" DIItECT�:LINE.`"CNG _ CITItRE T�GASUL=INErC Y== `
-SY ,CO C*ALLO
Fully burdened cost 78 Fully burdened cost $1.51
per gallonper gallon
DIRECT LINE SAVINGS PER GALLON LESS THAN GASOLINE _$.73
*The above calculations are as of 09/06/01.
*Therm price and calculations from PGE(therm x 1.276=Gallons).
*Gallon of gasoline and gallon of CNG have same British Thermal Unit(BTU)rating.
Page 2 of 5
The following table is a record of all CNG purchases made for County vehicles since purchasing
the current trailer fueling system. It shows the increasing cost and frequency of"trailer delivery"
charges along with the savings that could have been realized with a"Direct CNG Line".
CNG DELIVERY FROM 9/99-6/01 TO TANK TRAILER
AT WATERBIRD WAYLOCA TION
•� �::: :;� . .. . k, alive
4IN 11
i AN�,
COMM
WN
ENTS
=Delii�e :tat : ,- im offal Co
6/28/2001 457.39 1030.79 275.00 When putting in EMS, rounded up
6/19/2001 460.06 1035.20 275.00 on therms; e.g. $457.39=457
6/7/2001 424.87 977.05 275.00
5/23/2001 325.31 974.14 275.00 Besides total cost, a 12�ttherm
5/11/2001 358.421 1045.32 275.00 OH charge was added to total cost
4/26/2001 379.23 1503.71 275.00 to make up the per therm cost
4/11/2001 451.7 1323.85 275.00 in EMS
3/27/2001 541.39 1836.15 275.00
3/8/2001 387.11 1391.27 275.00 PCI Clean Fuels is the vendor
2/18/2001 398.34 1329.82 250.00
1/31/2001 386.84 1369.69 250.00
1/20/2001 487.17 1660.07 250.00
1/16/2001 310.76 1149.47 250.00
1/11/20011 325.05 1190.82 250.00
YEAR TOTAL: $5,693.63 1$117,8117.35 $3,725.00
12/30/2000 341.71 1238.21 275.00 Sales tax down by 1/4% Dec tags fwd.
12/17/2000 269.62 1035.01 275.00
12/4/2000 373.66 1328.27 275.00
11/10/2000 477.95 862.25 200.00
10/24/2000 480.66 865.99 200.00
10/10/2000 433.69 800.92 200.00
9/17/2000 363.12 652.04 200.00
8/27/2000 434.5 740.9 200.00
8/4/2000 426.15 730.5 200.00
7/11/2000 385.77 680.24 200.00
6/20/2000 330 610.81 200.00
5/26/2000 480.6 798.29 200.00
5/1/2000 347.04 632.02 200.00
4/11/2000 517.45 844.16 200.00
3/9/2000 289.35 560.2 200.00
2/15/2000 395.05 691.79 TOTAL CNG cost
1/26/2000 445.65 730.66 200.00 for County Vehicles
1/4/2000 498.78 793.92 200.00
YEAR TOTAL: $7,290.75 1$14,596.18 $3,825.00 $44,196.56
11/30/1999 414.63 693.72 200.0
10/11/1999 261.78 511.72 200.0
9/14/1999 448.83 734.44 200.
YEAR TOTAL: $1,125.24 1$1,939.88 $600.Op Savin s if we had a
nth°xi:$.``.�3 .4i :4iii<6,^'.F•II �i;yf ,�.e•J 1�i1_`' ::31 ,.L',`�i;`�..",.�m+�` ..:r. .,.= erect CNGhne
.y
TOTAL: 14109.62 $34,353.41 $8,150. $35,589.69
-OMMisr �;;= 't: i -,,e.�: - <r. .j:. ,.:r::. ...7•.:ti'<'?
GRAND $14,109.62 $36,046.56 $8,150.00
TOTAL:
Page 3 of 5
As illustrated above, not only can the County's policy on purchasing CNG vehicles be
good for the environment; it can be cost effective as well with the right fueling
infrastructure.
Other technologies seem promising as well. It appears that Hybrid Electric Vehicles
(HEV's) may be the best vehicles to meet the needs of Contra Costa County in the future_
HEV's combine the internal combustion engine of a conventional vehicle with the battery
and electric motor of an electric vehicle. The result is that HEV's consume significantly
less fuel than conventional vehicles. This combination offers the extended range and
rapid refueling of a conventional vehicle, with a significant portion of the energy and
environmental benefits of an electric vehicle. Some additional benefits of the HEV's
include improved fuel economy and lower emissions.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Transportation Technologies,
"Most experts agree that the car of the future will be an HEV of some kind. Because the
energy density of electric batteries will never equal that of liquid or gaseous fuels, these
fuels will likely need to continue to be a part of future vehicles." County departments
have ordered two HEV's so far, which are expected to arrive at any time. As new models
come on line, the County Fleet Manager will continue to study and evaluate their results.
The Office of Transportation Technologies also reports that "There are only two original
equipment manufacturers of hybrid electric vehicles on the U.S. market to date. Honda
and Toyota both have production-ready vehicles that are being manufactured and sold
today. In the near future, there will be more HEV's from General Motors, Ford, and
Daimler Chrysler on the way."
In summary, we believe that the County should continue to build the CNG infrastructure
as this best meets our needs and continue to evaluate the use of hybrids as they evolve.
However, because the Fleet Manager is new to this position, we would request six
months to research what other counties are doing. We believe that the acquisition of
ultralow emission vehicles such as the Ford Crown Victoria and Toyota Camry, which
are CNG fueled, and the Honda Insight or Toyota Prius, which are HEV's (all of which
qualify by BAAQMD as ULEV's or cleaner), might better meet the needs of the County
and support the Board's goals.
II. Analysis of Life Cycle Maintenance Costs
VEHICLE EXPENSES 96/97 TO 00/01
:SON:
Original Original C Ti
Cost �: � �: Cost
Description 00/01 99/00 98/99197/98 96/97 00/01 99/00 98/99 97/98 96/97
15 Passenger Van
$25,836 4,078 1,399 3,537 2,002 3,049 22,597 3,179 3,654 3,105 2,935 2,757
3/4 Ton Cargo Van
$22,806 2,256 2,589 874 1,767 - 19,345 2,037 1,650 1,982 2,608 -
Crown Victoria/
NonPatrol $25,409 899 3,205 630 - -1 22,016 1,049 844 - -
Operating Expenses include parts, labor, oil, fuel and misc. expenses such as car washes. Depreciation,
monthly base charge and insurance expense are not included.
Page 4 of 5
III. Vehicle Maintenance Policies
The goal of Fleet Management is to provide quality service in a timely manner that is cost
efficient and competitive with outside agencies providing the same. In an effort to reach
the aforementioned goal, we are studying areas where change will provide better
customer service and reduce program costs. In addition to our internal review, Fleet
Management is in the final stages of a comprehensive outside review by Spectrum
Consulting. Spectrum Consulting is looking at maintenance costs, sublet repairs, labor
rates, staffing, etc. The consultant's study should be completed in late September and the
findings will be brought before the I.O. Committee for its review. We are requesting that
any policy decisions be deferred until the study is complete.
In the meantime, Fleet Management will continue to identify areas that need changing in
order to reach our goal. One example of needed change is in the area of"Preventative
Maintenance" (PMs). A comprehensive PM program is the single most important element
in a fleet management program. A comprehensive program extends vehicle/equipment
life and ensures safe, dependable operation throughout the life of the vehicle/equipment.
Some of the areas currently under review are:
➢ Service intervals
➢ Method of determining intervals
➢ Tasks performed during services
➢ Allocation of service personnel
➢ PM scheduling
With respect to scheduling PMs, we are developing an on-line scheduling program that
will allow departments to schedule their own PM appointments. The benefit to on-line
PM scheduling will be reduced vehicle/equipment down time, a regulated workload for
maintenance staff, and superior service for all customers.
In Fleet Management's effort to provide the highest quality service at competitive rates,
we will also be developing polices for department responsibility. An example of
department responsibility would be consequences for missing scheduled service
appointments without proper notice of cancellation. By putting "teeth" into the policy,
we will be able to service many customer vehicles while the customer waits (we are
developing plans for a customer lounge with a work station that will include a desk,
telephone, computer, fax machine, copier, etc.) and ensure prompt service with minimal
down time for all scheduled appointments.
Page 5 of 5
May 8,2001
t C": IVED
Supervisor Gayle Uilkema
BAY AREA Contra Costa County,2,d District i -A y 1 ! 2001
Am QUALITY 651 Pine St. Room 108-A I
Martinez,CA 94553 _J
MANAGEMENT i
E;�
D i S T K I C T Dear Supervisor Uilkema:
This letter responds to your request that Air District staff provide an analysis comparing
the zero emission vehicle(ZEV)acquisition policy adopted by the Contra Costa County
ALAMEDA COUNTY Board of Supervisors on August 1,2000 with the Model Clean Air Vehicle Ordinance
Roberta Cooper
Scott Haggerty approved by the Air District Board on April 18, 2001. Per your request, we also provide
(Vice-Chairperson) suggestions for potential revisions or additions to the County policy.
Nate Miley
Shelia Young Both measures share a common goal of promoting the acquisition of zero emission
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY vehicles and other clean air vehicles(CAMS)for local fleets and helping to lay the
Mark DeSaulnier groundwork for successful implementation of the CARB ZEV mandate. The County
Mark Ross policy requires that,beginning in FY 2003-04,at least 10%of all County purchases of light
Gayle Uilkema duty cars and trucks shall be ZEVs. Six percent of the 10%may be fulfilled by the
MARIN COUNTY purchase of super ultra low emission vehicles(SULEVs), at a rate of five SULEVs for
Harold C.Brown,Jr. each required ZEV. The remaining four percent must be actual ZEVs. The goals in the
County policy were consistent with the provisions of the CARB ZEV mandate as of
NAPA COUNTY August 2000.
Brad Wagenknecht
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY In January,2001, CARB revised the ZEV mandate in several respects. Key changes were
Chris Daly made in terms of reducing the number of ZEV and partial zero emission vehicles(PZEVs)
Leland Yee required in the early years(2003-2006),as well as providing additional credit for a variety
of advanced technology clean air vehicles.
SAN MATEO COUNTY
Jerry Hill
Marland Townsend The major difference between the Model Ordinance and the County policy is that the
(Secretary) County policy focuses on procurement of clean vehicles for the County fleet and the Model
SANTA CLARA COUNTY Ordinance includes a more comprehensive set of provisions to promote the use of ZEVs
Randy Attaway and other light duty CAVs.The Model Ordinance includes vehicle acquisition policies as
(Chairperson) well as other policies and is organized.into"core"provisions and"optional"provisions.
Liz Kniss The provisions of the Model Ordinance are briefly summarized below, as well as in the
Julia Miller
Dena Mossar enclosed summary document. The Model Ordinance is based upon the premise that there
are a wide variety of policies and actions that local agencies can implement to lay the
groundwork for successful introduction of clean air vehicles in their communities.
SOLANO COUNTY
William Carroll Clean vehicles for agency fleets: The Model Ordinance contains two provisions regarding
acquisition of clean vehicles for local fleets. 1)The ordinance provides recommended
SONOMA COUNTY targets for procurement of ZEV and PZEV vehicles(see enclosed Attachment A). The
Tim Smith specific targets in the Model Ordinance differ in detail from the targets in the County
Pamela Torliatt policy, but the targets in both measures are broadly consistent. 2)The ordinance also
Ellen Garvey contains a provision that,effective within 90 days of adoption,all vehicles acquired for the
EXECUTIVE OFFICER/ local fleet should be certified to the ULEV,or cleaner, standard,to the greatest extent
AIR POLLUTION feasible. The Model Ordinance also defines exemptions that would apply in the event that
CONTROL OFFICER clean air vehicles are not available in sufficient numbers, no CAV is available that meets
the essential user specifications, or the incremental cost of the CAVs is prohibitive.
939 El.l.lS STREET - SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA 94109 • 415.771.6000 - wuay.baaqmd-gov
BAAQMD Analysis of Model Clean Air Vehicle Ordinance Page 2
May 8, 2001
Clean Air Vehicle Program and Program Manager: The Model Ordinance contains a
provision to require appointment of a program manager with overall responsibility for
developing and implementing a CAV program. The program manager would be required
to provide an annual progress report to the governing board. The Ordinance also contains
an optional provision to appoint an advisory committee to assist in development and
monitoring of the CAV program.
Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure: The Model Ordinance contains several
provisions to promote installation of EV charging infrastructure. The following are part of
the Ordinance,but not in the County policy:
EV chargers at cityfacilities: Each local agency should develop a plan to install publicly-
accessible EV charging stations at public facilities, such as parking lots and garages,civic
center complexes,convention centers, etc.
EV ready wiring:The local agency should amend its building/planning codes to require
that all new residential and commercial construction be equipped with EV-compatible
wiring(220 volt,40 amp conduit)and breakers in vehicle parking areas. Providing EV-
ready conduit at the time of construction is a low-cost measure that will greatly reduce the
cost to install EV charging equipment at a later date as demand warrants.
EV chargers at major new development projects: The local agency should develop
requirements for installation of publicly-accessible EV charging stations at major new
development projects.
EV Parking: The Model Ordinance also includes provisions EV parking and enforcement
of EV parking policies;these are not in the County policy:
EV Parking Enforcement: The local agency should amend its parking enforcement code to
1) levy fines for non-electric vehicles that park in EV charging spaces or other parking
spaces specifically reserved for EVs,and 2)allow for towing of non-electric vehicles that
are parked in EV charging spaces or otherwise blocking access to parking spaces equipped
with EV chargers.
EV parking: The local agency may conduct an inventory of parking areas and develop a
plan to allow small electric vehicles("city EVs"and"neighborhood EVs")to park in curb
areas that are too small to accommodate regular size cars.
Reduce required parking: The local agency may provide an incentive for developers to
install EV charging equipment by agreeing to reduce the number of parking spaces
required at new developments, if the developer agrees to install publicly-accessible electric
vehicles chargers(or to install additional chargers over and above the number required by
the local agency).
Free parking for clean air vehicles: The local agency may allow clean air vehicles to park
for free in metered spaces or other public parking lots or garages. [The easiest way to
implement this would be to allow free parking for any vehicle equipped with the DMV
decal that allows qualifying clean air vehicles(i.e. electric vehicles and natural gas
vehicles)to use the HOV lane network on freeways.] The City of San Jose recently
adopted such a policy.
BAAQMD Analysis of Model Clean Air Vehicle Ordinance Page 3
May 8, 2001
Summary
The County policy provides an excellent foundation for a comprehensive program to
promote ZEVs and other clean air vehicles. Air District staff suggests that the County
consider expanding the County policy to incorporate the following measures:
• Require that all new light duty vehicles be certified to the ULEV emission standard or
cleaner,to the greatest extent feasible.
• Appoint a clean air vehicle program manager with responsibility for developing and
implementing a CAV program and providing an annual progress report to the Board.
• Develop a plan to promote EV charging infrastructure, including requiring EV-ready
wiring and conduit in all new residential and commercial construction(a low-cost, but
highly effective measure); installing publicly-accessible EV chargers at key County-
owned facilities;and requiring developers to install EV chargers at major new
development projects.
• Develop a plan to promote EV parking,and amend the local parking code to provide
for effective enforcement of EV parking policies.
We appreciate your interest and support for the model clean air vehicle ordinance. As you
know,the Air District has incentive programs to help local agencies acquire clean air
vehicles and install public access EV chargers. If your staff has any questions, please
contact David Burch at dburch(a)baagmd.gov or 415-749-4641.
Sincerely
Ellen Gary y
Executive er
Enclosures
EG:DB
US1\SYS\USERS\BURCHWodel EV Ordinance\ContraCosta.doc
Attachment 1
Summary of Proposed Model Clean Air Vehicle Ordinance
The proposed model ordinance contains provisions relating to 1)acquisition of clean air vehicles
by public agency fleets,2) development of EV charging infrastructure, and 3) enforcement of EV
parking to discourage drivers of non-electric vehicles from using parking spaces reserved for
electric vehicles. The model ordinance contains both core provisions and optional provisions.
Local agencies can select the provisions that are most relevant or feasible within their
jurisdiction. They can also modify the specific language of the model ordinance to suit local
needs and circumstances. A summary of proposed provisions is provided below.
Core Provisions of Model Ordinance
Create Clean Air Vehicle Program: Each local agency should create a Clean Air Vehicle (CAV)
Program with a designated Program Manager who is responsible for developing and
implementing a CAV acquisition plan for all departments; developing an electric vehicle
infrastructure plan; and preparing an Annual Progress Report to the local governing board.
Vehicle Applicability: The ordinance addresses light and medium duty vehicles (cars,pick-up
trucks, and vans)with a gross vehicle weight(GVW)of 8,500 pounds or less. Emergency
response vehicles (e.g. police, fire,paramedic) are.exempt.
Vehicle acquisition targets: The ordinance has two main provisions regarding procurement of
clean air vehicles with a GVW of 8,500 pounds or less. Both provisions should be included in
the local ordinance.
1) Zero Emission Vehicles: The local ordinance should include specific numerical targets for
acquisition of ZEVs. Attachment A of the model ordinance provides recommended targets
for ZEV/PZEV acquisition based upon the CARB ZEV mandate. The recommended targets
begin at 6%of new vehicles acquired during the 2003-2005 period, using the vehicle credit
factors provided in Attachment A of the model ordinance. Alternatively,the public agency
may choose to develop its own numerical ZEV targets. This provision allows for multi-year
averaging, at the discretion of the public agency, and also defines specific exemptions based
upon cost of ZEVs or lack of available ZEV product.
2) Clean Air Vehicles: The local.ordinance should require that all new light duty vehicles of any
fuel type procured by local agency achieve the either the ULEV, SULEV, or ZEV emission
standard.Police and emergency response vehicles would be exempt. The Program Manager
could grant exemptions to this provision when no ULEV, SULEV, or ZEV is available that
meets the essential vehicle requirements or specifications.
Attachment 1 —Page 2
Provisions Re: Electric Vehicle Infrastructure:
EV chargers at city facilities: Each local agency should develop a plan to install publicly-
accessible EV charging stations at city-owned facilities, such as parking lots and garages, civic
center complexes, convention centers, etc.
EV ready wiring: The local agency should amend its building/planning codes to require that all
new residential and commercial construction be equipped with EV-compatible wiring (220 volt,
40 amp conduit) and breakers in vehicle parking areas: Providing EV-ready conduit at the time
of construction is a low-cost measure that will greatly reduce the cost to install EV charging
equipment at a later date as demand warrants.
EV chargers at major new development projects: The local agency should develop requirements
for installation of publicly-accessible EV charging stations at major new development projects.
EV Parking Enforcement: The local agency should amend its parking enforcement code to 1)
levy fines for non-electric vehicles that park in EV charging spaces or other parking spaces
specifically reserved for EVs,and 2) allow for towing of non-electric vehicles that are parked in
EV charging spaces or otherwise blocking access to parking spaces equipped with EV chargers.
Optional Provisions of Model Ordinance:
Advisory Committee: Appoint a Clean Air Vehicle advisory committee to assist in development,
implementation, and oversight of the local clean air vehicle program.
Encourage ZEVs and Clean Air Vehicles in Private Fleets: The local jurisdiction could take
measures to encourage private fleets to procure ZEVs and other clean air vehicles. In particular,
the local agency could encourage or require clean air vehicles in fleets that operate under permit
or contract to the local agency.
EV parking: The local agency could conduct an inventory of parking areas and develop a plan to
allow small electric vehicles("city EVs"and"neighborhood EVs")to park in curb areas that are
too small to accommodate regular size cars.
Reduce required parking: The local agency could provide an incentive for developers to install
EV charging equipment by agreeing to reduce the number of parking spaces required at new
developments, if the developer agrees to install public-accessible electric vehicles chargers (or to
install additional chargers over and above the number required by the local agency).
Free parking for clean air vehicles: The local agency could allow clean air vehicles to park for
free in metered spaces or other public parking lots or garages. [The easiest way to implement this
would be to allow free parking for any vehicle equipped with the DMV decal that allows
qualifying clean air vehicles (i.e. electric vehicles and natural gas vehicles)to use the HOV lane
network on freeways.]
G:\ENV—REV\AB.434\LEVS\ModeIZEV\Attachmnti.doc
Attachment A
ZEV/ PZEV Acquisition Targets
Attachment A provides recommended acquisition targets to fulfill the zero emission vehicle
(ZEV)provision for new light and medium duty vehicles in Section_4(b) of the model
clean air vehicle ordinance. The targets can be fulfilled by acquiring any combination of
advanced technology, clean air vehicles based on the credit factors provided in Table 1
below. Vehicles that receive credit toward the target include "full function"electric
vehicles,neighborhood EVs (NEVs),plug-in hybrids, and other advanced technology
vehicles that qualify for CARB's partial zero emission vehicle(PZEV)credits.
The agency may opt to achieve the target on the basis of multi-year averaging, as described
in Section . 4(b) of the ordinance. Also,the agency may apply credit for any zero emission
or PZEV vehicles acquired prior to model year 2003 to meet the vehicle acquisition target in
FY 03/04 or thereafter. Also, if the agency extends or renews an electric vehicle lease when
an existing EV lease expires, this counts as acquisition of a new electric vehicle for purposes
of computing credits.
Table 1
Vehicle Credit Factors
Time Period % Target * Full Function NEV ** Plug-in Other
(fiscal year) ZEV Hybrid P-ZEV
03/04—05/06 6% 2.0 0.5 0.5 0.4
06/07— 10/11 8% 1.0 0.25 0.5 0.25
11/12 and later 1 10% 1.0 0.25 0.5 0.25
* The target percentage of zero emission vehicles to be acquired(as a percentage of total
light duty vehicles acquired during a specified time period—usually one year) based on the
vehicle credit factors provided.
* *The NEV category includes both neighborhood electric vehicles are defined in the model
ordinance, as well as zero emission motorcycles (e.g. the Corbin Sparrow).
There are many possible vehicle combinations that would achieve the target, as illustrated in
the example below.
Example: A local agency that acquires 100 vehicles in FY 03-04 could meet the 6%target in
Table 1,using the applicable credit factors,by acquiring:
• two full function ZEVs(2.0 credits per vehicle) and
four NEVs or plug-in hybrids(0.5 credits per vehicle)
or
• one full function ZEV, four NEVs or plug-in'hybrids (0.5 credit per vehicle), and
five PZEVs(0.4 credit per vehicle)
\\FSI\SYS\ENV REVWB434\LEVS\ModeIZEVWttachmntA.doc