Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MINUTES - 10152002 - C.56
'r5lpContra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Costa DATE: OCTOBER 15, 2001 County SUBJECT: COUNTY'S PERFORMANCE UNDER THE CLEAN AIR VEHICLE POLICY, AND STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF FLEET SERVICES RECOMMENDATIONS 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 and performance under the County's clean air policy. 2. ACCEPT report prepared by the General Services Department on the implementation of recommendations from the consultant study of the Fleet Services Division. 3. DIRECT the General Services Director to: a) Continue to make maximum use on compressed natural gas (CNG) fueled vehicles and hybrids, and explore the future use of electric and fuel cell vehicles. b) Research grant opportunities through the California Air Resources Board c) Explore the possibility of partnering with other local agencies including the ZEV Alliance, CAL EPA, the City of Vacaville, and CCCTA for coordination/sharing of fleet vehicles and facilities, including CNG and liquid hydrogen fueling stations. d) Report back to the Internal Operations Committee (IOC) during the second quarter of 2003 on all of the above directives e) Explore the development of a system to identify low-use vehicles in the County's fleet for possible reassignment to County departments or special districts in need of vehicles. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: ------------------------------ -------------------__------ ---_-_---- ---_w RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): MARK DeSAULNIER '� GAYLE S. UILK MA ---------------------------------y ---------------------- ----- - - --- - v------ - ------------------------------------_--_- ACTION OF BOARD ON PPROVE AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS i HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN UNANIMOUS{ABSENT > �.� ) AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE AYES: NOES: SHOWN. ABSENT: ABSTAIN: F) ATTESTED � .-- CONTACT: JULIE ENEA(929)335-1077 JOHN SWEETEN,CLE K OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR CC: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE STAFF GENERAL SERVICES DIRECTOR GSD FLEET MANAGER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY � � ,DEPUTY Glean Air Vehicle Policy October 15, 2002 Internal Operations Committee Page 2 BACKGROUND: On August 1, 2000 the Board of Supervisors adopted a policy on the purchase of zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) that will tape effect in FY 200312004. The Board also directed the General Services Department and County Administrator to work with the IOC 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. 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 IOC. On April 2, 2001, the IOC received a report from the General Services Department on the status of ZEV purchases for the fiscal year to date 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. The IOC also reviewed an 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. On September 17, 2001, the IOC worked with the General Services Department and County Administrator to evaluate California Air Resources Board (CARS) policy amendments and the possible incorporation of those amendments into County policy. The IOC 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 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. The IOC reported to the Board on these issues on September 25, 2001, recommending that the County policy be amended to be consistent with the GARB policy and that County Productivity Investment Funds be sought by General Services to purchase a direct supply CNG line, which the department subsequently secured. The IOC also recommended that the General Services Department report annually to the Committee on the County's compliance with goals in the ZEV policy. On December 19, 2000, the Board of Supervisors endorsed the General Services Department's proposal to hire a consultant to review practices and procedures of the Fleet Maintenance Program to demonstrate competitiveness with private industry and improve efficiency. On December 17, 2001, the completed study with recommendations was presented to the IOC for review. The Fleet Manager provided an organized summary of the 48 recommendations and indicated that several of the recommendations had already been implemented. Since some of the recommendations required financing, this item was kept on referral to the IOC and the Fleet Manager was directed to continue to refine the costs associated with the recommendations for consideration by the 2002 IOC. In accordance with the Board's directive that the General Services Department report annually to the IOC on the County's compliance with ZEV policy goals, and that the IOC continue to be advised of the implementation of the Spectrum consultant recommendations, the IOC on October 7, 2002, received the attached status report prepared by the Fleet Manager. The report also provides an update on the purchase and installation of the direct supply CNG line. GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT FLEET MANAGEMENT DIVISION 2467 Waterbird Way Martinez California 94553 Extension 3-7471 FAX 3-7088 DATE. October 1,2002 TO: Internal Operations Committee FROM: Hart Gilbert,Director General Services By: Frank Morgan,Fleet Manager SUBJECT: CLEAN AIR VEHICLE POLICY UPDATE Since our last report to the Internal Operations Committee (IOC) in September 2001, the Fleet Management division has procured the following alternative fuel vehicles. Year Make Model !2uantity 2001 —2002 Toyota Prius - brill 22 Ford E-250- CNG 1 Ford E-350- CNG 2 Freightliner FL-60-(CNG) 1 Yale Forklift- ZE 1 2002—2003 General Motors Pathway- -ZEV) 19* Toyota Prius w hrid) 8** ;FO AL: 54 *Vehicles are on loan to the County for one year from General Motors. (With purchase option at end of program) ** Vehicles are on order and will be delivered any day. The above vehicles combined with all other alternate fuel vehicles (CNG, Electric, & Hybrid) in the County fleet total 99 vehicles. This represents that 8.4/0 of the County's light fleet are alternate fuel vehicles, which already exceeds the target percentages of low emission vehicles that the BAAQMD clean air vehicle'policy established for the years 2006•-2011. Ano A\t.nrlkTA-l\mOmri\r '71Q At p Our continued effort to procure clean fuel vehicles has produced results that far exceed all BAAQMD or County guidelines to date. However, as we have learned over the past two years throughexperience and research,dedicated electric vehicles(ZEV's)have a limited area of practical use within the county. We will continue to purchase ZEV's in areas that are practical and cost effective. At the same time, we will continue to evaluate new applications that would enable us to place more ZEV's in the county fleet. Vehicles that do show promise and have been integrated into the county fleet in significant numbers are CNG and Hybrid vehicles. Both types of these alternate fuel vehicles have proven to be practical for county operations and beneficial to the region by producing cleaner air. We are currently in the final phases of selecting a vendor to upgrade our current CNG fuel station from a tube trailer system,to a direct line, "fast fill" station. By doing so, Fleet Management will be able to expand the amount of CNG vehicles in the fleet and at the same time reduce fuel cost and fill time to our customers. SPECTRUM CONSULTING REPORT UPDATE: On December 4, 2001 Spectrum Consulting completed a Fleet Management Study that included 48 recommendations for "Best Practice" improvement. The study was ordered by the Board of Supervisors in June 2000 as a means to evaluate current Fleet Management practices and to identify areas for operational improvement. A summary of the study recommendations is attached. The summary represents two different groups of recommendations; those with cost impacts, and those that can be implemented effectively at no or minimal cost. Fleet Management, along with General Services Administration, has been working diligently to implement the 48 recommendations listed in the Spectrum report. To dko, 25 of the re mme d946hs have mpland 18 amWrre ly i pro sy The current status of all 48 recommendations are noted in the attached summary. We feel that great strides have been made towards full implementation of the recommendations and have seen significant improvement in fleet operations thus far. We will continue working diligently until all recommendations have been carefully considered and/or implemented,consistent with available funding. With the Board of Supervisors support and the continued commitment by Fleet Management staff, Contra Costa County Fleet operations will soon be a model operation for other public agencies. RECOMMENDATIONS WITH COST IMPACTS .Recommendation # Description ! Priority Status Recommendation 02. Acquire a new fleet management � < computer system or upgrade the I Done current system. Acquire a new fleet management Recommendation 43. computer system with a parts 2 Done I ] inventory control module and bar coding. ' Review the Service Center r Recommendation 26. 3 footprint. There is congestion Dane and numerous problems with the j site. ' Concept plan 1 Recommendation 27. Reorganize and improve the 4 developed, subject shop facility. to funding Implement a permanent, multi--- Recommendation 47. station CNG fueling program � that could also be accessible 5 In Process to fleets in the local area. q RNECOMMENDATIONS WITH NO OR MINIMAL COST IMPACT Recommendation Description Priority { Status Fleet management should evaluate the work hours of its { Recommendation 28. customers and design hours of 1 Done service around customer needs as a means of managing and r controlling fleet size. Continue to extinguish the current PM backlog with { Recommendation 29. consideration that much scheduling has been time 2 Dune { based, and assign high priority to preventative ] maintenance. I Recommendation 01. f Explore consolidation of Done E € services with County Fire. = Explore opportunity to provide Recommendation 44. { parts services to Contra Costa 4 Done County Fire Protection. ' ► Recommendation 37. Management and support Requires Board recommendations (See Report) Action { Fleet Management should be { f Recommendation 36. outcome oriented and use key performance measures to manage 6 Done the fleet. (PM work & Productivity) Fleet Management should be { outcome oriented and use key Recommendation 05. performance measures to manage 7 Done i the fleet. (Program (, Effectiveness) Recommendation 16. Incorporate fleet standardization into the 8 Done County' s replacement program. { Technician staff Recommendation 38. recommendations. 9 In Process (See Report) Recommendation 35. Improve the service writing 10 In Process f function. 4 Recommendation # Description Priority Status Recommendation 40. Job descriptions should be up- dated for all classifications.Iteeom11 In Process i Develop a formal plan for rnendation 39. staff training and 12 In Process development. i Recommendation 30. Extend the current two level f PM program to a multi-level, 13 In Process nested approach. Provide more advanced Recommendation 32. preventive maintenance 14 Done scheduling. Recommendation 33. Utilize standards for tracking the effectiveness of the PM 15 Done program. Review and refine the multi- level PM checklists for each Recommendation 31. category of equipment that are included in the County' s New }� In Process Policy and Administrative IBulletin: 508 Improve the current "In-house Fast Lube" service (for .'A„ Recommendation 34. level PM service) and utilize 17 Done commercial "fast lube„ services throughout the county. Scrap the fueling card access Recommendation 45. system and use a P. I.N. number 18 In Process for driver access. Assign a formal liaison in all departments as a point of Recommendation 08. contact between Fleet 19 In Process Management and customer departments. Form a Board of Advisors Recommendation 09. customer group and meet one to two times annually to seek 20 Done input and support for Fleet 1 Management program objectives. 5 Recommendation # Description Priority Status Implement private market practices such as providing f estimates of cost and time to Recommendation 10. complete a job, assign a flat rate charge for routine 21 Done maintenance and repair jobs, provide a copy of printed work lorder informing the driver as to what work was completed. Continue to dispose of Recommendation 19. vehicles with Nationwide Auctions of Benicia after 22 In Process leaving service and at frequent intervals. Recommendation 20. Implement Fleet size 23 In Process reduction. Private services vendors Recommendation 25. should be considered as an important part of a new 24 Done ( services network. Reduce or eliminate the Recommendation 22. Downtown Martinez pool and augment it with commercial 25 Dane rentals. Develop a master contract for rental vehicles and equipment Recommendation 23. and use the State of I California Procurement Program 26 Done vendors for use by all departments and to augment Fleet Management pools. Recommendation Ob. Formalize service arrangements in a service level. agreement 27 Done with the largest customers . Fleet Manager should have a continuous meeting schedule Recommendation 07. with all Department customer 28 In process representatives and a more formal organizational approach to customer service. Develop a pilot program with a Recommendation 03. department customer for 29 In Process increasing access to Fleet Manaaement information. - 6 Recommendation# Description Priority Status Establish a timetable and f procedures for integrating the Recommendation 1$. annual replacement, budgetary 30 Dane and rental rate setting processes. Establish at least a five-year Recommendation 17. � replacement plan and publish 31 i Done it for department customers . Recommendation 21. Use vehicle assignment criteria as a standard .for 32 ( In Process assignment of all vehicles. } Establish all locations where € Recommendation 24. l County vehicles are parked or 33 Done domiciled including "'take ' home" work locations. 1 ! Continue to minimize and Recommendation 41. ! retain a small parts 34 1 Done ; inventory. Recommendation 12. 1 Simplify the Fleet Management s 3 charge back system. 35 In Process Recommendation 11. } Develop a standard monthly i management report for customer 36 1 In Process departments. j 4 ; Incorporate all recommendations into a Recommendation 13. ! financial Policy for briefings 37 E In Process land distribution to customer j ; departments. s ; Retain current replacement i ; reserve approach but use pay- I E Recommendation 15. ReQuires Board as-you-go financing program as 38 i { a basis for meeting the E Approval j ' replacement targets. i Recommendation 14. Continue the County' s vehicle 39 Dane i replacement policy. jConcept plan Assess customer department Recommendation 48. � wishes for vehicle washing 40 developed, services . subject to funding F. Assess whether the County Recommendation 46. � should be in the fueling business at the end of the 41 i Done current station life cycle. 7 Recommendation A Description Priority Status � Require local parts vendors to Recommendation 42. prepackage PM levels, A, B and C parts kits for each unit in 42 In Process the fleet. 8 _. _. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Office of the County Administrator ADMINISTRATIVE BULLETIN Number: 508.1 Date: 3/1/2002 Section: Property and Equipment SUBJECT: County Vehicle and Equipment Acquisition and Replacement Policy, and Clean Air Vehicle Policy and Goals The County Board of Supervisors is responsible for setting policies and guidelines with respect to County departments' requests for acquisition and replacement of County vehicles and equipment. Such requests will be considered in accordance with the policy and guidelines set forth in this bulletin. Policy Additional and replacement vehicles and equipment to be acquired by County departments either through purchase, lease purchase or donation must be appropriate for the intended use, within the approved budget, safe to operate, and cost efficient both to operate and maintain. The expected annual use of any vehicle should be in excess of 3,000 miles. Replacement priority will be given to vehicles and/or equipment that are determined by the Fleet Manager to be unsafe, in the poorest condition, uneconomical to operate or maintain, or have the highest program need. Guidelines for Acquisition of Replacement Vehicles/E®uiprnent In accordance with the Acquisition and Replacement Policy, vehicles and equipment will be considered for replacement or, in the case of under-utilization, reassignment to another department, when one or more of the following conditions exist, as determined by the Fleet Manager: + Replacement parts are no longer available to make repairs * Continued use is unsafe i Damage has made continued use infeasible ♦ The cost of repair exceeds the remaining value Under-utilization (usage does not exceed 3,000 miles per year) cannot justify ongoing maintenance costs At the mileage intervals specified below, vehicles will be evaluated to determine their condition and expected life. The General Services Fleet Management Division is to __. make such evaluations in accordance with the following schedule. Evaluations may be conducted sooner under certain conditions, such as when a vehicle needs repairs more often than other vehicles of the same class and age, or when a vehicle has been damaged. After initial evaluation, a vehicle will be re-evaluated every 12,000 miles or until it reaches the end of its life, at which time it will be declared surplus. VEHICLE TYPE EVALUATION INTERVAL Sedans 8 years/ 90,000 miles Sheriff Patrol Sedans 3 years/ 90,000 miles Passenger Vans 8 years/ 90,000 miles Cargo Vans 8 years/ 90,000 miles Sport Utility Truck 10 years/100,000 miles Pickups and 4x4s 10 years/100,000 miles Medium/Heavy Duty Trucks 12 years/120,000 miles Buses 15 years/180,000 miles School Buses 8 years/(inspect every 45 days by law) Miscellaneous Equipment Depends on Condition Guidelines for Acauisition of Additional VehicleslEguipment A County department requesting acquisition of an additional vehicle or piece of equipment must demonstrate the need and identify the source of funding for the acquisition and its ongoing maintenance. Any vehicle and/or equipment that is offered as a donation to the County must be inspected by the Fleet Management Division and determined to be in good operating condition, safe, and efficient to operate and maintain prior to acceptance. if the vehicle does not meet these criteria, the donation is not to be accepted. Clean Air Vehicle Policy and Goals Whenever possible, vehicles and equipment using compressed natural gas, electricity, or fuel cell (zero emission vehicles), or hybrids are to be considered. Beginning in fiscal year 2003-2004, all new reduced emission automobiles and light-duty trucks with a gross vehicle weight of 8,500 pounds or less of any fuel type procured by the County must achieve either the ultra-low emissions vehicle (ULEV), super ultra-low emissions vehicle (SULEV), or zero emissions vehicle (ZEV) emissions standards of the California Air Resources Board (Air Board), and total County purchases shall meet the following targets. CREDITS Time Period j % Target* Full Function NEV** Plug-in Other Fiscal Year ' ZEV Hybrid P-ZEV 2003/04-2005/06 6% 2.0 0.5 0.5 0.4 2006107-21 251 0.51 0.25 2011/12 and later 10°l0 1.0 0.251 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 fiscal year) based on the specified vehicle credit factors. "The NEV category includes both neighborhood electric vehicles, as well as zero emission motorcycles(e.g. the Corbin Sparrow). The targets can be fulfilled by acquiring any combination of advanced technology, clean air vehicles based on the credit factors provided in the table above. Vehicles that receive credit toward the target include "fall function" electric vehicles, neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs), hybrids, and other advanced technology vehicles that meet Air Board standards for partial zero emission vehicle (P-ZEV) credits. Extension or renewal of an electric vehicle lease when an existing lease expires shall count as acquisition of a new electric vehicle for purposes of computing credits. For example, if a department acquires 30 vehicles in fiscal year 2003/04, it can meet the 6% target by acquiring (1) one full function ZEV or (2) two NEV/plug-in hybrids and two other P-ZEVs, for a minimum credit total of 1.8 (six percent of thirty vehicles). Exembtions from Clean Air Vehicle Policy Emergency response (e.g. police, fire, paramedic) vehicles, and vehicles with a gross weightof more than 8,500 pounds are exempt from the clean air vehicle policy and targets. The General Services Department Fleet Manager may also grant exemptions in those instances when no ULEV, SULEV or ZEV is available that meets the essential vehicle requirements or specifications. Board'Approval of Vehicle/EguiRment Acquisitions Funds for the acquisition of additional or replacement vehicles/equipment must be appropriated in the County budget before such acquisition can occur. This appropriation may be included in the annual County Budget adopted by the Board of Supervisors or may occur via a budget appropriation adjustment approved by the Board during' the fiscal year. The attached form shall be used for each vehicle/equipment acquisition request and forwarded to the General Services Fleet Management Division. Effective with the fiscal year 2001-2002, the General Services budget for acquisition of replacement vehicles and/or equipment will include information that justifies each such acquisition, e.g., an explanation as to why an existing vehicle or piece of equipment needs to be replaced, and whether an alternative fuel vehicle is feasible. The General Services Department shall also provide the Board each year at Budget Hearings a summary of the distribution of light vehicles and heavy equipment by department for the current fiscal year, the two prior fiscal years, and the recommended distribution for the new fiscal year. __. Attachnvnt Orig. Dept: Board of Supervisors References: Board Orders adopted July 18, 2000; August 1, 2000; September 25, 2001 /sr JOHN SWEETEN, County Administrator VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT REQUEST FORM (else a separate request for each vehicle request) Department: Date Authorized Signatory 1. Description of vehicle or piece of equipment requested: 2. Reason for vehicle request: 3. Funding Source: Is an appropriation adjustment needed and attached? Yes No 4. Is an alternative fueled vehicle acceptable? Yes No If answer is no, reason clean air vehicle will not work: 6. If replacement vehicle, please show the following for vehicle to be replaced: ♦ vehicle number ♦ odometer reading 6. Reason purchase can not wait until next budget cycle: FOR FLEET MANAGEMENT COMPLETION: 1. Inspection/evaluation by Fleet Management as to condition of vehicle: ♦ 'Date of Inspection: ♦ 'Make: Model: i Year: ♦ Depreciation: ♦ 'Salvage: ♦ 'Estimated cost of request: ♦ 'Condition of vehicle/equipment and life expectancy: 2. Fleet Management Signatory: 3. CAO Signatory: Approved Not Approved 4. Date for Board Order tf .✓ o TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE `" Costa DATE: SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 Counly SUBJECT: CLEAN AIR VEHICLE POLICY SPECIFIC REQUEST($)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RE,C",,QM!LABI QATIONS: 1. ACCEPT report prepared by the General Services Department on the Co nty'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 inta County policy for dissemination to all County departments and Board-governed districts. 3. DIRECT tate County Administrator to revise existing Administrative Bull ins 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 d rest supply gas line to increase fill-up speed and reduce costs per unit of energy. BACKGROUND: Can August 1, 2400 the Board of Supervisors adopted a policy on the pur hase of zero emission vehicles (ZE.Vs) that is scheduled to take effect in FY 2003-2004, The E curd also directed the General Services Department and County Administrator to work with the Internal Operations Committee in identifying potential ZEV purchases in each County departmE nt, estimating the casts 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 OMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER 6 SIGNATURE(S). 1pOA JOHN GIOIA,CHAIR MARK Des ULNIER ACTION OF BOARD O September 2_,_ 2001 APPROVE AS RECOMMENDED XXX OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THA T THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY AN ACTION TARN -.XL UNANIMOUS(ABSENT None } AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR S ON THE DATE AYES: NOES. SHOWN. I ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTESTED Septembe3 25 2001 CONTACT, JULIE ENEA(925)335-1077 JOHN SWEETEN,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SU ERVISORS AND COUNTY ADM ISTRATOR 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 IO 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 20002001 and cost data or 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'5 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 Madel 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. f —RESPONSE-TO IO COMMITTEE FOR SEPTEMBER 1 2001 L antra Cgsta C un Pglicy on Purcha e of-Zero Emi don VehiclesAZEV'sl for Qoupk Fleet as com aced to Model Clean Air Vehicle.QEdinance approve.4 by the Ba A---m Air..Ous[lit Ulana ement District on April 18, 2001, The response to Supervisor Uilkema's inquiry is correct in that t e County policy is primarily an acquisition policy, not a comprehensive policy to prom to use of ZEV's in Contra Costa County, General Services supports the Air Boarc 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 ith highway-ZEV's has demonstrated that these vehicles are generally inadequate to mc et the transportation needs of most of our customer departments. There are several reasons why the highway-ZEV's have proven to be ii adequate to meet the transportation needs of our customer departments. The County covej s a large geographic area and departments with client support services and field service travel many miles around the County. However, electric vehicles leased by the Cot my can only travel approximately 126 miles with a full charge. In addition, it takes appy ximately eight hours to fully charge the battery from zero. Due to these and other factors, have found that the ZEV's have not been very practical for Contra Costa County. How er, 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) ve ficles. Compared to other fossil fuels, CNG is a relatively clean fuel and substituting nat iral gas for gasoline reduces carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons. In addition, with the pro er 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 Sept mber 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 ervice and the large fueling trailer at the County fueling site. However, the current fuel ng trailer is a single nozzle fuel pump and fills at the rate of one hundred standard cubic f et per minute, which is only approximately half as fast as the average standard gasolin service station. In addition, when the fueling trailer runs low, it has to be picked up, t en off site, and re- filled, which could leave the County without CNG during an emergenc . Therefore, as the County continues to expand its CNG vehicle pro am, its CNG fueling infrastructure needs improvement(see "Cost Analyses" below). We e 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 l of 5 3 ` The cost of this equipment is estimated to be $150,000, and the General Services Department is looking at the possibility of securing grant fundingand/or applying for Productivity Investment Funds. The addition of this direct line flaelmab er will make it much more attractive for County departments to purchase CNG vehicles a d, at the same time, save the County thousands of dollars. Based on past CNG usa e and future usage projections for newly purchased CNG vehicles, the direct line fuel site would pay for itself in three to five years. COST ANALYSESzi, him$'} +r'(b� t s t .', itx�sY y .. £✓,4Ge ff xcx7}`}ly 'b �1 I �' {i tk +��G. m fa'�N,, rs�w �; tdt�t d � f`a a + '` ' I3 y v�a,; �X k �"d 4 ni£'`A�'p{q'n �2'e e; t ' '' i.'§ a,.i"t w S,n tgr i x fJr {' °�., ut... '``%P"o-.�7+.t�:.v,Ya sik, "� 5.mohp,ta i .4 ..4�' ,#1 ,s 5 a,,S.,:&. -s�$,,� .� n-L .5.3. Fully burdened cost $2.97 Fully burdened cost $.61 per therm trailer per therm I L D R.ECT LINE SAVINGS PER THERM=$2.36 I 131i _ •a k$ Fully burdened cost $3.79 Fully burdened cost $1,51 per lan trailer per allon CNG COST PER GALLON MORE THAN GASOLINE $2.28 !Fully burdened cost 78 Fully burdened costr allon per lon DIRECT LINE SAVINGS PER GALLON LESS THAN GASO INE *'rho above calpAritions are as ofMOM I. *Therm priced and calculations from ME(therm x 1.276-Gallons}. *Gallon of gaaolino and gallon of G'NO have same British T'heamal Unit(E`rCT}rating. I Page 2 of 5 The fallowing table is a record of all CNG purchases made for County vehi les sine purchasing the current trailer fueling system. It shoves the increasing cost and frequent of"trailer delivery" charges along with the savings that could have been realized with a"Direct NG Line". CNG DELIVERY FROM.919.9-6141 TOTANKTRMLER AT WATERBIRD ZYAYLt7C 4TION CON MENTS 6/28/2001 457.39 1030.791275,00 When putting In E , rounded up 6/19/2001 460.06 1038.20on therms; e.g.$4 7,39=457 6/7/2001 424.87. 977.05 5/23/2001 325.3 974.141 275.00 Besides total cost a 120herm 5/11/2004 358.42 1045,32 275.00 CH charge was ac ded to total cost 4/26/2001 379.23 1503.71 275.06 to male up the pe theme cost 4/11/2001 451.7 1323.855 275.00 in EMS 3/27/2001 541.39 1836.15 275.00 3/8/2001 387.11 1391.27 275.00 PCI Cleary Fuels is the vendor 211812001 398.34 1329.82 250.00 1/31/2001 386.84 1369.69 250.00 1/20/20011 487.171 1660.07 250.00 1/16/20011 310.761 1149.47 250.00 1/1/21301 325.051 1190.821 250.00 YEAR TOTAL: $5,693,63 1$17,817.35 1 $3,725.00 12/30/2000 341.71 1238,21 275,00 Sales tax down b 1/4% Dec to s Md. 12/17/2000 269.6211 1035.01 275.00 1214/2000 373.661 1328.27 275.00 11110/2000 477.95 862.25 200.00 10/24/2000 480.66 865.99 200.00 10110/2000 433.69 800.92 200.00 9/17/2000 36312 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 8/20/2000 330 610.81 200.00 5126/2000 480.61 798.29 200.110 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 2115/20001 395.05 691.79 5,nn no TOTAL CNG cost 1/26/2000 445.65 730,66200.00 for Co Vehicles 1/4/20300 498,78 793.92 200.00 $44196.56 YEAR TOTAL: $7,290.75 $14,596.18 $3,825.00 11/30/'1999 414.63 693.72 2021.0 10111/1999 261.781 511.72 200,0 9/14/1999 448,831 734.44 200. EAR TOTAL: $1,125.24 $1,939.88 $600. 7 we had a direct C line TOTAL: 14109.62 $34,353.41 $8,1513. 535 89.69 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 xtended range and rapid refueling of a conventional vehicle, with a significant portion of the energy and environmental benefits of an electric vehicle. Some additional be efts of the HEV's include improved fuel economy and lower emissions. According to the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Transporlation 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 BEV'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 e only two original equipment manufacturers of hybrid electric vehicles on the U.S. ma-ket to date. Honda and Toyota both have production-ready vehicles that are being ma aufactured and sold today. In the near future, there will be more B EV's from Genera" Motors, Ford, and Daimler Chrysler on the way." In summary, we believe that the County should continue to build th 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, w would request six months to research what other counties are doing. We believe th t the acquisition of ultralow emission vehicles such as the Ford Crown Victoria and T yota Camry, which are CNG fueled, and the Honda Insight or Toyota Prius, which are V'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. H. Analysis of We Cycle Maintenance Costs VEHICLE EXPENSES 96/97 TO OO/01 I- $25,836 Odginaf Coat IJeacri tion 89#tt 98195 8718 96#S' 00/9t1 9SItf0 S8t99 97#88 '96/97 15 Passenger Van 4,078 1,399 3,537 2,002 3,049 22,597 3,1 19 3,654 3 105 2,935 2,757 3/4'ton Cargo Van $22,806 2,256 2,589 874 1,767 - 19,345) 2,0'117 1,650 1,982 2,6081 Crown Victoria/ NonPatrol $25,409 899 3,205 630 - 22 016 1,04.91 844 Operating Expenses include parts, labor,oil,fuel and misc. expenses such as car iashes. depreciation, monthly base charge and insurance expense are not included. f i Page 4 of 5 ISI. VeNd_eMaiptenance 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 eview by Spectrum Consulting. Spectrum Consulting is looping 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.0, Committee for its review. V le are requesting that any policy decisions be deferred until the study is complete. In the meantime, Fleet Management will continue to identify areas t iat need changing in order to reach our goal. One example of needed change is in the rea of"Preventative Maintenance"(PMs). A comprehensive PM program is the single m< st important element in a fleet management program. A comprehensive program extends vehicle/equipment life and ensures safe, dependable operation throughout the life of tbe 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 sch duling program that will allow departments to schedule their own PM appointments. a benefit to on-line PM scheduling will be reduced vehicle/equipment down time, a regulated workload for maintenance star 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 responsibil ty. 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 cu ower 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 ervice with minimal down time for all scheduled appointments. Page 5 of 5 �W May$,2001 .� ' V D Supervisor Gayle Uilkema r...�. •.. �,.: .__ BAY AREA Centra Costa County,2nd District ��. � ` AER QUALITY 651 Fine St. Room 108-A 01 MANAGEMENTMANAGEMENTMartinez,CA 94553 Dear Supervisor Uilkema: This letter responds to your request that Air District staff provide ananalysis comparing the zero emission vehicle(ZEV)acquisition policy adopted by the Contra Costa County Roberttao Cooper ARAMCouper Board of Supervisors on August 1,2000 with the Model Clean Air Vehicle Ordinance Scott Haggerty approved by the Air District Board on April 18,2001. per your requ-'st,we also provide (Vice-Chairperson) suggestions for potential revisions or additions to the County policy. Bate Miley Shelia Young Both measures share a common goal of promoting the acquisition of era emission CONTRA COSTA COUNTY vehicles and other clean air vehicles(CAVs)for local fleets and help ng to lay the Mark DeSauinier groundwork for successful implementation of the CARB ZEV mandate. The County Mark foss olio requires that,beginning in FY 2003-04,at least 10%of all Con purchases of li t Gayle Uilkema policy �� g� g tY p � duty cars and trucks shall be.ZEVs. Six percent of the 10%may be fi iffilled by the MARIN COUNTY purchase of super ultra low emission vehicles(SULEVs),at a rate of five SULEVs for hiaroid C.grown,Jr. each required ZEV. The remaining four percent must be actual ZEV . The goals in the County policy were consistent with the provisions of the CARR ZE mandate as of NAPA COUNTY August 2000. Brad Wagenknecht SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY In January,2001,CARB revised the ZEV mandate in several respec . 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 SAN MATaO COUNTYof advanced technology clean air vehicles. Jerry Hill Mariand Townsend The major difference between the Model Ordinance and the County olicy is that the (secretary) County policy focuses on procurement of clean vehicles for the Coui ity fleet and the Model Ordinance includes a more comprehensive set of provisions to promote the use of ZgVs SANTA CLAM COUNTYOrdinance other light du CAVs.The Model Ordinance includes vehicle Andy Attaway $h duty quisition policies as (Chairperson) well as other policies and is organized into"core"provisions and"o `anal"provisions. Kniss Julia Mier The provisions of the Model Ordinance are briefly summarized belo ,as well as in the Dona Mossar enclosed summary document. The Model Ordinance is based upon a premise that there are a wide variety of policies and actions that local agencies can im ement to lay the groundwork for successful introduction of clean air vehicles in their communities. solaria COUNTY William Carroll Clean vehicles for agency fleets:The Model Ordinance contains o provisions regarding acquisition of clean vehicles for local fleets. 1)The ordinance provides recommended SONOMA COUNTY targets for procurement of ZEV and PZEV vehicles(see enclosed A tachment A). The Tim smith specific targets in the Model Ordinance differ in detail from the targ is in the County Pamela Toriiatt policy,but the targets in both measures are broadly consistent. 2)T ie ordinance also Mien Garvey contains a provision that,effective within 90 days of adoption,all vt hicles acquired for the EXECUTIVE OFFICERt local fleet should be certified to the ULEV,or cleaner, standard,to t ie greatest extent AIR POLLUTION feasible. The Model Ordinance also defines exemptions that would l in the event that CONTROL orl`lc� p pp Y clean air vehicles are not available in sufficient numbers,no CAV is available that meets the essential user specifications,or the incremental cost of the CAV1 is prohibitive. I 939 ELLIS STREET • SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA 94109 • 41$.771.6000 • www.baagmdgov BAAQMD Analysis of Model Clean.Air Vehicle Ordinance Page 2 May 8, 2001 Clean Air Vehicle Program and Program Manager: The Madel rdinance contains a provision to require appointment of a program manager with overall esponsibility for developing and implementing a CAV program. The program mana r would be required to provide an annual progress report to the governing board. The Or inance also contains an optional provision to appoint an advisory committee to assist in d velopment and monitoring of the CAV program. Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure:The Model Ordinance contains several provisions to promote installation of EV charging infrastructure. Th following are part of the Ordinance,but not in the County policy: EV chargers at city facilities:Each local agency should develop a pi in to install publicly- accessible EV charging stations at public facilities,such as parking l is and garages,civic center complexes,convention centers,etc. EV ready wiring:The local agency should amend its building/plann` g codes to require that all new residential and commercial construction be equipped wil h EV-compatible wiring(220 volt,40 amp conduit)and breakers in vehicle parking arw. Providing EV- ready conduit at the time of construction is a low-cost measure that N 411 greatly reduce the cost to install EV charging equipment at a later date as demand wary,mts. EV chargers at major new development. rojects:The local agency s ould develop requirements for installation of publicly-accessible EV charging stations at major new development projects. EV Parking: The Model Ordinance also includes provisions EV pat king and enforcement of EV parking policies;these are not in the County policy: EV Parking Enforcement: The local agency should amend its parkin enforcement code to 1)levy fines for non-electric vehicles that park in EV charging spacas or other parking spaces specifically reserved for EVs,and 2)allow for towing of nonelectric vehicles that are parked in EV charging spaces or otherwise blacking access to pe rking spaces equipped with EV chargers. EV parking:The local agency may conduct an inventory of parking ireas 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 incentiv D for developers to install EV charging equipment by agreeing to reduce the number of arking spaces required at new developments,if the developer agrees to install pub iolyaaccessible electric vehicles chargers(or to install additional chargers over and above thIDnumber required by the local agency). .Free parking far clean air vehicles: The local agency may allow cl am vehicles to park for free in metered spaces or other public parking lots or garages. [T ie easiest way to implement this would be to allow free parking for any vehicle equip 3ed with the DMV decal that allows qualifying clean air vehicles(i.e.electric vehicles i nd natural gas vehicles)to use the HOV lane network on freeways.] The City of S 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 compreher sive program to promote ZEVs and other clean air vehicles. Air District staff sugges 3 that the County consider expanding the County policy to incorporate the followingmeasures: • Require that all new light duty vehicles be certified to the ULEN emission standard or cleaner,to the greatest extent feasible. i • Appoint a clean air vehicle program manager with responsibility for developing and implementing a CAV program and providing an annual progres report to the Board. • Develop a plan to promote EV charging infrastructure, includin requiring EV-ready wiring and conduit in all new residential and commercial cons ction(a low-cost,but highly effective measure), installing publicly-accessible EV ohm gers 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 baaAtnd,aov or 415-749-4641. Sincerely Ellen Gary y Executive er Enclosures EG:DB f US 1 WYSMER&BURCHWodel EV©rdinancetContmCosta doc Attachment I 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 )enforcement of EV parking to discourage drivers of non-electric vehicles from using parking s s reserved for electric vehicles. The model ordinance contains both core provisions and op donal provisions. Local agencies can select the provisions that are most relevant or feasible wi 'n their jurisdiction. They can also modify the specific language of the model ordiru nce 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 develo ing and implementing a CAV acquisition plan for all departments; developing an electric' vehicle infrastructure plan; and preparing an Annual Progress Report to the local go*erring 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 sh uld be included in the local ordinance. f 1) ZeroEmission 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 CARR ZEV mandate. The commended targets begin.at 6*/o of new vehicles acquired during the 2003-2005 period,usin 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 alows for multi-year averaging,at the discretion of the public agency,and also defines specif c 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, SIDLE ,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 Z V is available that meets the essential vehicle requirements or specifications. 9 Attachment 1 —Page 2 Provisions Re: Electric Vehicle Infrastructure: EV chargers at city facilities: Each local agency should develop a plan to i I 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 code to require that all new residential and commercial construction be equipped with EV-compati a 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 instdl EV charging equipment at a later date as demand warrants. EV chargers at major new development projects: The local agency should d velop 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 arking 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: Adi4sory Committee: Appoint a Clean Air Vehicle advisory committee to askis#in development, implementation,and oversight of the local clean air vehicle program. r Encourage ZEVs and Clean fir Vehicles in Private Fleets: The local jurisdiction could take measures to encourage private fleets to procure ZEVs and other clean air vel 'cles. In particular, the local agency could encourage or require clean air vehicles in fleets that o perate under permit or contract to the local agency. EV parking: The local agency could conduct an inventory of parking areas a ad develop a plan to allow small electric vehicles(`'city EVs"and"neighborhood EVs')to park`a curb areas that are too small to accommodate regular size cars. Reduce required parking:The local agency could provide an incentive for d velopers 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 vel icles chargers(or to install additional chargers over and above the number required by the local E gency). Free parking for clean air vehicles. The local agency could allow clean air ehicles to park for free in metered spaces or other public parking lots or garages. [The easiest ay to implement this would be to allow free parking for any vehicle equipped with the DMV deca I that allows qualifying clean air vehicles(i.e. electric vehicles and natural gas vehicles)w use the HOV lane network on freeways.) c:\Ersv_xF,vtABa3au.Evs\ModetZEvw n tt.dar. ((1 E Attachment A ZEV/ 'ZEV 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 functi "electric vehicles,neighborhood EVs(NEVs),plug-in hybrids, and other advanced technology vehicles that qualify for CARB°s partial.zero emission vehicle(PZEV)c Bits. The agency may opt to achieve the target on the basis of multi-year ave ing,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 03104 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 0A 061017'— 10111 8% 1.0 0.25 0.5 0.25 11/12 acid later 10% 1.0 10.25 10.5 10.25 * 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 ear)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 Sparro . There are many possible vehicle combinations that would achieve the tar et,as illustrated in the example below. Example: A local agency that acquires 100 vehicles in FY 03-04 could et the 6%target in Table 1,using the applicable credit factors,by acquiring. • two full function ZEVs(2.03 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 ehicle),and five PZEVs(0.4 credit per vehicle) US t\SYS\ENV—REV\AB4341LEVSWodeiZEV\AttachmntA.doc