To reduce petroleum imports, the Energy Policy

Act of 1992 (EPAct) has called for reductions inthe consumption of gasoline and diesel fuel inautomobiles, among other requirements. Currently, more than 160 billion gallons of gasolineand diesel fuel are consumed each year in morethan 200 million vehicles on U.S. roads. And nearly 13 million of those vehicles are operatedby fleet owners. Therefore, EPAct focuses on thepotential for reducing petroleum use in U.S. vehicle fleets, particularly the numerous fleets ownedand operated by the Federal government.EPAct stipulates that 75% of the new, light-dutyvehicles purchased by Federal fleets each yearmust be alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs)—carsand trucks that operate on fuels other than gasoline and diesel. Executive Order 13149, signed in2000, goes on to require Federal fleets to use alternative fuels to achieve a 20% reduction in on-roadpetroleum consumption by 2005. Designatedalternative fuels include methanol, ethanol, and 

a

a

a

e 

a 

e 

a

ge o

o

e

s a

s

y

es

But alternative fuels are still not widely available,and this is the biggest challenge for Federal fleetsthat want to acquire AFVs. On-site stations can beadapted for fleets that are refueled centrally. Butwhen fleet vehicles need to be driven a great distance from the central station, it can be difficult to locate stations with alternative fuels. Therefore,one of the best options for today's fleets is to use a combination of traditionally fueled vehicles and AFVs.This Federal Technology Alert, one of a series on new

technologies prepared by the Federal EnergyManagement Program (FEMP) in the Department of Energy (DOE), describes the Federal government's plans and progress in meeting thegoals for AFVs stated in EPAct and the ExecutiveOrder. It describes the types of alternative fuelsand AFVs currently available; lists actual andpotential uses in Federal fleets; makes some general recommendations, which vary according

to a facility's needs and capabilities; andpresents some fieldexperiences to date.

Energy-SavingMechanismAlternative fuel vehiclessave energy in severalways. For example,using AFVs reduces the consumption of traditional transportation fuels, and this helps to conservedomestic oil resources.Every gallon of alternative fuel we use 

FederalTechnologyAlertA New TechnologyDemonstrationPublicationU.S. Department of EnergyEnergy Efficiency andRenewable EnergyBringing you aprosperous future where energy is clean,abundant, reliable, and affordable

Internet: www.eere.energy.gov/femp/

Ford Motor Company/PIX12697

This 2004 flexible-fuel Ford F150 pickup has been redesigned to have a more spaciousinterior; it is a popular model for fleets as well as individual drivers.No portion of this publication may be altered in any form without prior written consent from the U.S. Department of Energy,Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and the authoring national laboratory.
s might hesitate to invest

g infrastructure until 

gh AFVs to make it a 

ent. 

ases could be one of the

 ways to help bring

of many types of AFVs.

st of an AFV currently

ery little for certain 

un on ethanol to about

 for those that run on

atural gas. 

down barriers like these,

vernment provides

leets acquiring AFVs.

slation is proposed fre

mulate the AFV market.

mous potential in the Fed

ent to make greater use

uels. Therefore, among

s, the Energy Policy Act

r Federal fleets to adopt 

ole in acquiring motor

un on these fuels.

kes time and careful

valuate the needs of an

cility and determine the

or a particular budget,

nd location. But making

yield great returns.

ot only helps agencies

requirements, it also 

 the nation's energy

placing some of our

oleum with domestic
1

example, they enhance our energy security byreducing the need for imported fuels, and theyimprove air quality by reducing the emissions associated with many vehicles that use traditionaltransportation fuels. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) was established in large part to reduce the nation’s dependence on imported petroleum. One objective ofEPAct is to encourage the use of AFVs in theFederal government’s vehicle fleets. Currently,75% of annual light-duty vehicle acquisitions inFederal fleets are required to be AFVs. In addition, Executive Order 13149, signed in April 2000,states that alternative fuels can be a major contributor to the goal of cutting the Federal fleet’suse of petroleum by 20% by 2005. Vehicles thatrun on alternative fuels also help the nation conserve domestic fossil fuel resources.Because the Federal government has such a largenumber of fleet vehicles, it is uniquely positioned to make greater use of AFVs. The government has

typically produce fewer tailpipe emissions of certain air pollutants. In addition, fleet vehicles of any kind typicallyaccumulate higher annual mileages than privatevehicles do, so they must be replaced more often.Therefore, adding AFVs to Federal fleets canshorten the amount of time it takes to improve air quality and achieve U.S. goals for energy independence.Well over 400,000 AFVs are currently in use in theUnited States, and more than 30,000 AFVs areoperating in the Federal fleet. Operator surveysshow that these vehicles have been well received.Alternative fuel vehicle technology has improvedsignificantly in just a few years’ time. And nearlyevery major vehicle manufacturer offers a varietyof models that run on alternative fuels.This Federal Technology Alert was prepared toinform Federal fleet operators and others aboutthe tremendous potential and benefits of AFVs. 

It provides informationabout alternative fuels as well as about thevehicles, and it includesdata on associated costs,fuel availability, performance attributes,

and emissions.

Warren Gretz/PIX05055

The bi-fuel Ford Contour, which runs on compressed natural gas (CNG) as well as gasoline, was selected to be part of the General Services Administration's Colorado fleets in 1997.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
vehicles are considered to be alternative fuel vehicles. There are two broadcategories: dedicated AFVs and dualfuel AFVs.•Dedicated AFVs: Dedicated vehicles 

operate exclusively on an alternativefuel. The most common ones are compressed natural gas and propane.

•Dual-fuel AFVs: Dual-fuel vehicles 

operate on two different types of fuel, either simultaneously or independently. The two most common types are bi-fuel and flexible-fuel vehicles.• Bi-fuel vehicles: These dual-fuel 

vehicles have one fuel tank and fuel system for an alternative fueland another fuel tank and fuel system for gasoline or diesel; the vehicle can operate on one of the two fuels at a time. These most commonly operate on compressednatural gas and gasoline or diesel.

diesel vehicles can operate on renewable fuels. These vehicles are not considered to be AFVs, but they can helpan agency minimize the amount ofpetroleum used in its fleets and assistthe agency in complying with regulations governing its fleets.The alternative fuels you can use inyour agency’s AFVs come in a varietyof forms, but all share the commoncharacteristic of being derived substantially from nonpetroleum sources.The major alternative fuels used widelytoday include these:•Ethanol: An alcohol fuel currently 

produced from grain, agricultural waste, and biomass, ethanol is a fueloxygenate or additive in several areas of the country. Ethanol is generally used in blends of E85, which is 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. Refueling stations dispense ethanol in much the same way that they dispense gasoline, using underground 

vehicles are attached to a rather small, inexpensive unit that fills the vehicle slowly over a period of several hours. Fast-fill stations are more complex and fill a vehicle in a few minutes. Because CNG is a gaseous fuel, high-pressure compressors are required at refueling stations.

•Electricity: This can be taken from the

power grid and stored in batteries on board the vehicle. Charging stations used to recharge the batteries of electric vehicles can usually be installed fairly inexpensively, and they can charge a vehicle over a period of hours, depending on the vehicle and battery type.

•Propane: This liquefied fuel is a byproduct of natural gas processing 

or petroleum refining.

•Biodiesel: Produced from vegetable 

oil or animal fat, biodiesel is typicallya blend of 20% biodiesel with 80% conventional diesel fuel. Biodiesel can be used in traditional diesel engines and vehicles. Biodiesel is dispensed in much the same way that gasoline, diesel, and ethanol fuels are dispensed.

Some other alternative fuels are currently not as commercially available as those described above:• Methanol: Methanol is an alcohol 

fuel produced from natural gas, coal, or biomass.

•P-series fuels: These are special blends

of ethanol, methyltetrahydrofuran (MTHF), natural gas liquids, and butane.

3

In 1996, Ford Taurus E85 flexible-fuel vehicles were part of the State of Ohio's fleets.

Battelle/State of Ohio/PIX05716
fleet, which has approx

0 light-duty vehicles,

avings, if just 20% of 

erted to domestically

rnative and renewable

e approximately 54 mil

 gasoline and diesel fuel

s enormous potential, 

ess passed the Energy

Act, P.L. 102-486);

measures, EPAct pro

of alternative fuels in

tion sector. Federal

equired under EPAct 

ring AFVs in their fleets

vehicles at the rate of

d light-duty vehicle

ach year. Covered vehi

l light-, medium-, and 

d CNG-powered Dodge

Warren Gretz/PIX05066
e

e

a

ee

e 

os

ece

o

e,

Executive Order 13149, was signed inApril 2000. It supports EPAct acquisition requirements and also requiresFederal agencies to reduce their petroleum use in fleet vehicles by 20% bythe end of FY 2005. Covered andexempt vehicles are similar to thosenamed in EPAct.Alternative fuels are an important partof the road map to successfully meeting these goals. In addition, Federalagencies are asked to use more energyefficient vehicles (those with higherfuel economy) of all kinds, and toimprove their fleet management techniques to minimize vehicle miles traveled.Other BenefitsAlternative fuel vehicles have a significant environmental benefit in terms ofreducing air pollution. In general, twotypes of pollution are related to automobiles: ground-level air pollution and greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions in the atmosphere. Ground-level air pollution is the typethat causes smog. It is emitted fromtailpipes as a by-product of the combustion process. This type of pollutioncontains several smog-forming gasesas well as particulates, which can present respiratory health risks. Clean-burning alternative fuels suchas CNG can greatly reduce the amountof ground-level air pollution emittedfrom vehicle tailpipes.The second type of pollution, associatedwith the so-called greenhouse gases, isemitted from the burning of petroleumproducts. This pollution does not con

Vehicles, Greet 1.5a Model Results,Argonne National Laboratory,Argonne, IL, April 2000).

VariationsBecause several different kinds of alternative fuels are available, it can be difficult to select the type that will workbest in your agency’s particular fleet.Not all fuels perform the same wayunder all conditions. However, perhaps the first thing to determine iswhether refueling stations that supplyalternative fuels are available in yourarea. If so, it is a good idea to try to use those stations as much as possible.For instance, if there are several CNGstations nearby, you might want toconsider selecting CNG as one of yourAFV options. If there are no appropriate refueling stations nearby, however, you mightwant to select the fuel that fits best with your geographic situation(including average temperatures and

completely from renewable biomass,because they emit very few GHGs.

InstallationConverting traditional fleet vehicles toAFVs requires both the acquisition ofvehicles and the availability of a refueling infrastructure. Sometimes thisinfrastructure is available publicly.When it is, agreements can usually be worked out for payment via theGSA credit card or another establishedmethod. If refueling stations are notavailable in your area, you might consider installing either a private station on your site or a public stationin partnership with other local fleets.Federal Sector PotentialEstimated Savings and MarketPotentialThe operating costs of alternative fuelvehicles vary by region and by vehicleand fuel type. Therefore, fairly large

5

Mark Heitz/PIX06698

The 1998 Honda Civic GX, a dedicated CNG vehicle, is one of several types tested at the DOENational Renewable Energy Laboratory.
 nonmethane hydrocar

 60% and 90% lower for

xide, and between 70% 

r for oxides of nitrogen.

as vehicles also emitted

and 26% less carbon 

G) than comparable 

d vehicles did.

9 1.60 0.065 295.70

0 0.88 0.310 512.50

N/A N/A N/A

0 0.53 0.100 723.70

Fueled Vehicle

ne Fuel Economy (mpg)

Highway Combined

28.0 22.5

15.5 14.5

15.5 14.1

32.0 28.5

22.1 18.7

N/A N/A

16.3 14.9
Bi-Fuel Natural Gas Vehicles. The bi-fuelSierra achieved 4% lower fuel efficiency(city and highway combined) operating on natural gas than the comparable gasoline-fueled model. This bifuel vehicle tested about 67% lower for nonmethane hydrocarbon emissions when operating on natural gas,however. It was rated about 33% lowerfor oxides of nitrogen. And it emittedabout 20% less carbon dioxide thancomparable gasoline-fueled vehiclesdid. However, the bi-fuel Sierra operating on natural gas tested about 70%higher than the comparable gasolinevehicle for carbon monoxide, indicating that the vehicle was not fully optimized for operation on natural gas.Bi-Fuel Propane Vehicles. The propanepickup truck achieved 28% lower fuelefficiency (city and highway combined) on a per-gallon basis than thecomparable gasoline-fueled model.This occurred because a gallon ofpropane has about 70% of the energyof a gallon of gasoline. However, on an energy equivalent basis (i.e., milestraveled per Btu of fuel used), thepropane and gasoline vehicles hadnearly the same fuel efficiency. Thepropane vehicle tested about 55%lower for nonmethane hydrocarbonemissions. For oxides of nitrogen, thepropane vehicle scored about 60%higher, however. It emitted about 9%less carbon dioxide than comparable

gasoline-fueled vehicles did, overall.But the propane pickup truck testedabout 50% higher for carbon monoxide than the comparable gasoline vehicle did, indicating that the vehicle was not fully optimized for operation on propane.Flexible-Fuel Ethanol Vehicles. The ethanol vehicles achieved between 25%

and 30% lower fuel efficiency (city andhighway combined) on a per-gallonbasis than the comparable gasolinefueled model did. This is because agallon of ethanol (as E85) has about70% of the energy of a gallon of gasoline. On an energy equivalent basis,however, the ethanol vehicles hadnearly the same (or slightly higher)fuel efficiency as the gasoline vehicles.The Dodge minivan’s emissions performance on E85 was worse than thatof the comparable gasoline vehicle forall three pollutants tested. The ethanolvehicle tested about 19% higher fornonmethane hydrocarbon emissions,about 60% higher for carbon monoxide, and about 23% higher for oxidesof nitrogen. The Taurus sedan’s performance onethanol showed slightly differenttrends. The ethanol vehicle showed no difference relative to the gasolinevehicle for nonmethane hydrocarbons;it scored about 23% higher for carbonmonoxide and about 33% lower for

testing (www.ott.doe.gov/otu/field_ops/).

ApplicationThis section addresses technical aspectsof using alternative fuels in youragency’s fleets, including the types of activities and conditions that aremost suited to the use of AFVs. Advantages, limitations, and benefits of eachfuel type are described. Also discussedare fuel selection and the installationand use of a refueling infrastructure.Application ScreeningDetermining the most suitable vehicleand fuel for your facility is an important first step in purchasing alternativefuel vehicles.Vehicle Selection. The ideal candidates for AFVs are vehicles that are operated primarily on or near your site. Becausealternative fuels are commerciallyavailable only in limited quantitiesand locations, it can be difficult fordrivers to locate suitable refuelingstations. So, for applications in whichvehicles must be driven some distancefrom the site or the fuel source, dualfuel vehicles are more suitable. The ranges of most AFVs on the market today (except for electric vehicles)are comparable to the ranges of traditionally fueled vehicles. And AFVscome in a wide variety of configurations in light-duty and heavy-dutymodels. Historically, most AFVs have beenconversions. In these vehicles, enginesand fuel storage tanks have been modified to accommodate alternative fuels. 

7

In 1998, this GMC bi-fuel C2500 pickup was part of a group of AFVs tested at the TransportationResearch Center in Ohio.
tegration

ng stations for AFVs

onvenient as traditional

ons. Locate on-site alter

ng stations on or near

asoline and diesel sta

er possible. This makes

ivers to refuel different

les. 

ublic alternative refuel

s preferable to choose

se to the gasoline or

 that your fleet already

more than a five-minute

ur fleet’s headquarters.

tations should also

eet’s credit card or other

hod of payment. 

 Impact

enance intervals for AFVs

those required for con

eled vehicles. Because

quipment installed on

e, special training or

equired for certain 

rocedures, such as pres

NG systems for leaks.

ealerships authorized 

re usually trained in

and repair. At present,

 a limited number of

e trained and equipped

aintenance on natural

nd propane AFVs. 

arranties

el vehicles purchased

hicle manufacturers

acturer’s warranty.

re leased from GSA, 
turers. All vehicles sold by manufacturers are certified by the Federal government to be acceptable on public roads and to comply with current regulations for safety andemissions. Codes and standards applicable to the refueling infrastructurevary from state to state, however, and even from one locality to another.Your refueling station contractor andother fleets in your area may be able to provide more information. Alternative fuel trade associations canbe another good source of informationabout local codes and standards. Several of these associations are listed inthe back of this publication.CostsAlternative fuel vehicles usually costmore than similar gasoline or dieselfuel vehicles. Averaged incrementalcosts for AFVs are shown in Table 3.These are based on GSA prices from the 2001 model year.

estimate near

term cost savings asso

ciated with their use, and it is unlikelythat these savings will be significant.Because of this uncertainty, andbecause E.O. 13149 requires Federalfleets to use these technologies regardless of cost, GSA has developed aninnovative pricing and billing methodknown as the surcharge program. Thisvoluntary program is available toFederal agencies and spreads out theincremental costs of AFVs over time. Under the program, GSA adds a surcharge to the cost of every vehicle that an agency leases; the surcharge is established and authorized by theparticipating agency. Money from thesurcharges is automatically used todefray the incremental lease costs ofthe fleet’s AFVs, and fleets thus paythe same lease rate for AFVs as theydo for conventional vehicles. Programparticipants include agencies such asDOE and the Department of the Army. Several other special programs alsoprovide incentives for purchasingAFVs in various metropolitan areasand regions of the country. For moreinformation, see www.fleets.doe.gov/.

Utility Incentives and SupportEspecially for large fleets, natural gasis usually either competitive or favorable in price in comparison to gasolineor diesel fuel. This is so because, inmost cases, the price is based on thetotal amount of gas a facility uses,including the amount used to heatbuildings, water, and so on. So,because of the increase in the total gas order, the agency is in a good position to negotiate with a supplier for a competitive price. 

fuel, try to negotiate the price up front,if possible. If your fleet can commit to

a certain amount of business based on

the number of AFVs that will use thepublic station, you might be able tonegotiate a set price or a “not-toexceed” price with that station.

Hypothetical Case Study:GSA-Leased Fleet, RuralTexasThis case study is hypothetical, but itrepresents a fairly typical situation formany Federal facilities that operatemedium-sized or large fleets. See theAppendix for a more detailed cost analysis associated with this study.Facility DescriptionA large fleet in rural Texas owns 1000vehicles and replaces an average of150 vehicles per year. All of the vehicles are leased from GSA. The fleetoperates a majority of the vehicles(about 80%) on its own property.Vehicles that travel off the property are generally sedans or vans used to transport passengers rather thanequipment. The fleet has its owngarage, and most maintenance andrepairs are done on site.Existing Technology DescriptionPrimarily, the fleet operates gasolinevehicles. A few bi-fuel pickup trucksthat can operate on gasoline or CNGhave been purchased in the last twoyears as part of a pilot CNG vehicleprogram. The fleet has been refuelingthe CNG vehicles using a slow-fillrefueling capability—also called a “station”—on the site.

9

Table 3. Incremental Costs forSelected Alternative Fuel Vehicles(averages)

Approximate Range

Vehicle Type for Incremental CostEthanol Sedan $70CNG Sedan $5,400–7,800Ethanol Pickup Truck(Compact) $250LPG Pickup Truck (Full-Size) $2,300–6,400CNG Van $3,500–5,100CNG Pickup Truck (Full-Size) $1,700–7,100
n the amount of CNG

eed to purchase, the

gotiate a better rate from

ny and thus reduce the

ng costs, as well.

the relative complexity

n to use CNG vehicles, 

icult for operators to

n acquiring flexible-fuel

asoline) vehicles for this

hicles have virtually no

sts, and they can oper

nal fuels when the alter

not available. Because

ehicles are refueled pri

 the facility can rather

 one gasoline refueling

nol when there are

es to support the switch.

er will be inexpensive,

a new tank and a few

 be required. The pump

n be the same as those

 to dispense gasoline. 

on and Post-Implemen

ence

l be a challenge to main

ew AFVs and the refuel

ools and procedures

NG vehicles are different

ociated with the tradi

s and infrastructure. So,

aining is needed for

crews. Once the crews

ed, however, they will 

rate and maintain the

new refueling station
Ford Motor Company family preferred to use their electric vehicles,because electrics were quieter andcleaner in terms of emissions. But electric vehicles were rapidly giving way in popularity to those with agasoline-powered combustion engine,and Henry Ford sold thousands of hismoderately priced Model T automobiles in the early part of the 20th century. Today’s renewed interest inalternative vehicles probably beganduring the gasoline shortages of the1970s and increased during the GulfWar of the 1990s, largely because ofsupply and cost issues associated with imported oil. Beginning in the 1993 model year, vehicle manufacturers who are required tomeet certain fuel efficiency standardswere able to receive credits for producing AFVs. These credits indicatethat AFVs are considered to be morefuel efficient than comparable gasoline or diesel fuel vehicles. At aboutthe same time, several regulations also required fleets to minimize airpollution and purchase AFVs. Fleetowners who were required by regulations to purchase AFVs began creating additional demand, and there were new incentives for manufacturers to sell these vehicles to earnfuel economy credits.Initially, the primary focus was on natural gas and propane vehicles, whichhave always been fairly common inthe heavy-duty (8,500–14,000 lb.) classof vehicles. Then, some manufacturersbegan producing methanol vehicles in a flexible-fuel configuration, which

pp

y

structure fairly stable. However, it is not easy to predict the market growth of these products. In order for alternative fuels to be used widely, AFVsneed to reach the general driving public in significant numbers. Increasing the market for AFVs couldbe somewhat difficult, as well. On theone hand, consumers might hesitate to purchase AFVs until commercialrefueling stations for alternative fuelsare readily available. On the otherhand, private fuel station ownersmight hesitate to increase the alternative refueling infrastructure by addingnew stations until there are enoughvehicles to make the stations economically viable. Therefore, the currentfocus is on fleets that can either operate their own stations or work withlocal fuel suppliers to commit to a certain amount of business at an established station. Fleets that operate stations themselves are also encouragedto open them up to the public, so moreU.S. drivers will have access to alternative fuels.To help mitigate the obstacles to more

widespread use, the Federal government continues to provide incentivesto fleets to acquire AFVs. And legislation is proposed frequently to stimulate the AFV market. Concerns aboutglobal warming and unstable gasolineprices could also spur increases in ournation’s use of alternative fuels andAFVs. 

y 

alternative fuels, primarily to meet the requirements of EPAct and E.O.13149. All around the country, agencies such DOE, the U.S. Postal Service,the Marine Corps, and the Navy havedone an excellent job of acquiringAFVs and locating or installing analternative refueling infrastructurenear their facilities. For more information, contact Shabnam Fardanesh,DOE, 202-586-7011, or KathleenNawaz, NREL, 202-646-5059.Non-Federal SitesMany organizations, such as SuperShuttle and Schwan’s Sales Enterprises, use alternative fuel vehicles. In addition, many state agencies alsohave fleets of AFVs. For more information about non-Federal fleets thatoperate AFVs, contact the DOERegional Office or Duty Station liaison for your state (see the listbelow). Because DOE works closelywith local fleets and Clean Cities coalitions to advance alternative fuels, the DOE contacts listed in thispublication can provide more information about local and regional activities.Atlanta Region (AL, AR, FL, GA, KY,MS, NC, SC, TN)David Dunagan404-562-0561Boston Region (CT, MA, ME, NH, NY,RI, VT)Michael Scarpino617-565-9716Chicago Region (IN, IL, IA, MI, MN,MO, OH, WI)

11

13
urrent gasoline pumps

her fleets in the area, 

proximately 78,000 

s are comparable to

er year. Each vehicle

leet manager decides 

ch year, 75 of them 

rally replaces vehicles

when the fleet is fully

The refueling facility for

s, a CNG facility will be

eet has agreed to allow

lons per year, or 6,500

or the gaso-line pumps.

cle was assumed to cost 

ol produced from corn 

n.” This ratio of price 

dditional production 

rsity of Buffalo) stating 

y of Buffalo study indi

numbers, and using 

y $1.12/gallon.
15

Notes:This analysis assumed that CNG costs will escalate at the same rate as natural gas costs for an industrial customer, andthat ethanol costs will escalate at the same rate as gasoline. DOE escalation rates have indicated that gasoline costs willdecrease in the next 10 years rather than increase.PV is present value; UPV is uniform present value; LCC is life-cycle cost.PV of fuel costs = net present value of fleet vehicle fuel costs for the 10-year study period.PV of fuel costs = (current year cost of fuel) x (FEMP UPV discount factor).UPV discount factor for industrial natural gas, n = 10 years, United States average = 6.89, used in the analysis for the CNG scenario.UPV discount factor for transportation gasoline, n = 10 years, United States average = 7.92, used in the base case and E85 scenarios.Sources:EIA U.S. Retail Gasoline Prices: www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_/publications/wrgp/mogas_home_page.html.

EIA Reports, April 26, 2000: www.eia.doe.gov/neic/press/press156.html.

Goldblaum, Ellen. “Cleaner air on campus.” State University of New York at Buffalo Reporter, Vol. 28, No. 3, September 12, 1996.U.S. Department of Commerce, Technology Administration. National Institute of Standards and Technology. Energy PriceIndices and Discount Factors for Life-Cycle Cost Analysis–April 2001. NISTIR 85-3273-16. Online at www.eren.doe.gov/femp/techassist/softwaretools/softwaretools.html#factors.

gy 

p

tions nationwide. One of these activities,new technology demonstrations, istasked to accelerate the introduction of energy-efficient and renewable technologies into the Federal sector and toimprove the rate of technology transfer. As part of this effort, FEMP sponsors thefollowing series of publications that aredesigned to disseminate information onnew and emerging technologies:Technology Focuses—brief informationon new, energy-efficient, environmentallyfriendly technologies of potential interestto the Federal sector.Federal Technology Alerts—longer summary reports that provide details onenergy-efficient, water-conserving, andrenewable-energy technologies that havebeen selected for further study for possible implementation in the Federal sector.Additional information on Federal Technology Alerts (FTAs) is provided in thenext column.

in the Federal sector.

More on Federal Technology AlertsFederal Technology Alerts, our signaturereports, provide summary informationon candidate energy-saving technologiesdeveloped and manufactured in theUnited States. The technologies featuredin the FTAs have already entered themarket and have some experience butare not in general use in the Federal sector.The goal of the FTAs is to improve therate of technology transfer of new energy-saving technologies within theFederal sector and to provide the rightpeople in the field with accurate, up-todate information on the new technologies so that they can make educatedjudgments on whether the technologiesare suitable for their Federal sites.The information in the FTAs typicallyincludes a description of the candidatetechnology; the results of its screening 

to facilitate information-sharing betweenmanufacturers and government staff.While the technology featured promisessignificant Federal-sector savings, theFTAs do not constitute FEMP’s endorsement of a particular product, as FEMPhas not independently verified performance data provided by manufacturers.Nor do the FTAs attempt to chart marketactivity vis-a-vis the technology featured.Readers should note the publication dateon the back cover, and consider the FTAsas an accurate picture of the technologyand its performance at the time of publication. Product innovations and theentrance of new manufacturers or suppliers should be anticipated since thedate of publication. FEMP encouragesinterested Federal energy and facilitymanagers to contact the manufacturersand other Federal sites directly, and touse the worksheets in the FTAs to aid in their purchasing decisions.

Federal Energy Management ProgramThe Federal Government is the largest energy consumer in the nation. Annually, in its 500,000 buildings and 8,000 locationsworldwide, it uses nearly two quadrillion Btu (quads) of energy, costing over $8 billion. This represents 2.5% of all primaryenergy consumption in the United States. The Federal Energy Management Program was established in 1974 to providedirection, guidance, and assistance to Federal agencies in planning and implementing energy management programs thatwill improve the energy efficiency and fuel flexibility of the Federal infrastructure.Over the years, several Federal laws and Executive Orders have shaped FEMP's mission. These include the Energy Policyand Conservation Act of 1975; the National Energy Conservation and Policy Act of 1978; the Federal Energy ManagementImprovement Act of 1988; the National Energy Policy Act of 1992; Executive Order 13123, signed in 1999; and most recently,Executive Order 13221, signed in 2001, and the Presidential Directive of May 3, 2001.FEMP is currently involved in a wide range of energy-assessment activities, including conducting new technology demonstrations, to hasten the penetration of energy-efficient technologies into the Federal marketplace.
Disclaimer 

This report was sponsored by the United States Department of Energy, Office of Federal 

Energy Management Programs. Neither the United States Government nor any agency 

or contractor thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or 

implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, 

or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents 

that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific 

commercial product, process, or service by trade name, mark, manufacturer, or 

otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, 

or favoring by the United States Government or any agency or contractor thereof. The 

views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those 

of the United States Government or any agency or contractor thereof. 
Washington, DC 20585Phone: 202-586-8017Fax: 202-586-3000theodore.collins@ee.doe.govSteven A. ParkerPacific Northwest National 

Laboratory

P.O. Box 999, MSIN: K5-08Richland, WA 99352Phone: 509-375-6366Fax: 509-375-3614steven.parker@pnl.govTechnical ContactsShabnam FardaneshOffice of Transportation 

Technologies

U.S. Department of Energy1000 Independence Ave., S.W., 

EE-90

Washington, D.C. 20585Phone: 202-586-7011Fax: 202-586-1610Kathleen NawazNational Renewable Energy 

Laboratory

Washington Office901 D Street, S.W., Suite 930Washington, D.C. 20024-2157Phone: 202-646-5059Fax: 202-646-7780kathleen_nawaz@nrel.govProduced for the U.S. Departmentof Energy, Energy Efficiency andRenewable Energy, by the NationalRenewable Energy Laboratory, a DOE national laboratoryDOE/EE-0280September 2003U.S. Department of EnergyEnergy Efficiency andRenewable Energy

h