DOE/EIA-0585(95)

Distribution Category UC-950

Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995

Volume 1

December 1996

Energy Information Administration

Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric and Alternate Fuels

U.S. Department of Energy

Washington, DC 20585

This report was prepared by the Energy Information Administration, the independent statistical and

analytical agency within the Department of Energy. The information contained herein should not be

construed as advocating or reflecting any policy position of the Department of Energy or of any other

organization.
ii Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995

Contacts

This report was prepared by the Energy Information cerning alternative-fueled vehicles and fuel consumption

Administration (EIA), Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric and may be referred to Mary Joyce (202/426-1168) or Jorge

Alternate Fuels. General information about this document Luna-Camara (202/426-1170). Questions concerning the

may be obtained from the National Energy Information EIA-886 survey, “Alternative Fuels Vehicle Suppliers

Center (202/586-8800). Further information about the Annual Report,” may be directed to Chris Buckner

report may be obtained from Fred Mayes (202/426-1166), (202/426-1167).

Chief of the Renewable Energy Branch. Questions con-
Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995 iii

Contents

Page

Overview ............................................................................................... 1

1. Introduction .......................................................................................... 9

2. Alternative-Fueled Vehicles in Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Alternative-Fueled Vehicle Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Regional Distribution of AFV’s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Alternative-Fueled Vehicles Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Alternative-Fueled Vehicles by Weight Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3. Alternative and Replacement Fuel Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Alternative Fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Oxygenates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

4. Alternative-Fueled Vehicles Made Available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

AFV’s Made Available, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

AFV’s Made Available, 1995 Versus 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Outlook—1996 AFV’s to be Made Available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

5. Special Topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Federal Rule for Alternative-Fueled Vehicle Acquisitions by State Government and Fuel Provider Fleets . . . . . 29

State and Industry Incentives for Alternative-Fueled Vehicles and State Taxes on Alternative and

 Traditional Transportation Fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Biodiesel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Fuel Cells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Alternative Fuel Refueling Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Appendices

A. Estimation Methods and Data Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

B. U.S. Census Region Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

C. Alternative-Fueled Vehicle Suppliers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
iv Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995

Tables Page

1. Estimated Number of Alternative-Fueled Vehicles in Use in the United States, by Fuel, 1992-1997 . . . . . . . . . . 11

2. Estimated Number of Alternative-Fueled Vehicles in Use in the United States, by Fuel and Census Region,

1995-1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3. Estimated Number of Alternative-Fueled Vehicles in Use, by State, 1995-1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

4. Estimated Number of Alternative-Fueled Vehicles in Use by U.S. Private Entities, by Fuel and

Weight Category, 1993, 1995, and 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

5. Estimated Number of Alternative-Fueled Vehicles in Use by State and Local Governments,

by Fuel and Weight Category, 1993, 1995, and 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

6. Estimated Number of Alternative-Fueled Vehicles in Use by the U.S. Federal Government, 

by Fuel and Weight Category, 1993, 1995, and 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

7. Estimated Consumption of Vehicle Fuels in the United States, 1992-1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

8. Share of Alternate Transportation Fuel Consumption, by Region, 1995-1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

9. Estimated Consumption of Alternate Transportation Fuels in the United States, by Vehicle Ownership,

1993, 1995, and 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

10. Estimated Consumption of Alternate Transportation Fuels in the United States, by Fuel and Vehicle Weight, 

1993, 1995, and 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

11. Number of Onroad Alternative-Fueled Vehicles Made Available, by Fuel Type and Vehicle

Configuration, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

12. Number of Nonroad Alternative-Fueled Vehicles Made Available in 1995 and Planned to be

Made Available in 1996, by Fuel Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

13. Number of Onroad Alternative-Fueled Vehicles Planned to be Made Available, by Fuel Type and 

Vehicle Configuration, 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

14. State and Industry Incentives for Alternative-Fueled Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

15. State Taxes on Alternative and Traditional Transportation Fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

16. Comparison of Conventional Diesel and Biodiesel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

17. Alternative Fuel Refueling Sites by State and Fuel Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

A1. Typical Conventional Vehicle Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

A2. Original and Adjusted Lower Heating Values of Conventional and Replacement Fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

C1. Alternative-Fueled Vehicle Suppliers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Figures

1. Estimated Number of Alternative-Fueled Vehicles in Use in the United States, 1992-1997 ................... 1

2. Estimated Number of LPG-Fueled and Non LPG Fueled Vehicles in Use in the United States, 1992-1997 ..... 2

3. Share of Estimated Number of Alternative-Fueled Vehicles in Use in the United States, by Non LPG Fuel,

1992-1997 .......................................................................................... 2

4. Estimated Number of Alternative-Fueled Vehicles in Use, by Census Region, 1995 ......................... 3

5. States Having the Largest Number of AFV’s in Use, 1995 ................................................ 3

6. Estimated Number of Alternative-Fueled Vehicles in Use by Ownership Classification, 1993, 1995 and 1997 . . 4

7. Estimated Consumption of Alternative Fuels and Oxygenates in the United States, 1992-1997 ............... 5

8. Share of Estimated Consumption of Alternative Fuels in the United States, by Census Region, 

1995, 1996, and 1997 ................................................................................ 5

9. Share of Estimated Consumption of Alternative Fuels in the United States, by Weight Class,

1993, 1995, and 1997 ................................................................................ 6

10. Number of Onroad Alternative-Fueled Vehicles Made Available in 1995 and Planned to Made Available in 

1996, by Fuel Type .................................................................................. 7

11. Percentage Share of Onroad Alternative-Fueled Vehicles Made Available in 1995 and Planned to

Made Available in 1996, by Vehicle Category ......................................................... 8

12. Number of Onroad Alternative-Fueled Vehicles Made Available in 1995 and Planned to Made Available in

1996, by Vehicle Category ........................................................................... 8

B1. U.S. Census Region Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995 9

Alternative-fueled vehicle is defined as a vehicle either designed and manufactured by an original equipment manufacturer or a 1

converted vehicle designed to operate in either dual-fuel, flexible-fuel, bi-fuel, or dedicated modes on fuels other than gasoline or diesel. This

does not include a conventional vehicle that is limited to operation on blended or reformulated gasoline.

Section 301 of EPACT defines alternative fuels as: methanol, denatured ethanol, and other alcohols; mixtures containing 85 percent or 2

more (or such other percentage, but not less than 70 percent, as determined by the Secretary of Energy, by rule, to provide for requirements

relating to cold start, safety, or vehicle functions) by volume of methanol, denatured ethanol, and other alcohols with gasoline or other fuels;

natural gas; liquefied petroleum gas; hydrogen; coal-derived liquid fuels; fuels (other than alcohol) derived from biological materials; electricity

(including electricity from solar energy); and any other fuel the Secretary determines, by rule, is substantially not petroleum and would yield

substantial energy security benefits and substantial environmental benefits. EPACT defines replacement fuels as the portion of any motor fuel

that is methanol, ethanol, or other alcohols, natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, hydrogen, coal-derived liquid fuels, fuels (other than alcohol)

derived from biological materials, electricity (including electricity from solar energy), ethers, or any other fuel the Secretary of Energy

determines, by rule, is substantially not petroleum and would yield substantial energy security benefits and substantial environmental benefits.

Data for biodiesel are not included in this report. However, a discussion is presented in Chapter 5. 3

Energy Information Administration, Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1994, Volume 2, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, DOE/EIA- 4

0585/2(94)/2 (Washington, DC, August 1996).

Energy Information Administration, Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels: An Overview, DOE/EIA-0585(0) (Washington, DC, 5

June 1994).

Energy Information Administration, Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1993, DOE/EIA-0585(93) (Washington, DC, January 6

1995).

Energy Information Administration, Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1994, Volume 1, DOE/EIA-0585/1(94) (Washington, 7

DC, February 1996).

Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-886, “Alternative Fuel Vehicle Suppliers’ Annual Report.” 8

1. Introduction

This report provides information on transportation fuels Congress enacted EPACT with the objectives of lessening

other than gasoline and diesel, and the vehicles that use U.S. dependence on foreign petroleum and promoting

these fuels. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) energy efficiency. At the same time, EPACT requires that

provides this information to support the U.S. Department efforts to attain these objectives incorporate assessments

of Energy’s reporting obligations under Section 503 of the of their consequences in regard to greenhouse gas

Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT). The principal production. Many have regarded the use of ATF’s as a

information contained in this report includes historical way to lessen dependency on foreign oil while simuland year-ahead estimates of the following: taneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions. EIA re-

  The number and type of alternative-fueled vehicles

(AFV’s) in use (Chapter 2) 1

  The consumption of alternative transportation fuels

and “replacement fuels” (Chapter 3) 2

  The number and type of alternative-fueled vehicles

made available in the current and following years

(Chapter 4).

In addition, the report contains some material on special

topics (Chapter 5). The appendices include a discussion of

the methodology used to develop the estimates (Appendix

A), a map defining geographic regions used (Appendix

B), and a list of AFV suppliers (Appendix C).

The alternative transportation fuels (ATF’s) considered in

this report are compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied

natural gas (LNG), liquefied petroleum gas (LPG, i.e.

propane), methanol, ethanol, electricity, and biodiesel.3

Vehicles consuming these fuels may either be “new”

AFV’s or existing vehicles with converted fueling systems.

cently released a report comparing greenhouse gas

emissions from gasoline and ATF’s.4

EIA produced its first report on AFV’s and ATF’s in 1994.5

It contains extensive background material on ATF and

AFV characteristics, legislation, and industry-related

information, and provides some early estimates of AFV

inventories and ATF consumption. Subsequently in 1995,

EIA produced its first annual data report, with data for 6

1992-1995. A similar report followed in 1996. Thus, this 7

report is EIA’s third annual report on alternative

transportation fuels.

EIA derives its information from a wide variety of sources.

EIA conducts a survey to determine the number and type 8

of AFV’s made available in the current year and expected

to be made available in the following year. Industry

information and EIA data are used to estimate the AFV

population and ATF consumption. Finally, the U.S.

Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy, provides EIA with information, both

to develop estimates and to report on AFV/ATF progress.
Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995 1

Figure 1. Estimated Number of Alternative-Fueled Vehicles in Use in

the United States, 1992–1997

Source: Table 1, p. 11.

O v e r v i e w

Concerns about the environmental impact of fossil fuel use and

the Nation's continuing dependence on foreign oil are

stimulating the use of alternative-fueled vehicles (AFV’s) and 

alternative fuels. Generally, alternative fuels are those other than

gasoline and diesel.

ALTERNATIVE-FUELED VEHICLES IN USE O v e r v i e w

s

More than 333,000 AFV’s

were in use in 1995, a 6

percent increase since 1993.

s

The number of AFV’s in use

in the United States is

expected to increase at an

average annual rate of 7.6

percent between 1995 and 

1997.

Growth in AFV’s and alternative transportation fuels is primarily the result of —

1. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT) and Presidential Executive Order 12844

requiring minimum AFV purchases for Federal government vehicle fleets beginning in

1993.

2. EPACT mandates for the acquisition of AFV’s by State and local government fleets and

some private fleets scheduled to take effect over the next few years.
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

LPG

NonLPG

2 Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995

O v e r v i e w ALTERNATIVE-FUELED VEHICLES IN USE

s

More than three-fourths of

the AFV’s in use in 1995 were

vehicles designed to operate

on liquefied petroleum gas

(LPG), primarily propane.

s

LPG fueled vehicles will

continue to dominate AFV’s

for some time, even though

their share of the total is

expected to decline from 88

percent in 1992 to 71 percent

in 1997.

Figure 2. Estimated Number of LPG-Fueled and Non LPG Fueled

Vehicles in Use in the United States, 1992–1997

 Note: Declines during 1994 and 1995 in LPG vehicles may be the result of differences

in data sources used to develop estimates for those years.

 Source: Table 1, p. 11.

Figure 3. Share of Estimated Number of Alternative-Fueled Vehicles in

Use in the United States, by Non LPG Fuel, 1992–1997

Source: Table 1, p. 11.

s

Among all AFV’s not fueled

with LPG, alcohol vehicles

(methanol and ethanol)

increased from 18 percent in

1992 to more than 27 percent

in 1995. Growth through

1997 will largely come from

ethanol.

s

Natural gas fueled vehicles

continue to represent more

than two-thirds of the nonLPG AFV’s in use.

s

The share of electric vehicles

continues to decline,

representing less than 4

percent of non-LPG vehicles

in use in 1995.
Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995 3

Figure 4. Estimated Number of Alternative-Fueled Vehicles in Use,by

Census Region, 1995

Figure 5. States Having the Largest Number of AFV’s in Use, 1995

ALTERNATIVE-FUELED VEHICLES IN USE O v e r v i e w

Source Table 2, p. 14.

2

The South, with 35 percent of

all AFV’s in 1995, continues

to lead the other regions.

2

Between 1995 and 1997, the

number of AFV’s is expected

to grow most rapidly in the

West, where AFV’s are

anticipated to increase by 20

percent, compared to

nationwide growth of 16

percent. The South is

expected to experience the

slowest growth (13 percent). 

Source: Table 3, p. 16.

s

In 1995, 9 States had more

than 10,000 AFV’s in use.

s

One fourth of the AFV’s in

use are located in California

(51,745) and Texas (32,307).

They continue to lead all

other States by a wide

margin in the number of

AFV’s in use.

s

By 1997, Georgia and Florida

are also expected to exceed

10,000 AFV’s.
1993 1995 1997

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Thousands

Federal

State

& Local

Private

4 Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995

Growth in AFV’s and replacement fuels is also the result of —

3. Voluntary AFV programs encouraged by EPACT, such as the DOE Clean Cities

program.

4. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA90), requiring the addition of oxygenates

(e.g., ethanol) to gasoline during winter months in specified metropolitan areas,

beginning in 1992, to reduce carbon monoxide emissions.

5. CAAA90 requirements for using reformulated gasoline in designated areas, beginning in

1995, to reduce smog.

6. The 1988 Alternative Motor Fuels Act, directing Federal agencies to administer

programs that encourage the development of alternative fuels and the production of

alternative-fueled vehicles.

O v e r v i e w ALTERNATIVE-FUELED VEHICLES IN USE

s

The majority of AFV’s in use are

privately owned.

s

Ownership of AFV’s by the Federal

government has increased more

rapidly than State and local

government ownership, which has

increased more rapidly than private

ownership.

Figure 6. Estimated Number of Alternative-Fueled Vehicles in 

Use by Ownership Classification, 1993, 1995, and

1997

Source: Tables 4-6, pp. 17-18.
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

1

2

3

4

5

Billion Gasoline Equivalent Gallons

Oxygenates Alternative Fuels

Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995 5

ALTERNATIVE-FUELED VEHICLE CONSUMPTION O v e r v i e w

Figure 7. Estimated Consumption of Alternative Fuels and

Oxygenates in the United States, 1992-1997

Source: Table 7, p. 20.

s

Whereas traditional fuels are

expected to increase 19 percent

from 1992 to 1997, alternative

fuels and oxygenates will rise far

faster—84 percent over the

period.

s

Increasing use of oxygenates

represents the largest part of this

increase, with a growth of 91.5

percent from 1992 to 1995.

s

Alternative fuel use increased

more than 21 percent during the

same period while representing

little more than 10 percent of the

total gasoline-equivalent gallons

used.
1995 1996 1997

0

10

20

30

40

Northeast South Midwest West

6 Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995

Figure 8. Share of Estimated Consumption of Alternative Fuels in

the United States, by Census Region, 1995, 1996, and

1997

Source: Table 8, p. 21.

s

Alternative fuel consumption

patterns by region vary slightly

from the number of vehicles in

use, with the South leading in

fuel consumed, followed by the

Midwest and West.

s

The estimated share of alternative

fuel consumed is expected to

change slightly by 1997, with the

South representing slightly less

consumption and the West

slightly more than current

proportions.
0

20

40

60

80

Non-LPG

LPG

Non-LPG

LPG

1993 1995 1997

Light Duty Heavy Duty

Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995 7

O v e r v i e w ALTERNATIVE-FUELED VEHICLE CONSUMPTION

s

The percentage of alternative fuel

consumed by light duty vehicles

increased from 60 to 63 percent from

1993 to 1995 but is expected to

decline to an estimated 61 percent

by 1997.

s

Light duty vehicles are those

weighing less than 8,500 pounds,

usually passenger cars, vans, and

small pick up trucks.

s

The increase in non-LPG alternate

transportation fuel composition is

led by a 300 percent increase in

compressed natural gas use

anticipated between 1993 and 1997.

Figure 9. Share of Estimated Consumption of Alternative Fuels

in the United States, by Weight Class, 1993, 1995,

and 1997

Source: Table 10, p. 23.
6.004

3.584

9.568

13.482

1.765

5.6

0.551

4.669

1995 1996

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

LPG Natural Gas

Alcohols Electricity & Other

5.600

8 Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995

ALTERNATIVE-FUELED VEHICLES MADE AVAILABLE O v e r v i e w

Chapter Four presents the number and type of alternative-fueled vehicles made available in the United

States in 1995 and planned to be made available in 1996.

In 1995, EIA initiated a survey of AFV suppliers. Data show that for 1995 and 1996

combined, these suppliers made available (and expect to make available) some—

2 45,000 onroad AFV’s

2 126,000 nonroad AFV’s, such as agricultural and construction vehicles and forklifts.

Figure 10. Number of Onroad Alternative-Fueled Vehicles Made

Available in 1995 and Planned to Made Available in 1996,

by Fuel Type

 Notes: Some data withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Natural gas

includes compressed natural gas and liquefied natural gas.

 Source: Tables 11 and 13, p. 26 and 28, respectively.

s

The number of onroad AFV’s

made available is expected to

increase by nearly 53 percent

from 1995 to 1996.

s

The largest number of

onroad AFV’s expected to be

made available will be fueled

by natural gas, rising more

than 40 percent.

s

Electric onroad AFV’s are

expected to show both the

largest absolute and

percentage increase in

vehicles made available,

growing 767 percent from

1995 to 1996.
Dedicated Nondedicated

Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995 9

O v e r v i e w ALTERNATIVE-FUELED VEHICLES MADE AVAILABLE

s

The relative percentage of

Onroad AFV’s, by vehicle

type, is expected to change

only slightly from 1995 to

1996.

s

Automobiles and Other

Onroad Vehicles are expected

to have the largest increase in

vehicles made available,

increasing 160 and 155

percent, respectively, from

1995 to 1996.

s

All other categories of Onroad

AFV’s are expected to show

small increases in vehicles

made available from 1995 to

1996 except Passenger Vans,

which are expected to decline

slightly.

Figure 11. Percentage Share of Onroad Alternative-Fueled Vehicles

Made Available in 1995 and Planned to be Made Available

in 1996, by Vehicle Category

Source: Tables 11 and 13, p. 26 and 28, respectively.

s

The percentage of dedicated

(single fueled) AFV’s is

expected to increase by about

9 percent from 1995 to 1996.

s

The share of dedicated

Automobile, Passenger Van,

Cargo Van/Pickup, and Other

Onroad AFV’s is expected to

increase markedly from 1995

to 1996. A slight decline in the

number of dedicated AFV’s is

expected in the Other Truck

and Buses categories.

Figure 12. Number of Onroad Alternative-Fueled Vehicles Made

Available in 1995 and Planned to be Made Available in

1996, by Vehicle Category

Source: Tables 11 and 13, p. 26 and 28, respectively.
Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995 11

Fuel 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Average

Annual

Growth

Rate

(percent)

Liquefied Petroleum Gases (LPG) . . . a 221,000 269,000 264,000 R259,000 R266,000 273,000 4.3

Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) ..... 23,191 32,714 41,227 R50,218 R62,805 81,747 28.7

Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) . . . . . . . . 90 299 R484 R603 R715 955 60.4

Methanol, 85 Percent (M85) ........ b 4,850 10,263 15,484 R18,319 R19,636 19,787 32.5

Methanol, Neat (M100) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 404 414 415 R386 R155 130 -20.3

Ethanol, 85 Percent (E85) ......... b 172 441 605 R1,527 R3,575 5,859 102.5

Ethanol, 95 Percent (E95) ......... b 38 27 33 R136 R341 341 55.1

Electricity ....................... R1,607 R1,690 R2,224 R2,860 R3,306 3,925 19.6

 Non-LPG Subtotal ............... R30,352 R45,848 R60,472 R74,049 R90,533 112,744 30.0

Total ........................... R251,352 R314,848 R324,472 R333,049 R356,533 385,744 8.9

 Values represent lower bound estimates and are rounded to thousands. Accordingly, these estimates are not equal to the sum of Federal fleet data a

(for which exact counts are available) and non-Federal fleet estimates (rounded to thousands).

 The remaining portion of 85-percent methanol and both ethanol fuels is gasoline. b

 R = Revised.

 Note: Estimates for historical years are in roman type; estimates for 1997, based on plans or projections, are in italic.

 Sources: Federal: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Non-Federal: Science Applications International

Corporation, “Alternative Transportation Fuels and Vehicles Data Development,” unpublished final report prepared for the Energy Information

Administration (McLean, VA, July 1996).

Table 1. Estimated Number of Alternative-Fueled Vehicles in Use in the United States, by Fuel, 1992-1997

2. Alternative-Fueled Vehicles In Use

Alternative-Fueled Vehicle Inventory

The number of alternative-fueled vehicles (AFV’s) in use of 71 percent in 1997). Although the number of LPG

is expected to increase at an average annual rate of 7.6 vehicles in use is expected to increase at about the same

percent between 1995 and 1997, compared to an average rate as that of conventional vehicles from 1995 to 1997, the

annual rate of 9.8 percent from 1992 to 1995. Revised actual number of LPG vehicles cannot be determined

estimates of the number of AFV’s in use at the end of 1995 precisely. The estimates in this report are considered

are lower than reported a year ago (Table 1). Slower than minimum estimates. Some evidence suggests the actual

expected growth in liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and count could be as high as 300,000 to 350,000.

compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles is the major

reason for the lower estimates.

Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Vehicles

LPG vehicles continue to dominate AFV’s, but they are

growing at a slower rate than most other types of AFV’s.

As a result, the share of AFV’s attributable to LPG vehicles

is declining (from 88 percent in 1992 to an expected level

LPG vehicle estimates were derived from State-level data.

Reasonably accurate government or private sources of

data on the number of onroad LPG vehicles exist for only

about one-third of the States. Estimates for the remaining

States were imputed based on LPG usage data from the

Energy Information Administration’s State Energy Data

Report (see Appendix A). The estimates in this report are

subject to known data limitations, such as inconsistencies
12 Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995

In some States, the purchase of fuel use decals for LPG or other alternative-fueled vehicles is an alternative to paying fuel taxes at the 9

pump. In States with decal programs, some require decals while others make it optional.

between LPG tank sales and decal sales and the indicated dissatisfaction with the absence of scale 9

widespread acknowledgment of underreporting or economies in their CNG vehicle programs. Many of these

misreporting of vehicles and fuel. These limitations imply utilities are trimming their programs. Considerable

that the values in this report should be considered enthusiasm still exists for CNG at many of the utilities

estimated minimum values. with the largest fleets; the previously widespread and

Revised estimates of LPG vehicles in use at the end of

1995 are lower than previously reported (259,000 compared to 272,000 reported a year ago). Revised 1995

estimates are also lower than those for 1994. These

changes, however, do not necessarily indicate a decline in

the LPG vehicle population but could indicate an

improvement in the accuracy of the estimation (1994

estimates of total LPG vehicles have not been revised for

this report).

Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Vehicles

While the share of LPG vehicles is expected to decline, the

share of vehicles designed to operate on CNG is expected

to grow, from 9 percent of all AFV’s in 1992 to 21 percent

in 1997. The number of CNG-fueled vehicles in use is

expected to increase by more than 60 percent from 1995 to

1997. The estimated number of CNG vehicles in use at

the end of 1995, however, has been revised downward

from about 66,000 in last year’s report to about 50,000 in

this report. A smaller number of light-duty, private

vehicles, which comprise almost half of CNG vehicles,

accounted for most of the revision.

Growth in the use of CNG vehicles does not appear to be

uniform across the natural gas industry. Most of the

growth appears to be occurring at utilities that service the

largest fleets (both utility and nonutility). This variability

within the industry has increased dramatically over the

past year due to a number of factors, including changes in

regulatory policy in California, the lack of scale economies

in some CNG vehicle programs, and EPACT compliance

issues.

In November 1995, the California Public Utilities

Commission ordered the State’s utilities to stop using

ratepayer funds for engine development work, vehicle or

station incentives, marketing, and similar programs.

Funding is allowed only for safety, education, information, and related functions. The response was varied.

At least one major California utility drastically curtailed

its CNG vehicle program. Another refocused its program

toward large, high-fuel-usage vehicles.

Independent of the California ruling, numerous utilities

with small or mid-sized CNG vehicle operations have

rapid growth appears to be narrowing to them.

Another important and continuing trend is a shift toward

vehicles in heavier weight classes. The proportion of CNG

vehicles in use that are heavy-duty vehicles increased

from 10 percent in 1992 to 14 percent in 1995. This level

is expected to remain stable through 1997. This change is

significant for both vehicles and fuel use.

Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Vehicles

The number of vehicles designed to operate on LNG,

although relatively small, continues to grow steadily as

more fleet managers conduct trials of the fuel. From 1995

to 1997, growth is expected to be particularly strong in the

western United States. Transit buses and heavy-duty

trucks remain the primary users of LNG, but the number

of light-duty LNG vehicles is higher than previously

estimated. Further investigation identified several lightduty LNG vehicles that were not included in last year’s

report. Because some of the newly identified vehicles

were actually operating in 1994, estimates of the number

of LNG vehicles in 1994 have been revised. 

Estimates for 1997 are based largely on orders already

placed and expressed intentions to adopt LNG; however,

some uncertainty remains about the accuracy of these

estimates. The number of vehicles expected to be

deployed depends significantly on the success of a few

large transit organizations in operating and adopting

LNG buses, and on the success of trucking organizations

in utilizing LNG in their fuel mix. Future growth also

depends on several other factors, including increased fuel

system reliability, resolution of outstanding safety and

maintenance issues, development of an LNG infrastructure, and the availability of government subsidies for

bus purchases and test programs.

Methanol (M85 and M100) Vehicles

By 1997, methanol vehicles are expected to comprise 5

percent of all AFV’s, an increase from 2 percent in 1992.

The number of M85 vehicles, which almost quadrupled

from 1992 to 1995, is expected to increase at a much

slower pace from 1995 to 1997. Growth is expected to
Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995 13

occur primarily in California, where most of the United figured for E95 by LACTMA. The private market for E95-

States’ methanol vehicles are operated. The use of M85- fueled vehicles is almost nonexistent. 

fueled vehicles in California may peak in the next few

years because methanol costs, emissions savings, and bus

reliability have become major concerns. Competition for

methanol by methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) suppliers

has been a particular problem in California. Growth in

M85-fueled vehicles has resulted almost exclusively from

Federal, State, and local government expansion or from

incentives to the private sector in California. Some

uncertainty surrounds the estimates for 1997, which are

largely based on California Energy Commission plans that

are contingent upon original equipment manufacturers’

(OEM) vehicle production and customer purchases.

Although M85 vehicles are expected to continue

increasing, the number of vehicles designed to operate on

M100 (neat methanol) is expected to decline substantially.

No new M100-fueled buses have been ordered since 1993,

and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit

Authority (LACMTA), the largest operator of M100-

fueled buses, has decided to end its M100 program.

LACMTA reported numerous problems with the bus

engines and significantly high failure rates. Other

concerns were fuel economy and fuel price. LACMTA is

reconfiguring its M100 buses into E95 buses and has

reoriented its purchases toward CNG buses (for 1997 and

beyond). On the other hand, in 1995, a number of school

buses in California were reconfigured from M85 to M100

buses. After 1996, most of the M100 vehicles in the United

States will be school buses. 

Ethanol (E85 and E95) Vehicles

Rapid increases in the number of E85 and E95 vehicles are

expected to occur between 1995 and 1997, raising the

share of ethanol vehicles from about .5 percent in 1995 to

1.6 percent of all AFV’s in 1997. The increases are largely

due to State government programs in the Midwest and the

South, Federal vehicle orders, and the interest of corn

growers.

In May 1995, General Motors (GM) announced that,

starting in model year 1997, all of its Chevrolet S-10 and

GMC Sonoma pickup trucks would be flexible-fueled

vehicles capable of operating on E85 and/or gasoline.

According to recent information from GM, the introduction of these vehicles has been delayed until model

year 1999. Therefore, no estimates for these pickup trucks

are included in this report.

The estimated number of E95 vehicles in use increased

substantially in 1995 and 1996. The increases, however,

are virtually all due to the M100 buses that were reconThe market for

dedicated ethanol-fueled vehicles suffers from the same

limitations as those of M100-fueled vehicles, and unlike

E85-fueled vehicles, no OEM is planning to manufacture

them in large numbers.

Electric Vehicles

From 1995 to 1997, the number of electric vehicles is

expected to increase modestly in all weight classes, in all

regions, and in all ownership categories. Growth is

primarily driven by State government mandates and

regulations; private owner purchases; and conversions in

California, Arizona, and Colorado. Electric vehicle counts

are subject to some degree of uncertainty, which is caused

by differences in the definition of an onroad electric

vehicle, by the relatively large percentage of electric

vehicles that do not operate like conventional vehicles,

and, for light-duty vehicles only, by possible incentives for

vehicle associations to inflate estimates. Some of this

uncertainty has been reduced by slightly restricting the

definition of electric vehicles (e.g., large golf carts have

been excluded). These definitional changes resulted in

small revisions to previously reported data for 1992 to

1994. 

Much research and development still occurs in anticipation of State government mandates for zero-emission

vehicles (ZEV’s). However, these mandates were eased

somewhat in 1996, when the California Air Resources

Board decided to delay the start of its ZEV mandates from

model year 1998 to model year 2003.

Regional Distribution of AFV’s

The largest number of AFV’s are located in the South,

followed by the West, the Midwest, and the Northeast

(Table 2). (Census regions are defined in Appendix B.)

The predominance of AFV’s in the South and the West is

primarily due to the large number of States in those

regions and to high concentrations of AFV’s in California

and Texas.

Between 1995 and 1997, the number of AFV’s is expected

to grow most rapidly in the West, where AFV’s are

anticipated to increase by 20 percent, compared to

nationwide growth of 16 percent. The South is expected

to experience the slowest growth (13 percent). Ethanol

vehicles continue to be located mainly in the Midwest,

where ethanol production is concentrated and infrastructure development efforts are under way. Methanol

and electric vehicles are found predominantly in the West,
Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995 14 Table 2. Estimated Number of Alternative-Fueled Vehicles in Use in the United States, by Fuel and Census Region, 1995-

Fuel 1995 1996 

North- east South Mid- west West Total North- east South Mid- west West Total North- east South 

Liquefied Petroleum Gases (LPG) .... a 29,000 98,000 76,000 56,000 259,000 29,000 101,000 78,000 58,000 266,000 30,000 104,000 

Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) ...... 7,468 14,673 9,390 18,687 50,218 9,562 18,413 11,167 23,663 62,805 12,121 23,561 Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) . . . . . . . . . 0 447 12 144 603 7 496 14 198 715 7 546 Methanol, 85 Percent (M85) ......... b 1,382 2,039 1,521 13,377 18,319 1,253 1,829 1,381 15,173 19,636 991 1,557 Methanol, Neat (M100) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 8 0 360 386 18 9 0 128 155 18 9 Ethanol, 85 Percent (E85) .......... b 4 71 1,413 39 1,527 4 212 3,229 130 3,575 4 316 Ethanol, 95 Percent (E95) .......... b 0 1 6 129 136 0 1 6 334 341 0 1 Electricity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417 375 389 1,679 2,860 486 532 434 1,854 3,306 503 760 Total ............................ 38,289 115,614 88,731 90,415 333,049 40,330 122,492 94,231 99,480 356,533 43,644 130,750 

 Values represent lower bound estimates and are rounded to thousands. a The remaining portion of 85-percent methanol and both ethanol fuels is gasoline. b Note: Estimates for historical years are in roman type; estimates for 1997, based on plans or projections, are in italic. Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric, and Alternate Fuels.
Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995 15

particularly in California. CNG and LPG vehicles are ments become subject to AFV mandates in model year

more evenly distributed across the regions. 1997, as specified in the Federal rulemaking for State and

Estimates of AFV’s in use in each of the 50 States are the final rulemaking.)

presented in the 1995 report for the first time (Table 3).

California, Texas, Illinois, Ohio, and Michigan continue to Despite cutbacks in funding, the Federal fleet of AFV’s

be the five states with the largest numbers of AFV’s. In continues to grow, and the fuel mix is diversifying. In

1995, these States account for about 40 percent of the 1993, CNG and methanol vehicles comprised 98 percent

AFV’s in the United States. In addition to the top five of the Federal AFV fleet. In 1997, vehicles designed for

States, four others are estimated to have more than 10,000 these two fuels are expected to account for 87 percent of

AFV’s in use in 1995: New York, Oklahoma, Pennsyl- the fleet, with ethanol and electric vehicles accounting for

vania, and Wisconsin. By 1997, Georgia and Florida are most of the remainder (Table 6). The majority of Federal

also expected to exceed the 10,000 figure. AFV’s are in the fleets of the General Services AdminAlternative-Fueled

Vehicles Ownership

As in previous years, the majority of AFV’s in use number of vehicle acquisitions needed to meet Energy

(roughly 70 percent in 1995 and 1997) are privately Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT) mandates. However, much

owned. The predominance of privately owned vehicles uncertainty exists about actual vehicle acquisitions. While

is primarily due to the large number of privately owned U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) funding of the

LPG vehicles (Table 4). The proportion of CNG and incremental cost of purchasing AFV’s is almost certain to

methanol vehicles that were privately owned in 1995 was be unavailable, a proposed executive order, if enacted,

54 percent and 28 percent, respectively. Eighty percent of would require agencies to continue to meet EPACT goals.

the LPG vehicles in use in 1995 were privately owned.

Revised 1995 and 1996 estimates for LPG vehicles indicate

a lower percentage of private ownership and a higher

percentage of State and local ownership than was

reported last year. The differing percentages are believed

to result from improved data sources that better identify From 1995 to 1997, the number of light-duty AFV’s in use

ownership, rather than from any switching of vehicles is expected to increase at about the same rate as the

between categories. Therefore, the ownership classifica- number of heavy-duty AFV’s; therefore, light-duty AFV’s

tions of LPG vehicles estimated to be in use prior to 1995 will remain at 82 percent of total AFV’s during the period.

have been changed to reflect the new information. This percentage increased slightly from 1992 to 1995

Private ownership of non-LPG AFV’s has increased since AFV’s in 1992). Within certain fuel types, particularly

1992, but not as rapidly as public ownership. Thus, the CNG and electric vehicles, significant shifts have occurproportion of non-LPG AFV’s owned by the private sector red. In 1992, 90 percent of CNG vehicles and 99 percent

has declined from 66 percent in 1992 to an expected 43 of electric vehicles were light-duty vehicles. By 1997, 86

percent in 1997. percent of CNG vehicles and 95 percent of electric vehicles

Ownership of AFV’s by State and local governments has heavier duty vehicles can have a significant impact on

increased more rapidly than private ownership, but more alternative fuel usage because those vehicles tend to

slowly than Federal ownership (Table 5). State govern- consume much higher quantities of fuel.

fuel provider fleets. (See Chapter 5 for an explanation of

istration (GSA) (which leases vehicles to other agencies

through the Interagency Fleet Management System), the

U.S. Postal Service, and the U.S. Department of Defense.

In 1996, GSA began retiring a number of its older alcohol

vehicles. Many of these vehicles were sold to the nonFederal sector. Estimates for 1997 are based on the

Alternative-Fueled Vehicles

by Weight Class

(light-duty vehicles averaged about 80 percent of all

are expected to be light-duty vehicles. Shifts toward
16 Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995

Table 3. Estimated Number of Alternative-Fueled Vehicles In Use, by State, 1995-1997

1995 1996 1997

Alabama .................................. 3,355 3,604 3,985

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 197 462

Arizona ................................... 4,963 5,917 7,000

Arkansas ................................. 1,663 1,754 1,852

California ................................. 51,745 57,396 63,413

Colorado ................................. 5,783 6,376 6,768

Connecticut ............................... 2,044 2,254 2,787

Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327 352 432

District of Columbia ......................... 1,027 1,096 1,243

Florida ................................... 9,716 10,380 10,630

Georgia .................................. 9,260 10,036 11,047

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 469 514 518

Idaho .................................... 1,686 1,775 1,812

Illinois .................................... 17,125 18,050 19,113

Indiana ................................... 8,214 8,775 9,421

Iowa ..................................... 5,145 5,535 5,842

Kansas ................................... 4,455 4,611 4,780

Kentucky ................................. 3,739 3,990 4,125

Louisiana ................................. 4,411 4,629 5,692

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 648 666 680

Maryland ................................. 3,973 4,228 4,442

Massachusetts ............................ 3,625 3,785 3,964

Michigan .................................. 15,192 15,828 17,049

Minnesota ................................ 2,274 2,580 2,926

Mississippi ................................ 6,303 6,465 6,622

Missouri .................................. 3,842 4,375 4,950

Montana .................................. 1,461 1,539 1,777

Nebraska ................................. 2,675 2,851 3,201

Nevada ................................... 2,220 2,546 2,814

New Hampshire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353 365 385

New Jersey ............................... 5,117 5,842 6,424

New Mexico ............................... 3,966 4,268 4,549

New York ................................. 12,982 13,684 14,682

North Carolina ............................. 8,268 8,498 8,824

North Dakota .............................. 1,168 1,268 1,216

Ohio ..................................... 16,825 17,847 20,514

Oklahoma ................................ 12,063 12,615 13,272

Oregon ................................... 6,711 6,958 7,148

Pennsylvania .............................. 12,585 12,756 13,420

Rhode Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 632 668 977

South Carolina ............................. 4,152 4,260 4,431

South Dakota .............................. 1,194 1,256 1,393

Tennessee ................................ 7,328 7,558 7,845

Texas .................................... 32,307 34,465 36,009

Utah ..................................... 3,383 3,815 4,463

Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303 310 325

Virginia ................................... 6,390 6,987 8,483

Washington ............................... 6,712 7,000 6,906

West Virginia .............................. 1,332 1,575 1,816

Wisconsin ................................ 10,622 11,255 12,058

Wyoming ................................. 1,146 1,179 1,257

U.S. Total ................................ 333,049 356,533 385,744

 Note: Estimates for historical years are in roman type; estimates for 1997, based on plans or projections, are in italic.

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric, and Alternate Fuels.
Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995 17

Fuel

1993 1995 1997

Light

Duty

Heavy

Duty Total

Light

Duty

Heavy

Duty Total

Light

Duty

Heavy

Duty Total

Liquefied Petroleum Gases (LPG)a R173,000 R43,000 R216,000 R166,000 R41,000 R207,000 174,000 44,000 218,000

Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) 16,932 1,719 18,651 R22,950 R3,981 R26,931 30,950 6,001 36,951

Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) . . . 2 3 5 R49 R34 R83 48 61 109

Methanol, 85 Percent (M85) . . . b 2,737 0 2,737 R5,198 0 R5,198 7,766 0 7,766

Methanol, Neat (M100) ....... 0 2 2 0 R0 R0 0 0 0

Ethanol, 85 Percent (E85) .... b 52 0 52 54 0 54 109 0 109

Ethanol, 95 Percent (E95) .... b 4 4 8 R1 R1 R2 1 1 2

Electricity ................. 1,657 0 1,657 R2,400 R26 R2,426 2,966 28 2,994

 Non-LPG Subtotal .......... 21,384 1,728 23,112 R30,652 R4,042 R34,694 41,840 6,091 47,931

Total ..................... R194,384` R44,728 R239,112 R196,652 R45,042 R241,694 215,840 50,091 265,931

 Values represent lower bound estimates and are rounded to thousands. a

 The remaining portion of 85-percent methanol and both ethanol fuels is gasoline. b

 R = Revised.

 Note:  Weight classes are based on Environmental Protection Agency definitions: light duty is less than or equal to 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight;

heavy duty is greater than 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight.  Estimates for historical years are in roman type; estimates for 1997, based on plans or

projections, are in italic.

 Sources: Science Applications International Corporation, “Alternative Transportation Fuels and Vehicles Data Development,” unpublished final report

prepared for the Energy Information Administration (McLean, VA, July 1996).

Table 4. Estimated Number of Alternative-Fueled Vehicles in Use by U.S. Private Entities, by Fuel and

Weight Category, 1993, 1995, and 1997

Fuel

1993 1995 1997

Light

Duty

Heavy

Duty Total

Light

Duty

Heavy

Duty Total

Light

Duty

Heavy

Duty Total

Liquefied Petroleum Gases (LPG) . . a R43,000 R10,000 R53,000 R42,000 R10,000 R52,000 44,000 11,000 55,000

Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) .... 8,692 2,281 10,973 R10,670 R3,185 R13,855 17,134 5,384 22,518

Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) . . . . . . . 29 265 294 R47 R426 R473 49 727 776

Methanol, 85 Percent (M85) ....... b 1,900 108 2,008 R3,569 R0 R3,569 5,427 0 5,427

Methanol, Neat (M100) . . . . . . . . . . . 0 412 412 0 R386 R386 1 129 130

Ethanol, 85 Percent (E85) ........ b 273 2 275 R1,084 R0 R1,084 2,164 0 2,164

Ethanol, 95 Percent (E95) ........ b 1 18 19 R0 R134 R134 0 339 339

Electricity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R14 19 R33 R160 R83 R243 257 155 412

 Non-LPG Subtotal .............. R10,909 3,105 R14,014 R15,530 R4,214 R19,744 25,032 6,734 31,766

Total ......................... R53,909 R13,105 R67,014 R57,530 R14,214 R71,744 69,032 17,734 86,766

 Values represent lower bound estimates and are rounded to thousands. a

 The remaining portion of 85-percent methanol and both ethanol fuels is gasoline. b

 R = Revised.

 Notes:  Weight classes are based on Environmental Protection Agency definitions: light duty is less than or equal to 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight;

heavy duty is greater than 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight.  Estimates for historical years are in roman type; estimates for 1997, based on plans or

projections, are in italic.

 Sources: Science Applications International Corporation, “Alternative Transportation Fuels and Vehicles Data Development,” unpublished final report prepared

for the Energy Information Administration (McLean, VA, July 1996).

Table 5. Estimated Number of Alternative-Fueled Vehicles in Use by State and Local Governments, 

by Fuel and Weight Category, 1993, 1995, and 1997
18 Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995

Fuel

1993 1995 1997a

Light

Duty

Heavy

Duty Total

Light

Duty

Heavy

Duty Total

Light

Duty

Heavy

Duty Total

Liquefied Petroleum Gases (LPG) . . 32 0 32 R139 R2 R141 256 2 258

Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) . . . 3,090 0 3,090 R9,432 R0 R9,432 22,278 0 22,278

Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) ...... 0 0 0 R47 0 R47 64 6 70

Methanol, 85 Percent (M85) ...... b 5,518 0 5,518 R9,552 R0 R9,552 6,594 0 6,594

Methanol, Neat (M100) .......... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ethanol, 85 Percent (E85) ....... b 114 0 114 R389 0 R389 3,586 0 3,586

Ethanol, 95 Percent (E95) ....... b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Electricity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R0 0 R0 R191 R0 R191 519 0 519

 Non-LPG Subtotal ............. R8,722 0 R8,722 R19,611 0 R19,611 33,041 6 33,047

Total ........................ R8,754 0 R8,754 R19,750 R2 R19,752 33,297 8 33,305

 Based on Federal alternative-fueled vehicle acquisition requirements. a

 The remaining portion of 85-percent methanol and both ethanol fuels is gasoline. b

 R = Revised.

 Notes:  Weight classes are based on Environmental Protection Agency definitions: light duty is less than or equal to 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight;

heavy duty is greater than 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight.  Estimates for historical years are in roman type; estimates for 1997, based on plans

or projections, are in italic.

 Sources: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Supplemented with data from individual Federal agencies.

Table 6. Estimated Number of Alternative-Fueled Vehicles in Use by the U.S. Federal Government,

by Fuel and Weight Category, 1993, 1995, and 1997
Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995 19

3. Alternative and Replacement Fuel Consumption

In this report, the term “alternative and replacement native fuels used in bifuel, dual-fuel, or flexible-fuel

fuels” refers to all alternative fuels, as defined in Section vehicles—can cause growth rates of vehicles and growth

301 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT), plus rates of fuel consumption to differ. Dedicated and heavyalcohols, ethers, or other qualified fuels (as defined by duty vehicles, for instance, consume more ATF on average

EPACT) that are blended with traditional fuels in smaller than nondedicated and light-duty vehicles. From 1992 to

amounts than is required to meet the criteria for an 1995, the number of AFV’s in use grew at an average

alternative fuel. From 1992 to 1995, consumption of an 10 nual rate of 9.8 percent, while ATF consumption grew

alternative and replacement fuels grew at a much faster at 6.6 percent. During that time period, the percentage of

pace than traditional vehicular fuels. During that period, AFV’s that were light-duty vehicles increased slightly,

consumption of alternative and replacement fuels which may partially explain why ATF consumption did

increased 84 percent (on a gasoline-equivalent-gallon not increase as quickly as AFV’s in use. From 1995 to 1997,

basis) while consumption of traditional highway fuels the percentage of light-duty vehicles is expected to remain

increased 6.5 percent (Table 7). From 1995 to 1997, fairly constant. The number of AFV’s is expected to grow

however, the growth of alternative and replacement fuel 7.6 percent annually, but ATF consumption is expected to

consumption is expected to slow to only 5.2 percent, grow 10.4 percent. In those years, a large part of the

which is just slightly faster than the estimated con- growth rate difference is due to compressed natural gas

sumption of traditional fuels. The slowdown in alternative (CNG) consumption.

and replacement fuel growth is attributable to a slowdown in oxygenate consumption, which is expected to

increase 4 percent between 1995 and 1997. Consumption

of alternative transportation fuels (ATF’s), on the other

hand, is expected to increase 22 percent during the period,

but alternative fuels account for less than 10 percent of

total alternative and replacement fuel consumption.

As a result of slower growth in alternative and replacement fuel consumption, the share of total highway

fuel provided by alternative and replacement fuels is not

expected to increase significantly from 1995 to 1997. In

1992, alternative and replacement fuels accounted for 1.6

percent, on a gasoline-equivalent-gallon basis, of onroad

transportation fuel use. By 1995, that share had increased

to 2.7 percent, but it is expected to remain at that level

through 1997. Alternative fuels alone accounted for .17

percent of onroad fuel consumption in 1992 and .19

percent in 1995; ATF’s are expected to account for .23

percent in 1997.

Alternative Fuels

While the most important factor in overall ATF consumption growth is the number of alternative-fueled

vehicles (AFV’s) in use, other factors also affect the rate of

growth. The mix of AFV’s by fuel type and by weight and

usage classification—as well as the proportion of alterThe shift toward heavier duty CNG vehicles (explained in

Chapter 2) is also apparent in CNG consumption.

However, data collected in 1996 for CNG consumption

clearly show a large and broad-based increase in expected

fuel usage per vehicle from 1995 to 1997. For a CNG AFV

fleet expected to increase about 60 percent in 2 years, fuel

use is expected to increase by about 130 percent. The

slight shift toward heavy-duty vehicles over the 2-year

period is not sufficient to explain this trend. Although the

estimated increase is broadly based (many companies,

regions, fleet types, etc.), it implies changes that are not

captured in the vehicle data or reported in the literature.

Thus, some uncertainty exists about the estimated events

the data represent.

Deviation is significant between AFV growth rates and

ATF consumption growth rates for M100 vehicles. From

1995 to 1997, the number of M100 vehicles in use is

expected to decline by 66 percent, while consumption is

expected to decline 84 percent. As explained earlier, the

use of M100 for transit buses is expected to decline and,

after 1996, most of the M100 vehicles in the United States

will be school buses. Because of the large difference in

annual vehicle-miles-traveled between transit and school

buses, M100 consumption is expected to decline in 1996

and 1997 at a much higher rate than the vehicle counts

themselves would suggest. This apparent discrepancy is

particularly evident in regional fuel consumption data

(Table 8).
20 Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995

In total, the regional distribution of ATF consumption is shifts took place from year to year. However, the

similar to the distribution of AFV’s. Consumption is conversion of a large number of California buses from

lowest in the Northeast, which accounted for 11 percent of methanol to ethanol (see Chapter 2) is noticeable in the

ATF consumption in 1995, and highest in the South, which regional estimates. In 1994, 99 percent of E95 consumpaccounted for 36 percent (Table 8). For some fuels, tion in the United States occurred in the Midwest. By

however, the regional distribution reflects differences in 1997, 99 percent of E95 consumption is expected to occur

the mix of vehicle types by region. For example, while 24 in the West. The consumption of M100 exhibits a regional

percent of the liquefied natural gas (LNG) vehicles in 1995 shift away from the West as the number of M100 vehicles

were located in the West, only 8 percent of total LNG in that region declines. LNG consumption shows a

consumption occurred there. Overall, no major regional significant shift toward the West between 1995 and 1997,

Table 7. Estimated Consumption of Vehicle Fuels in the United States, 1992-1997

(Thousand Gasoline-Equivalent Gallons)

Fuel 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Alternative Fuels

 Liquefied Petroleum Gases (LPG) . . . 208,142 264,655 R248,467 R232,701 R238,681 244,659

 Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) .... 16,823 21,603 24,160 R35,162 R50,884 81,736

 Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) . . . . . . . . 585 1,901 R2,345 R2,759 R3,233 4,702

 Methanol, 85 Percent (M85) ....... a 1,069 1,593 2,340 R3,575 R3,832 3,850

 Methanol, Neat (M100) ............ 2,547 3,166 3,190 R2,150 R360 338

 Ethanol, 85 Percent (E85) ......... a 21 48 80 R190 R436 728

 Ethanol, 95 Percent (E95) ......... a 85 80 140 R709 R1,803 1,803

 Electricity ....................... R359 R288 430 R663 R815 1,001

 Subtotal ...................... R229,631 R293,334 R281,152 R277,909 R300,044 338,817

Oxygenates

 Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) . . b 1,175,000 2,069,200 2,018,800 R2,682,200 R2,709,100 2,820,400

 Ethanol in Gasohol ............... 701,000 760,000 845,900 R910,700 812,900 912,000

Total Alternative and Replacement

Fuels ........................... 2,105,631 3,122,534 3,145,852 R3,870,809 R3,822,044 4,071,217

Traditional Fuels

 Gasoline ....................... c 110,135,000 111,323,000 113,144,000 R115,943,000 R117,768,000 120,125,000

 Diesel .......................... 23,866,000 24,296,630 26,422,490 R26,798,750 R27,566,920 27,825,950

Total Fuel Consumption .......... d R134,230,631 R135,912,964 R139,847,642 R143,019,659 R145,634,964 148,289,767

 The remaining portion of 85-percent methanol and both ethanol fuels is gasoline. Consumption data include the gasoline portion of the fuel. a

 Includes a very small amount of other ethers, primarily Tertiary Amyl Methyl Ether (TAME) and Ethyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (ETBE). b

 Gasoline consumption includes ethanol in gasohol and MTBE. c

 Total fuel consumption is the sum of alternative fuel, gasoline, and diesel consumption. Oxygenate consumption is included in gasoline consumption. d

 R = Revised.

 Notes:  Fuel quantities are expressed in a common base unit of gasoline-equivalent gallons to allow comparisons of different fuel types. Gasolineequivalent gallons do not represent gasoline displacement. Gasoline equivalent is computed by dividing the lower heating value of the alternative fuel

by the lower heating value of gasoline and multiplying this result by the alternative fuel consumption value. Lower heating value refers to the Btu content

per unit of fuel excluding the heat produced by condensation of water vapor in the fuel.  Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent

rounding.  Estimates for historical years are in roman type; estimates for 1997, based on plans or projections, are in italic.

 Sources: 1992-1995 Oxygenate Consumption: Energy Information Administration, Petroleum Supply Monthly. 1992-1995 Traditional Fuel

Consumption: Energy Information Administration, Petroleum Supply Annual, Volume 1 (June 1996). Highway use of gasoline was estimated as 97.1

percent of consumption, based on data in the Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 15, prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the U.S.

Department of Energy (July 1995). Diesel consumption was adjusted for highway use by multiplying by .488, derived from Energy Information

Administration, Fuel Oil and Kerosene Sales 1993, Table HL1. 1996-1997 Oxygenate and Traditional Fuel Consumption: Energy Information

Administration, Short Term Energy Outlook, Third Quarter 1996. Alternative Fuel Consumption: Energy Information Administration, Office of Coal,

Nuclear, Electric and Alternate Fuels and Science Applications International Corporation, “Alternative Transportation Fuels and Vehicles Data

Development,” unpublished final report prepared for the Energy Information Administration (McLean, VA, July 1996).
Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995 21

Table 8. Share of Alternate Transportation Fuel Consumption, by Region, 1995-1997

(Percent)

Fuel east South west West east South west West east South west West

1995 1996 1997

North- Mid- North- Mid- North- MidLiquefied Petroleum Gases (LPG) . . . . . . . 11 38 29 22 11 38 29 22 11 38 29 22

Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) . . . . . . . . 14 24 19 42 15 24 19 43 16 23 21 41

Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) . . . . . . . . . . . 0 90 2 8 * 87 2 11 * 67 1 32

Methanol, 85 Percent (M85) ........... a 7 11 8 74 6 9 7 78 5 8 5 82

Methanol, Neat (M100) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3 0 90 42 19 0 39 45 20 0 34

Ethanol, 85 Percent (E85) ............ a 1 5 91 4 * 5 92 3 * 5 90 5

Ethanol, 95 Percent (E95) ............ a 0 * 3 97 0 * 1 99 0 * 1 99

Electricity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 22 10 56 12 27 10 51 10 32 8 50

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 36 27 26 11 35 27 27 12 34 27 28

The remaining portion of 85-percent methanol and both ethanol fuels is gasoline. Consumption data include the gasoline portion of the fuel. a

* Less than 0.5 percent rounded to 0.

Notes:  Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding.  Estimates for historical years are in roman type; estimates for 1997,

based on plans or projections, are in italic.

Source: Federal: Energy Information Administration, Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric and Alternate Fuels. Non-Federal: Science Applications

International Corporation, “Alternative Transportation Fuels and Vehicles Data Development,” unpublished final report prepared for the Energy Information

Administration (McLean, VA, July 1996).

while consumption of electricity in vehicles shifts toward

the South.

The relative distribution of ATF consumption by type of

owner is similar to the distribution of AFV’s. In 1995, the

Federal Government accounted for 2.3 percent of ATF

consumption, State and local governments accounted for

18.7 percent, and private entities accounted for 79.0

percent (Table 9). The public sector is expected to increase

its share of AFV’s and ATF consumption by 1997. In 1997,

the Federal Government, State and local governments,

and the private sector are expected to consume 4.6, 21.8,

and 73.6 percent of alternative fuels, respectively.

The role of heavy-duty AFV’s is much more significant in

terms of fuel consumption than their numbers suggest. In

1997, heavy-duty vehicles are expected to comprise 17.6

percent of total AFV’s, yet consumption by heavy-duty

vehicles is expected to account for 38.7 percent of total

ATF consumption. ATF consumption by heavy-duty

vehicles is expected to increase 28.8 percent between 1995

and 1997 (Table 10). During the same time period, ATF

consumption by light-duty vehicles is expected to increase

17.9 percent.

Oxygenates

The increasing use of alternative and replacement fuels is

led by the increased use of oxygenates in gasoline.

Oxygenate consumption (on a gasoline-equivalent-gallon

basis) increased 92 percent from 1992 to 1995 and is

expected to increase 4 percent from 1995 to 1997. The

largest year-to-year increases occurred between 1992 and

1993, when oxygenated gasoline requirements were

instituted, and from 1994 to 1995, when reformulated

gasoline requirements went into effect. 

Since the introduction of oxygenate mandates, the share

of oxygenates in the gasoline supply has increased

greatly. In 1992, oxygenates comprised 1.7 percent, on a

gasoline-equivalent-gallon basis, of the gasoline consumed. By 1995, oxygenates accounted for 3.1 percent of

gasoline supplied. Between 1995 and 1997, oxygenated

gasoline as a proportion of total gasoline consumption is

not expected to increase as quickly as it had been. Also,

the demand for gasoline is expected to grow at a slower

pace than in earlier years. As a result, the proportion of

oxygenates in the gasoline supply is expected to remain

constant between 1995 and 1997.
Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995 22 Table 9. Estimated Consumption of Alternate Transportation Fuels in the United States, by Vehicle Ownership, 1993, 199

(Thousand Gasoline-Equivalent Gallons) Fuel 1993 1995 

Federal State and Local Private Total Federal State and Local Private Total Federal State 

Lo

Liquefied Petroleum Gases (LPG) . . . . . . . . . 14 R51,637 R213,003 3e+05 R105 R33,424 R199,172 R232,701 191 35

Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) . . . . . . . . . . 842 6,930 13,831 21,603 R4,250 R12,340 R18,572 R35,162 13,386 30Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) ............. 0 1,894 6 1,901 R17 R2,658 R84 R2,759 58 4Methanol, 85 Percent (M85) ............. a 644 270 680 1,593 R1,864 R416 R1,295 R3,575 1,283 Methanol, Neat (M100) .................. 0 3,165 * 3,166 0 R2,150 R0 R2,150 0 Ethanol, 85 Percent (E85) .............. a 11 27 11 48 R49 R128 R13 R190 446 Ethanol, 95 Percent (E95) .............. a 0 74 6 80 0 R707 R2 R709 0 Electricity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R0 R58 231 R288 R25 R281 R357 R663 70 Total ................................ R1,511` R64,055` R227,768` R293,334` R6,310` R52,104` R219,495` R277,909` 15,434 73 The remaining portion of 85-percent methanol and both ethanol fuels is gasoline. Consumption data include the gasoline portion of the fuel. a * Less than 0.5 thousand gasoline-equivalent gallons. R = Revised. Notes:  Fuel quantities are expressed in a common base unit of gasoline-equivalent gallons to allow comparison of different fuel types. Gasoline-equivalent ga

displacement. Gasoline equivalent is computed by dividing the lower heating value of the alternative fuel by the lower heating value of gasoline and multiplying thconsumption value. Lower heating value refers to the Btu content per unit of fuel excluding the heat produced by condensation of water vapor in the fuel.  Totals madue to independent rounding. Estimates for historical years are in roman type; estimates for 1997, based on plans or projections, are in italic. Source: Federal: Energy Information Administration, Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric, and Alternate Fuels. Non-Federal: Science Applications International Corpora

Fuels and Vehicles Data Development,” unpublished final report prepared for the Energy Information Administration (McLean, VA, July 1996).
Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995 23

Table 10. Estimated Consumption of Alternate Transportation Fuels in the United States, by Fuel and Vehicle

Weight, 1993, 1995, and 1997

(Thousand Gasoline-Equivalent Gallons)

Fuel

1993 1995 1997

Light

Duty

Heavy

Duty Total

Light

Duty

Heavy

Duty Total

Light

Duty

Heavy

Duty Total

Liquefied Petroleum Gases (LPG) . . . 160,717 103,938 264,655 R152,452 R80,249 R232,701 160,161 84,498 244,659

Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) .... 14,388 7,214 21,603 R19,400 R15,761 R35,162 42,277 39,458 81,736

Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) . . . . . . . 10 1,891 1,901 R52 R2,708 R2,759 58 4,644 4,702

Methanol, 85 Percent (M85) ....... a 1,545 48 1,593 R3,576 R0 R3,575 3,851 0 3,850

Methanol, Neat (M100) ........... 0 3,166 3,166 0 R2,150 R2,150 * 338 338

Ethanol, 85 Percent (E85) ........ a 47 2 48 R190 R0 R190 729 0 728

Ethanol, 95 Percent (E95) ........ a 1 79 80 R* R709 R709 * 1,803 1,803

Electricity ..................... R226 62 R288 R365 R298 R663 505 496 1,001

Total ......................... R176,934 116,400 R293,334 R176,035 R101,875 R277,909 207,581 131,237 338,817

 The remaining portion of 85-percent methanol and both ethanol fuels is gasoline. Consumption data include the gasoline portion of the fuel. a

 * Less than 0.5 thousand gasoline-equivalent gallons.

 R = Revised.

 Notes:  Fuel quantities are expressed in a common base unit of gasoline-equivalent gallons to allow comparisons of different fuel types. Gasolineequivalent gallons do not represent gasoline displacement. Gasoline equivalent is computed by dividing the lower heating value of the alternative fuel

by the lower heating value of gasoline and multiplying this result by the alternative fuel consumption value. Lower heating value refers to the Btu

content per unit of fuel excluding the heat produced by condensation of water vapor in the fuel.  Weight classes are based on Environmental

Protection Agency definitions: light duty is less than or equal to 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight; heavy duty is greater than 8,500 pounds gross

vehicle weight.  Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding.  Estimates for historical years are in roman type; estimates

for 1997, based on plans or projections, are in italic.

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric and Alternate Fuels, and Science Applications International Corporation,

“Alternative Transportation Fuels and Vehicles Data Development,” unpublished final report prepared for the Energy Information Administration

(McLean, VA, July 1996).
Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995 25

For more information about Section 301 of the EPACT, refer to footnote number 2 in Chapter 1. Consumption of biodiesel fuel (see 10

Chapter 5) is not included in this report, primarily because of data limitations, but it will be considered in future reports.

An AFV is considered made available in the year it is completed and made ready for delivery to dealers or users. While a vehicle may 11

be “made available” and “placed in service” in different years, the two activities closely track one another.

As of August 31, 1996. 12

The precise number of electric nonroad vehicles cannot be published due to confidentiality rules. See Table 12. 13

Other fuel types are not included in this summary because of confidentiality of the data. 14

4. Alternative-Fueled Vehicles Made Available

Over the long term, the population of alternative fueled

vehicles (AFV’s) will be determined by those added to the

inventory each successive year (net of retirements).

Accordingly, the Energy Information Administration

(EIA) developed a survey (“Alternative Fuels Vehicle

Suppliers' Annual Report,” Form EIA-886), first

conducted in 1995, that reports the number of vehicles

“made available” in the previous calendar year. In 11

addition, the survey requests respondents to estimate the

number of vehicles they expect to make available in the

next calendar year. EIA fielded the EIA-886 survey for the

second time in 1996, obtaining information on AFV’s

made available in 1995 and planned to be made available

through the end of 1996 (Tables 11 through 13).

AFV’s Made Available, 1995

Preliminary data indicate that 17,888 onroad AFV’s were 12

made available in 1995. More than one-half were

designed for CNG, while about one-third were fueled by

LPG. About 40 percent were cargo vans or pickup trucks,

23 percent were automobiles, and 21 percent were trucks

other than pickup trucks. One-third of the onroad

vehicles made available had dedicated fuel systems. LPG

fueled 65 percent of the dedicated vehicles. Two-thirds of

the nondedicated vehicles were CNG vehicles. The single

largest category of AFV’s in 1995 was CNG cargo vans

and pickup trucks, which accounted for 27 percent of total

AFV’s made available.

The number of nonroad AFV’s made available in 1995

was 81,020, with LPG forklifts accounting for more than

one-third (Table 12). Electric vehicles accounted for more

than half of the nonroad AFV’s made available in 1995.13

AFV’s Made Available,

1995 Versus 1994

An important distinction must be made in comparing the

results of the 1996 survey with those obtained in 1995. A

major challenge in obtaining accurate AFV survey information is determining the universe of respondents.

Between 1995 and 1996, about 400 new potential respondents were added and a number of previous

respondents were determined not to be in the AFV

conversion business. In total, there were 1,350 respondents

to the 1996 survey. Thus, in comparing results obtained

in 1996 with those obtained in 1995 (1994 calendar year

data), it is important to understand whether the major

changes appear to be the result of adding new

respondents, changes in behavior of respondents in both

years, or changes in nonresponse patterns.

To analyze and compare vehicles made available in 1994

and 1995, survey respondents were divided into four

categories: (1) those that supplied responses to both the

1995 and 1996 surveys; (2) new respondents—those that

participated in the 1996 survey only; (3) nonrespondents—those identified in either survey but who did

not respond; and (4) out-of-scope respondents—those that

were identified in 1995 or 1996 as not supplying AFV’s.

Below is a summary of 1995 versus 1994 results for CNG

and LPG vehicles.14

Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)

The EIA-886 survey reported approximately 2,300 more

onroad CNG vehicles made available in 1995 than in 1994.

AFV’s made available by original equipment manufacturers (OEM’s) declined by 100, while CNG vehicles
26 Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995

Fuel Type Automobiles

Passenger

Vans

Cargo

Vans/

Pickups

Other

Trucks Buses

Other

Onroad

Vehicles Total

Liquefied Petroleum Gases (LPG) . . 516 193 1,966 W 153 W 6,004

 Dedicated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 50 549 W 53 W 3,832

 Nondedicated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309 143 1,417 W 100 W 2,172

Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) . . . 1,827 W 4,875 703 W W 9,483

 Dedicated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 W W 27 398 W 1,495

 Nondedicated ................. 1,691 367 W 676 W W 7,988

Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) . . . . . . 0 0 W W W 0 85

 Dedicated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 W W W 0 14

 Nondedicated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 W W W 0 71

Methanol, 85 percent (M85) ...... a 1,335 0 0 0 0 0 1,335

 Dedicated ..................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 Nondedicated ................. 1,335 0 0 0 0 0 1,335

Methanol, Neat (M100) ........... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 Dedicated ..................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 Nondedicated ................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ethanol, 85 percent (E85) ........ a 430 0 0 0 0 0 430

 Dedicated ..................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 Nondedicated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 430 0 0 0 0 0 430

Ethanol, 95 percent (E95) ........ a 0 0 0 0 00 0

 Dedicated ..................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 Nondedicated .................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Electricity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 W 65 0 W W 538

 Nonhybrid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 W 65 0 W W 538

 Hybrid ........................ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other ......................... b 0 0 W 0 10 W 13

 Dedicated ..................... 0 0 0 0 8 0 8

 Nondedicated ................. 0 0 W 0 2 W 5

Total .......................... 4,182 935 6,956 3,838 1,071 906 17,888

 Dedicated and Nonhybrid ...... 417 425 1,164 2,959 706 216 5,887

 Nondedicated and Hybrid ...... 3,765 510 5,792 879 365 690 12,001

 The remaining portion of 85-percent methanol and both ethanol fuels is gasoline. a

 Includes hydrogen, biodiesel, and other alternative fuels. b

 W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.

 Notes: Vehicles made available are vehicles that are completed and made available for delivery to dealers or users in a given year. Dedicated

vehicles and nonhybrid electric vehicles are designed to operate exclusively on one alternative fuel. Nondedicated vehicles and hybrid electric vehicles

are configured to operate on more than one fuel, usually an alternative fuel and gasoline or diesel fuel. Data are based on survey responses as of August

31, 1996.

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-886, “Alternative Fuel Vehicle Suppliers' Annual Report.”

Table 11. Number of Onroad Alternative-Fueled Vehicles Made Available, by Fuel Type and Vehicle

Configuration, 1995
Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995 27

Fuel Type 1995 1996

Liquefied Petroleum Gases (LPG) . W W

Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) . . 323 574

Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) ..... W W

Methanol, 85 percent (M85) ..... a 0 0

Methanol, Neat (M100) .......... 0 0

Ethanol, 85 percent (E85) ....... a 0 0

Ethanol, 95 percent (E95) ....... a 0 0

Electricity ..................... W 24,264

Other ........................ b 0 0

Total ......................... 81,020 44,634

 The remaining portion of 85-percent methanol and both ethanol fuels is a

gasoline.

 Includes hydrogen, biodiesel, and other alternative fuels. b

 W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.

 Notes:  Nonroad vehicles are vehicles designed for offroad operation

and used for industrial or commercial purposes. They include forklifts,

agricultural and construction vehicles, and others.  Vehicles made

available are vehicles that are completed and made available for delivery

to dealers or users in a given year.  Data are based on survey responses

as of August 31, 1996.

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-886, “Alternative

Fuel Vehicle Suppliers’ Annual Report.”

Table 12. Number of Nonroad Alternative-Fueled

Vehicles Made Available in 1995 and

Planned to be Made Available in 1996, by

Fuel Type

made available through conversions increased by 2,400.

The decrease in the number of OEM vehicles was

predominately reported by respondents identified in last

year's survey who showed a decrease in the number of

vehicles manufactured. This decrease was overshadowed

by the large increase in the number of vehicles converted

to CNG. Thirty-six percent of the increase in converted

vehicles made available were from after-market vehicle

converters who reported increases (ranging from 80 to

more than 600 vehicles) in the number of AFV’s converted

between 1994 and 1995, while thirty-four percent of the

converted AFV’s reported in 1996 were nonrespondents to

the 1995 survey.

Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG)

The number of LPG (propane) vehicles made available in

1995 was approximately 1,200 fewer than in 1994. Both

OEM’s and after-market converters reported decreases.

Fifty-five percent of the decrease was reported by

respondents that were identified in the 1995 survey

(reporting vehicles for 1994) but reported converting no

vehicles in this year's survey. Forty-four percent of the

reduction in OEM AFV’s originated from respondents that

were identified in the 1995 survey but were out of scope

this year. After-market converters reported making

available 1,100 fewer LPG vehicles in 1995 than in 1994. Of

this decrease, 69 percent were from respondents that

reported in both years. Twenty-two percent of the

decrease in AFV’s resulted from entities who reported

converting vehicles in 1994 but converted none in 1995.

Nonroad AFV’s

The EIA-886 survey results showed that 81,020 nonroad

AFV’s were made available in 1995 (Table 12). This

number represents an increase of more than 40,000

nonroad AFV’s from 1994. Forklifts, industrial vehicles,

and nonagricultural nonroad vehicles accounted for more

than ninety-five percent of nonroad AFV’s.

Outlook—1996 AFV’s

to be Made Available

The number of onroad AFV’s planned to be made

available in 1996 is 27,335 (Table 12). This number

represents an increase of more than 9,400 AFV’s from 1995

to 1996. CNG vehicles are expected to account for more

than 40 percent of the increase. LPG vehicles are projected

to decline by 40 percent. Electric vehicles are expected to

increase nearly tenfold. Eighty-three percent of the

planned AFV’s are expected to be automobiles, pickup

trucks, and other trucks.
28 Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995

Fuel Type Automobiles

Passenger

Vans

Cargo

Vans/

Pickups

Other

Trucks Buses

Other

Onroad

Vehicles Total

Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) . . . . 436 24 966 W 184 W 3,584

 Dedicated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 W 196 W W W 2,382

 Nondedicated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 W 770 47 W W 1,202

Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) . . . 2,748 W 5,629 W 850 W 13,283

 Dedicated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W W W W 555 W 4,203

 Nondedicated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W W W W 295 W 9,080

Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) . . . . . . 0 0 W W W 0 199

 Dedicated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 W W 0 138

 Nondedicated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 W W W 0 61

Methanol, 85 percent (M85) ...... a W 0 0 0 00 W

 Dedicated ..................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 Nondedicated ................. W 0 0 0 0 0 W

Methanol, Neat (M100) ........... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 Dedicated ..................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 Nondedicated ................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ethanol, 85 percent (E85) ........ a W 0 0 0 00 W

 Dedicated ..................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 Nondedicated ................. W 0 0 0 0 0 W

Ethanol, 95 percent (E95) ........ a 0 0 0 0 00 0

 Dedicated ..................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 Nondedicated ................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Electricity ...................... W W W W W W 4,663

 Nonhybrid .................... W W W W W W 4,663

 Hybrid ........................ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other ......................... b W 0 0 0 W0 6

 Dedicated ..................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 Nondedicated ................. W 0 0 0 W 0 6

Total .......................... 10,871 924 7,150 4,878 1,199 2,313 27,335

 Dedicated and Nonhybrid ...... 2,846 778 2,023 2,972 733 2,034 11,386

 Nondedicated and Hybrid ...... 8,025 146 5,127 1,906 466 279 15,949

 The remaining portion of 85-percent methanol and both ethanol fuels is gasoline. a

 Includes hydrogen, biodiesel, and other alternative fuels. b

 W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.

 Notes:  Vehicles made available are vehicles that are completed and made available for delivery to dealers or users in a given year.  Dedicated

vehicles and nonhybrid electric vehicles are designed to operate exclusively on one alternative fuel. Nondedicated vehicles and hybrid electric vehicles

are configured to operate on more than one fuel, usually an alternative fuel and gasoline or diesel fuel. Data are based on survey responses as of August

31, 1996.

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-886, “Alternative Fuel Vehicle Suppliers’ Annual Report.”

Table 13. Number of Onroad Alternative-Fueled Vehicles Planned to be Made Available, by Fuel Type

and Vehicle Configuration, 1996
Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995 29

5. Special Topics

This chapter presents information on a variety of operators to comply individually. For States or State

alternative-fuel subjects. The objective is to provide brief agencies, the rulemaking specifies that of the new lightdiscussions of selected topics that are of special interest to duty vehicles acquired annually, the following

readers. The first section of this chapter summarizes the percentages must be AFV’s:

recent Federal rulemaking for acquisition of alternativefueled vehicles by alternative fuel providers and State

fleets. The next section lists, by State, (1) incentives offered

by governments and industry to expand the use of

alternative-fueled vehicles (AFV’s) and (2) State taxes on

the different transportation fuels. The third section is a

background discussion of biodiesel fuel. This section is a

prelude to the inclusion of biodiesel fuel data in future

EIA reports. The next section provides some explanation

of the emerging technology of fuel cells and their potential

for vehicle use. Finally, information is presented on the

location of alternative fuel refueling sites. When applicable, the reader is referred to non-EIA sources for further

information.

Federal Rule for Alternative-Fueled

Vehicle Acquisitions by State

Government and Fuel Provider Fleets

On March 14, 1996, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

published a final rule to implement alternative-fuel

vehicle (AFV) acquisition requirements for State government and fuel provider fleets, as directed in the Energy

Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT). The rule contains interpretations necessary for affected entities to determine

whether and to what extent the requirements apply. It

also explains procedures for exemption and administrative remedies, specifies a program of marketable credits

to reward those who voluntarily acquire vehicles in excess

of mandated requirements or before the requirements take

effect, and allows use of such credits to demonstrate

compliance with those requirements.

In general, a State government or State agency must

comply with the AFV acquisition requirements if it owns,

operates, leases, or otherwise controls a specified number

of light-duty vehicles meeting certain criteria (e.g.,

capable of being centrally fueled). States have the option

to comply as a whole State or to allow State agency fleet

  Ten percent for model year 1997

  Fifteen percent for model year 1998

  Twenty-five percent for model year 1999

  Fifty percent for model year 2000

  Seventy-five percent thereafter.

An alternative-fuel provider is defined as an entity whose

principal business is producing, storing, refining, processing, transporting, distributing, importing, or selling

any alternative fuel (other than electricity), or generating,

transmitting, importing, or selling electricity. Alternative

fuel providers include entities that produce and/or

import an average of 50,000 barrels per day or more of

petroleum if 30 percent or more of the entities’ gross

annual revenues are derived from producing alternative

fuels. Entities that are defined as alternative fuel providers

must comply with the rulemaking if they own, operate,

lease, or otherwise control a specified number of lightduty vehicles meeting certain criteria. The percentage

acquisition requirements for alternative-fuel providers are

the following:

  Thirty percent for model year 1997

  Fifty percent for model year 1998

  Seventy percent for model year 1999

  Ninety percent thereafter.

Under certain conditions, electric utilities may follow a

different schedule.

The U.S. Department of Energy provides a “readerfriendly” guide covering the main requirements of the

rule. To obtain a copy of the guide, a full copy of the rule,

or other information about the rule, contact the Energy

Efficiency and Renewable Energy Clearinghouse (EREC),

1-800-DOE-EREC (or P.O. Box 3048, Merrifield, VA

22116). World Wide Web users can access EREC information at http://www.eren.doe.gov. Information may

also be obtained from the National Alternative Fuels

Hotline, 1-800-423-1DOE (http://www.afdc.doe.gov).
30 Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995

“Neat” fuel is 100-percent pure, as opposed to a blend (e.g., E85). 15

61 FR, p. 10653 officially made neat biodiesel an “alternative transportation fuel.” 16

One catalyst used is sodium hydroxide (NaOH). 17

“6V-92TA DDC Engine Exhaust Emission Tests Using Methyl Ester Soybean Oil/Diesel Fuel Blends,” by L.G. Schumacher, D. Fossen, 18

W. Goetz, S. C. Borgelt, and W. G. Hires, University of Missouri, Agricultural Engineering Department, Room 235, Columbia, MO 65211. C.L.

Peterson and D.L. Reece, “Emission Testing with Blends of Esters of Rapeseed Oil Fuel With and Without a Catalytic Convertor,” Society of

Automotive Engineers Technical Paper Series (January 4, 1996, Warrendale, PA).

Usually 20-percent biodiesel, 80-percent No. 2 low-sulfur diesel. 19

Nitrogen emissions can be reduced by changing the ignition timing and using a platinum catalytic converter; see “6V-92TA DDC Engine 20

Exhaust Emission Tests Using Methyl Ester Soybean Oil/Diesel Fuel Blends,” by L. G. Schumacher, D. Fossen, W. Goetz, S. C. Borgelt, and

W. G. Hires, University of Missouri, Agricultural Engineering Department, Room 235, Columbia, MO 65211.

“Cummins 5.9L Biodiesel Fueled Engines,” by L. G. Schumacher, W. G. Hires, University of Missouri, Agricultural Engineering 21

Department, Room 235, Columbia, MO 6521), and J. G. Hrahl (Institute of Biosystems Engineering, Federal Agricultural Research Centre,

Braunschweig, Germany D-38116).

State and Industry Incentives for

Alternative-Fueled Vehicles and State

Taxes on Alternative and Traditional

Transportation Fuels

This section provides an overview of efforts taken by the

States and industries to promote alternative transportation

fuels and alternative-fueled vehicles in compliance with

EPACT, and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

(CAAA90). Table 14 presents a summary of incentives

offered by States and industries to promote alternative

fueled vehicles. Table 15 gives an update of State taxes on

gasoline, diesel, gasohol, compressed natural gas,

liquefied petroleum gas, methanol, and ethanol.

Biodiesel

On March 14, 1996, the Secretary of Energy designated

neat biodiesel as an alternative transportation fuel, in 15

accordance with the provisions of EPACT. This action 16

heightened the importance of biodiesel as a component of

the plan to meet the EPACT goal to increase the Nation’s

energy security. EPACT requires that 30 percent of the

Nation’s fuel come from non-petroleum sources by 2010,

with at least half of this amount being of domestic origin.

In addition, biodiesel is viewed as an agent to reduce

noxious emissions. Currently, engine pollution accounts

for nearly 90 percent of carbon monoxide, 50 percent of

nitrogen oxides (which, in turn, combine to form about 50

percent of photochemical oxidants, including harmful

ozone) and 50 percent of the volatile organic compounds,

16 percent of particulate matter in metropolitan areas

(diesel only), and 30 percent of airborne lead emissions.

Biodiesel is now registered as a fuel and as a fuel additive

with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under

CAAA90. Both EPACT and CAAA90 have provisions

mandating the acquisition of “clean” vehicles, although

definitions vary slightly between the two laws.

Background

Biodiesel is made from vegetable oils or animal tallow.

Most biodiesel produced in the United States today is

derived from either soybeans or rapeseed (mustard).

Currently, only one company in the United States makes

biodiesel in commercial quantities—Proctor and Gamble.

Consumption of biodiesel in 1995 amounted to about 1

million gallons.

Biodiesel is made through a process known as transesterification. Essentially, a vegetable oil is combined

with an alcohol in the presence of a catalyst to form 17

biodiesel. Glycerol, used in making soap, is a valuable

by-product of this chemical reaction. Ironically, the

alcohols normally used to make biodiesel, methanol, and

ethanol are also alternative transportation fuels.

Performance Characteristics

Although neat biodiesel is now officially an alternate

transportation fuel, the principal motivation for using

biodiesel seems to be to reduce harmful emissions. A

variety of diesel engine tests have shown that a 20- 18

percent biodiesel blend (B20) used in unmodified diesel 19

engines reduces particulate matter and carbon monoxide

emissions considerably, total hydrocarbon emissions

somewhat; however, nitrogen oxide emissions increase

without other engine modifications. Specifications for 20

two typical samples of neat biodiesel are presented in

Table 16.

Power output using biodiesel B20 appears to be close to

that obtained from conventional No. 2 low-sulfur diesel

(LSD). Biodiesel fuel economy is slightly less than for 21
Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995 31

Table 14. State and Industry Incentives for Alternative-Fueled Vehicles

State State Incentives Industry Incentives

Alabama project for conversion of public fleet vehicles. program.

The State provides assistance of up to $250,000 per Natural gas utilities support natural gas vehicles

Alaska The State provides no incentives. vehicles.

Enstar Natural Gas Company provides

assistance for the conversion of natural gas

Arizona purchase and use of AFV’s. purchase of electric buses.

The State provides income tax reductions, vehicle

license tax reductions, and fuel tax reductions for the Two electric utilities offer rebates for the

Arkansas conversion costs for AFV’s. Utilities offer incentives.

The State provides a 50-percent rebate for the

California emission vehicles. (OEM) natural gas vehicles.

The California Energy Commission offers incentives of Many utilities offer incentives for the purchase

$1,000 for certified low-emission vehicles and $1,500 or conversion of AFV’s. For example, San

for certified ultra–low-emission vehicles. The State Diego Gas & Electric provides 50 percent of the

offers an income tax credit equal to 55 percent of incremental conversion cost or the purchase

incremental or conversion cost of certified low- price of original equipment manufacturers

Colorado owners for the conversion to or the purchase of AFV’s. participating in the State programs.

The State provides rebates of $1,500- $6,000 per

AFV’s. The State offers 5- percent tax credit to the Most utilities support alternative fuel projects by

Connecticut cost of natural gas or electric vehicles. on a project-specific basis.

Corporations are eligible for tax credits for 50 percent

of conversion costs to CNG Vehicles, LPG Vehicles, Utilities are actively supporting the use of

LNG Vehicles, Electric Vehicles, or AFV filling stations. AFV’s. Natural gas utilities offer cash or other

A 10-percent tax credit is available for the incremental incentives for vehicle purchase or conversions

Delaware purchase of AFV’s for public fleets. No incentives are offered.

The State provides financing for the, conversion or the

District of

Columbia The State provides no incentives. Several utilities offer incentives for AFV’s.

Florida fleets. conversion to CNG Vehicles.

The State provides tax exemption for privately owned

electric vehicles. The state offers financing for the

conversion to or the purchase of AFV’s for public Several utilities offer incentives for the

Georgia the purchases of AFV’s for public fleets. cost of natural gas vehicles.

The State offers grants to fund the conversions to or for the part of conversion to or the purchase

Atlanta Gas Light Company offers cash rebates

Hawaii the installation of AFV refueling stations. Several utilities offer incentives for AFV’s.

The State offers income tax deductions for the

conversion to or the purchase cost of AFV’s and for

Idaho The State provides no incentives. conversion to CNG Vehicles.

Mountain Fuel offer incentives for the

Illinois or incremental cost of AFV’s, up to $4,000 per vehicle. conversions or purchases. 

The State offers a rebate of 80 percent of conversion vehicle rebate for natural gas vehicle

Several utilities promote the use of AFV’s.

People Gas Light & Coke offers $1,500 per

Indiana The State provides no incentives. natural gas vehicle conversions.

Several utilities offer rebates of up to $1,000 for

Iowa public fleets. conversion to natural gas vehicles.

The State provides financing for AFV conversions for Midwest Gas offers incentives for the

Kansas AFV conversions or purchases. No incentives are offered.

The State offers tax credits to fleets of 10 or more

vehicles and grants of up to $1,500 per vehicle for

Kentucky The State provides no incentives. $1,000 rebate for CNGV conversion costs.

Several utilities provide incentives for AFV’s.

Western Kentucky Gas offers its customers a
Table 14. State and Industry Incentives for Alternative-Fueled Vehicles (Continued)

State State Incentives Industry Incentives

32 Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995

Louisiana conversion of public fleets and school buses to AFV’s. by-case basis.

The State offers tax credit for 20 percent of the

incremental or conversion costs for AFV’s or refueling Trans Louisiana Gas offers incentives for the

stations. It also offers zero-interest loans for the conversion to natural gas vehicles on a caseMaine The State provides no incentives. conversion to natural gas vehicles.

Bay State Gas Company offer incentives for the

Maryland vehicles are exempt from sales tax. vehicles.

The State offers income tax credits for the cost of

converting or purchasing AFV’s. Refueling or

recharging equipment for AFV’s are exempt from Several utilities are active in promoting AFV’s,

property tax. Electric vehicles are exempt from motor and Potomac Electric Power Company has a

fuel tax and the conversion costs for clean fuel special rate for off-peak charging of electric

Massachusetts The State provides no incentives. offer various incentives. 

Several utilities support the use of AFV’s and

Michigan The State provides no incentives. dedicated AFV’s.

Several utilities are providing incentives for

AFV’s, including $300 and $500 rebates from

Consumers Power Company for biofuels and

Minnesota The State provides no incentives. Northern States Power.

Several natural gas utilities offer incentives for

the conversion to or purchase of CNG Vehicles,

including a $500-$2,000 rebate from

Minnegasco, Northern Minnesota Utilities, and

Mississippi The State provides no incentives. natural gas vehicles. 

Mississippi Valley Gas offers incentives for

Missouri The State provides no incentives. LPG Vehicles.

Philips 66 offer incentives for the conversion to

Montana the conversion costs of AFV’s. vehicles.

The State provides a 50-percent income tax credit for Several utilities offer incentives for natural gas

Nebraska refueling stations. original equipment manufacturer CNG Vehicles. 

The State offers no-cost and low-cost loans for the

conversion costs of public fleets, incremental cost Metropolitan Utilities Distribution offers a $500

factory-equipped AFV’s, and installation costs for rebate for the conversions and purchases of

Nevada private fleet. No incentives are offered.

The State pays for all but $1,500 per vehicle for the

conversion to natural gas of up to two vehicles per

New Hampshire emission vehicles. the conversion to natural gas vehicles.

The State has mandates requiring public and private

entities to purchase a percentage of inherently low Bay State Gas Company offers incentives for

New Jersey The State provides no incentives. conversion of vehicles.

Several utilities are active in supporting AFV

programs and offer rebates for purchases and

New Mexico projects, including AFV conversion projects. the purchase of natural gas vehicles.

The State provides grants on a competitive basis for Gas Company of New Mexico offer rebates for

New York basis. case basis.

The State provides several sales tax exemptions for

AFV’s and funds AFV projects on a case-by-case Many utilities offer assistance on a case-byNorth Carolina The State provides no incentives. case-by-case basis.

Several utilities support AFV projects on a

North Dakota vehicle on conversions to alternate fuels. to natural gas vehicles or LPG Vehicles.

The State provides a tax credit of $200-$500 per gas vehicles and incentives on the conversion

Montana-Dakota Utilities Company provides a

10-percent credit on the purchase of natural
Table 14. State and Industry Incentives for Alternative-Fueled Vehicles (Continued)

State State Incentives Industry Incentives

Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995 33

Ohio The State provides no incentives. conversion rebate for CNG Vehicles.

Several utilities support AFV programs. 

Cincinnati Gas and Electric offers a $600

Oklahoma fund for conversion of public fleets to AFV’s. No incentives are provided.

The State provides income tax credit of up to 50

percent of the cost of AFV conversions and 10 percent

of the total OEM AFV cost, up to $1,500. It has a loan

Oregon and AFV refueling stations. vehicles.

The State provides a 35-percent tax credit for AFV’s facilitate a tax credit program for natural gas

Natural gas utilities will work with customers to

Pennsylvania of refueling stations for AFV’s. $1,000 for the purchase of OEM AFV’s.

The State provides tax and registration fee exemptions

for electric vehicles. The alternative fuels incentives

grants offer to pay 50 percent of the costs for

conversions and purchases of AFV’s, and installations Consolidated Natural Gas Company offers

Rhode Island The State provides no incentives. natural gas vehicles.

Providence Gas provides a $1,000 rebate per

vehicle for up to two conversions of vehicles to

South Carolina Legislation is pending for tax incentives for AFV’s. on a case-by-case basis.

Utilities offer incentives for natural gas vehicles

South Dakota The State provides no incentives. AFV’s.

Montana-Dakota Utilities Company offers a 10-

percent credit, up to $500 for the purchase of

Tennessee The State provides no incentives. vehicles on a case-by-case basis.

Utilities provide incentives for natural gas

Texas conversion of public fleets to AFV’s. purchase of a natural gas vehicle.

The State provides low-interest loans for the offers a $2,000 rebate for the conversion to or

The City of Austin and Southern Union Gas

offer a $2,000 rebate for the purchase or

conversion of a natural gas vehicle, and Atmos

Energy offers a $500 rebate for the purchase of

or conversion to a natural gas vehicle. Entex

Utah construction of refueling facilities for AFV’s. the conversion to or purchase of AFV’s.

The State provides a 20-percent tax credit, up to $500

for each new dedicated AFV registered in Utah, and a

20-percent tax credit, up to $400 for the conversion

costs for CNG Vehicles, LPG Vehicles and Electric

Vehicles. It offers low-interest loan programs for the The Salt Lake City Airport Authority provides

purchase of or conversion to AFV’s or for the incentives to ground transportation providers for

Vermont Legislation is pending for tax incentives for AFV’s. case-by-case basis.

Vermont Gas Systems provide assistance for

the conversion to natural gas vehicles on a

Virginia fleets to AFV’s. incentives on a case-by-case basis.

The State provides a licensing fee exemption and

exemption from the high occupancy vehicle lane use

restrictions for AFV’s. It also provides a 10-percent 

tax deduction to Federal clean fuel tax, 1.5-percent

sales tax reduction for AFV’s, and an AFV fuel tax

reduction. It offers loans for the conversion of public Several utilities support AFV programs and offer

Washington The State provides no incentives. conversion to natural gas vehicles.

Washington Natural Gas offers support for the

West Virginia conversion of public fleets to AFV’s. special rate for recharging Electric Vehicles.

The State provides grants, up to $1,000, for the gas vehicle conversions. Virginia Power offers a

Several utilities provide assistance with natural
Table 14. State and Industry Incentives for Alternative-Fueled Vehicles (Continued)

State State Incentives Industry Incentives

34 Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995

“Cummins 5.9L Biodiesel Fueled Engines,” by L. G. Schumacher, W. G. Hires, University of Missouri, Agricultural Engineering 22

Department, Room 235, Columbia, MO 6521), and J. G. Hrahl (Institute of Biosystems Engineering, Federal Agricultural Research Centre,

Braunschweig, Germany D-38116). C. L. Peterson and D. Reece, Department of Agricultural Engineering, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID

83844-2040, Internet address: //http.www.uidaho.edu.bae.biodiesel/biodie.html, as of July 1, 1996.

“Maintenance, Repair, Engine Exhaust Emissions Associated with Biodiesel Fueling of Urban Buses,” by L. G. Schumacher and M. G. 23

Russell, University of Missouri, Agricultural Engineering Department, Room 235, Columbia, MO 65211.

C. L. Peterson and D. Reece, Department of Agricultural Engineering, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844-2040, Internet address: 24

//http.www.uidaho.edu.bae.biodiesel/biodie.html, as of July 1, 1996.

C. L. Peterson and D. Reece, Department of Agricultural Engineering, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844-2040, Internet address: 25

//http.www.uidaho.edu.bae.biodiesel/biodie.html, as of July 1, 1996.

Ibid, and “6V-92TA DDC Engine Exhaust Emission Tests Using Methyl Ester Soybean Oil/Diesel Fuel Blends,” by L.G. Schumacher, 26

D. Fossen, W. Goetz, S. C. Borgelt, and W. G. Hires, University of Missouri, Agricultural Engineering Department, Room 235, Columbia, MO

65211.

“The Economics of Engine Replacement/Repair for Biodiesel Fuels,” prepared for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of 27

Technology, by N.B.C. Ahouissoussi and M.E. Wetzstein, University of Georgia, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, March

1995.

Wisconsin truck. Each municipality is limited to $50,000. to natural gas vehicles.

The State offers municipalities the competitive cost- gas vehicles. Wisconsin Gas, Wisconsin

sharing grants for the added costs of AFV’s. The Natural Gas, and Madison Gas & Electric offer

maximum grant is $2,500 per auto and $10,000 per cash rebates for the purchase of or conversion

Several utilities are active in promoting natural

Wyoming The State provides no incentives. option on an OEM vehicle.

Montana-Dakota Utilities Company provides a

10-percent credit, up to $500, on the

incremental cost of purchasing the natural gas

 Sources: Clean Cities: Guide to Alternative Fuel Vehicle Incentives and Laws, U.S. Department of Energy, November 1995; The

Clean Fuels and Electric Vehicles Report, J.E. Sinor Consultants, Inc., Vol. 8, No. 2, April 1996.

LSD. Engine maintenance appears to be about the same 22

for the two fuels. Vehicle range is likely to be slightly 23

less, owing both to biodiesel’s slightly lower fuel economy

and lower heating value (approximately 17,500 Btu/lb24

versus 19,600 Btu/lb for conventional diesel).

In terms of safety, biodiesel has superior safety characteristics compared to conventional diesel (already a safe

fuel compared to gasoline). Biodiesel’s flash point is

about 350 degrees Fahrenheit, versus 176 degrees for

conventional diesel. In addition, biodiesel is less toxic to 25

mammals than conventional diesel.

Biodiesel requires some special handling in cold weather.

Whereas the pour point for conventional diesel is about -

18 degrees Fahrenheit, biodiesel’s pour point ranges

between roughly -5 and 20 degrees, depending upon the

oil and alcohol used. This problem can be overcome by 26

using a combination of recycled (and hotter) fuel and fuel

preheaters.

Feasibility

While biodiesel’s performance appears to be highly

desirable, economics is another matter. Biodiesel costs

between four and six times the price of LSD, depending

upon crop prices. Thus, even a 20-percent blend of

biodiesel is considerably more expensive than LSD.

Recently, a life-cycle cost study of transit buses concluded

that if neat biodiesel cost $3.00 per gallon, the total

operating cost of transit buses fueled with B20 would be

32-percent higher than if LSD were used. This price 27

difference reinforces the view that its primary application

will be in niche markets.

Availability is another reason most efforts to introduce

biodiesel are targeted to niche markets. Current bio-oil

(soybean, corn, cottonseed, peanut, sunflower, canola, and

rendered tallow) production, even if dedicated to fuel

production entirely, would fall far short of satisfying total

diesel fuel demand. With U.S. diesel fuel consumption in
Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995 35

Table 15. State Taxes on Alternative and Traditional Transportation Fuels

(Dollars per Gas-Equivalent Gallon)

State Gasoline Diesel Gasohol CNG LPG Methanol Ethanol

Alabama ............. a, b 0.18 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18

Alaska ................ 0.08 0.08 0 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08

Arizona ................ 0.185 0.185 0.185 0.01 0.185 0.185 0.185

Arkansas .............. 0.185 0.185 0.185 0.01 0.165 0.185 0.185

California ............. a 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.07 0.06 0.09 0.09

Colorado .............. 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.205 0.205 0.22 0.22

Connecticut ........... c 0.37 0.18 0.36 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37

Delaware .............. 0.23 0.22 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19

District of Columbia . . . . . . 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Florida ............. d, a, e 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125

Georgia ............... e 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15

Hawaii ................ f 0.248 0.248 0.248 0.248 0.17 0.248 0.248

Idaho ................. 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.165 0.152 0.21 0.21

Illinois ............. d, g, h 0.19 0.215 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19

Indiana ................ 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.16

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.225 0.19 0.16 0.2 0.19 0.19

Kansas ................ 0.18 0.2 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.2 0.2

Kentucky ............. d, I 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.12 0.15 0.15 0.15

Louisiana ............. b 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Maine ................. 0.19 0.2 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18

Maryland .............. 0.235 0.2425 0.235 0.235 0.235 0.235 0.235

Massachusetts ......... d 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.081 0.21 0.21

Michigan ............... 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.166

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Mississippi .............

j 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18

Missouri ............. k, a 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17

Montana ............. a, b 0.27 0.2775 0.27 0.2775 0.2775 0.2775 0.2775

Nebraska ............. d 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257

Nevada ............... a 0.23 0.27 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23

New Hampshire ......... 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18

New Jersey ............ l 0.105 0.135 0.105 0.0525 0.0525 0.105 0.105

New Mexico ......... a, m 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18

New York ............ a, n 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08

North Carolina ......... d 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22

North Dakota .......... o 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Ohio ................. p 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22

Oklahoma ............. b 0.17 0.14 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17

Oregon ................ 0.24 0.24 0.19 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.19

Pennsylvania ........... 0.224 0.224 0.224 0.224 0.224 0.224 0.224

Rhode Island .......... d 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28

South Carolina .......... 0.16 0.16 0.1 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.1

South Dakota .......... a 0.18 0.18 0.16 0.06 0.16 0.06 0.06

Tennessee ............ a 0.214 0.184 0.18 0.14 0.14 0.18 0.18

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.15 0.15 0.2 0.2

Utah .................. 0.195 0.195 0.195 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03

Vermont .............. q 0.16 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16

Virginia ................ 0.175 0.16 0.175 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16

Washington ............ 0.23 0.23 0 0.23 0.23 0 0

 See notes at end of table.
Table 15. State Taxes on Alternative and Traditional Transportation Fuels (Continued)

State Gasoline Diesel Gasohol CNG LPG Methanol Ethanol

36 Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995

The transportation sector includes on-highway, railroad, and vessel bunkering uses. 28

The off-highway sector includes construction equipment and other uses, such as logging equipment. 29

Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-821, “Annual Fuel Oil and Kerosene Sales Report,” combined with Federal Highway 30

Administration statistics of highway special fuels use to estimate on-highway diesel.

U.S. Dept of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Office of Energy and New Uses. 31

C.L. Peterson and D. Reece, Department of Agricultural Engineering, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844-2040, Internet address: 32

//http.www.uidaho.edu.bae.biodiesel/biodie.html, as of July 1, 1996.

Illinois Soybean Association, Internet address http://www.ag.uiuc.edu/~il-qssh/talking.html. 33

West Virginia ......... e, r 0.2535 0.2535 0.2535 0.2535 0.2535 0.2535 0.2535

Wisconsin ............. d 0.234 0.234 0.234 0.234 0.234 0.234 0.234

Wyoming .............. 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09

Local taxes may be imposed. a

Flat annual fee for CNG or LPG fueled vehicles; In Louisiana, $187 for motor vehicles and $93.50 for school buses; in Montana, b

fee ranges from $108 for passenger cars to $1,806 for trucks 48,000 pounds or more; in Oklahoma, fee ranges from $50-$100 for

motor vehicles; in Alabama, fees range from $75 for light trucks to $175 for tractors.

Gasoline tax schedule in Connecticut: 38 cents effective 10-1-96; 39 cents effective 1-1-97. c

Rate set periodically by tax officials; indexed in Florida; 9 percent of wholesale price in Kentucky; 19.1 percent of sales price in d

Massachusetts, 21 cents minimum; includes 7 percent of wholesale price in North Carolina, add 0.25-cent inspection fee; 13 percent

of wholesale price in Rhode Island, 26 cents minimum; rate set by Wisconsin Department of Revenue.

 Includes sales tax at 6 percent of average retail price as set by Florida Department of Revenue, but not lower than 6.9 cents per e

gallon; includes total 4 percent tax (1 percent sales tax and 3 percent gasoline tax) on retail sales price in Georgia; includes sales tax

at 5 percent of minimum average wholesale price as set Department of Tax and Revenue in West Virginia.

Gasoline and diesel fuel taxes are 24.8 cents in Hawaii city, 32.5 cents in Honolulu city, 26 cents in Kauai city, and 29 cents in Maui f

city.

Added taxes in Cook County, Illinois. g

In Illinois, 24.8 cents per gallon of gasoline for commercial motor vehicles on in-state highways. h

Heavy equipment motor carriers, 17.2 cents; more than 59,999 pounds, 19.2 cents; special fuels, 12 cents. i

In Mississippi, 14.4 cents per gallon of gasoline, when funding requirements are met. j

11 cents gasoline tax in Missouri effective 4-1-2008. k

Add 4 cents per gallon of petroleum products gross receipts tax in New Jersey. l

In New Mexico, 16 cents per gallon of gasoline effective as of 7-1-2003 or earlier. m

Motor carriers—composite rate (fuel tax plus sales tax): motor fuel, 15.8 cents; diesel, 16.2 cents; Aggregate rate (fuel tax plus n

sales tax plus petroleum business tax): motor fuel, 30.21 cents; diesel, 30.61 cents.

17 cents per gallon of gasoline effective as of 1-1-98 in North Dakota. o

Commercial motor vehicles, 25 cents per gallon of gasoline in Ohio. In Ohio, State taxes are 15 cents per gallon for commercial p

motor vehicles.

In Vermont, 15 cents per gallon of gasoline will be effective as of 4-1-2001. q

In West Virginia, 20.35 cents per gallon of gasoline will be effective as of 8-1-2001. r

Sources: Clean Cities: Guide to Alternative Fuel Vehicle Incentives and Laws, U.S. Department of Energy, November 1995; The

Clean Fuels and Electric Vehicles Report, J.E. Sinor Consultants, Inc., Vol. 8, No. 2, April 1996; Statistical Abstract of the United

States, 1995: The National Data Book, U.S. Department of Commerce, 115th ed., p. 630; State and Local Taxes: All States Tax Guide,

Vol. I and II (New York, NY: Research Institute of America, 1996), available on the Internet at: http:\\www.riatax.com. 

the transportation and off-highway sectors amounting to raising oil-bearing products could supply the entire 28 29

to 32 billion gallons in 1994, U.S. production of bio-oils agricultural demand for diesel fuel. In addition, if transit 30

at 19.5 billion pounds during the 1994/1995 growing buses complying with the 1998 guidelines imposed by the

season is equivalent to only 2.8 billion gallons of fuel. CAAA90 used a 20-percent blend of biodiesel, 65 million 31

Biodiesel Markets

Examples of niche markets being considered are urban

mass transit buses, school buses, agricultural machinery,

source, diverting 10 percent of all U.S. cropland dedicated

32

gallons of soy-based biodiesel would be used each year, 33

or roughly 2 percent of total U.S. diesel demand. This

amount is equivalent to the oil from 43 million bushels of

U.S. soybeans. (Other oils, of course, could also be used.)

School bus fleets in 22 “consolidated metropolitan areas,”

are also subject to the CAAA90 deadline in 1998. Because
Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995 37

Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Propulsion Systems, Fuel Cell Systems Research and Development. 34

Table 16. Comparison of Conventional Diesel and Biodiesel

Source Soybeansa Rapeseedb No. 2 Diesel

Heat of Combustion (Btu/lb.) ........................ 17,650 17,500 19,600 

Flash point ( F) .................................. o 355 365 176 

Pour point ( F) ................................... o 20 -5 -18 

Cloud point ( F) .................................. o 24 30 7 

Viscosity (centistokes @ 104( F) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.06 6.10 3.51 

Sulfur (percent by weight) .......................... 0.01 0.0008 0.36 

 Analysis performed by Cleveland Technical Center, North Kansas City, Missouri. a

 Analysis of biodiesel samples produced from rapeseed and ethanol (known as rape ethyl ester) by Phoenix Chemical Lab, Inc., b

Chicago, Illinois; analyses by Analytical Lab Services and Agricultural Engineering Analytical Lab, Moscow, Idaho. 

 Sources: Soybean-based diesel: “6V-92TA DDC Engine Exhaust Emission Tests Using Methyl Ester Soybean Oil/Diesel Fuel

Blends,” by L.G. Schumacher, D. Fossen, W. Goetz, S.C. Borgelt, and W.G. Hires, University of Missouri, Agricultural Engineering

Department, Room 235, Columbia, MO 65211; Rapeseed-based diesel: C.L. Peterson and Daryl Reece, Department of Agricultural

Engineering, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844-2040, Internet address //http.www.uidaho.edu.bae.biodiesel/biodie.html, as of

July 1, 1996; Diesel (except Heat of Combustion): “6V-92TA DDC Engine Exhaust Emission Tests Using Methyl Ester Soybean

Oil/Diesel Fuel Blends,” by L.G. Schumacher, D. Fossen, W. Goetz, S.C. Borgelt, and W.G. Hires, University of Missouri, Agricultural

Engineering Department, Room 235, Columbia, Missouri 65211; Diesel (Heat of Combustion): Energy Information Administration,

Annual Energy Review 1995 , DOE/EIA-0384(95) (Washington, DC 20585). Value shown represents conversion from original units

of million Btus/barrel, based upon heating value for distillate fuel oil. The actual diesel fuel sample used in the comparative study, “6V92TA DDC Engine Exhaust Emission Tests Using Methyl Ester Soybean Oil/Diesel Fuel Blends,” had a heating value of 19,652 Btu/lb.

 those buses consume about 180 million gallons of fuel per

year, they represent a large potential for biodiesel.

Another factor that could nudge bio-oils into the fuel

market is the health concern regarding many animal and

vegetable oils. Biodiesel from these resources could offer

a high-value alternative market for U.S. oil seed and

tallow producers in the future.

Fuel Cells34

The Department of Energy is pursuing fuel cells for

transportation applications because they offer the potential to triple the fuel economy of today’s vehicles and

significantly reduce emissions.

What Are Fuel Cells?

Fuel cells are devices that change chemical energy directly

into electrical energy; no combustion is involved. Fuel

cells are an efficient, inherently clean option for generating electricity and can be fabricated in a wide range of

sizes without sacrificing either efficiency or environmental performance.

How Do Fuel Cells Work?

Fuel cells are simple electrochemical devices with no

moving parts that generate electricity by harnessing the

reaction of hydrogen and oxygen to make water.

Any hydrogen-rich material can serve as a possible fuel

source of hydrogen. These materials include fuels such as

natural gas, petroleum distillates, liquid propane, methanol, and gasified coal. For substances other than hydrogen, a fuel processor is required in a fuel cell system.

Unlike batteries or other storage devices, a fuel cell

operates as long as fuel is supplied to it in the presence of

air. Fuel cells are virtually pollution free and operate very

efficiently.

Hydrogen can be made from solar or wind energy. A fuel

cell operating from renewable hydrogen has literally zero

greenhouse gas emissions and would not generate carbon

dioxide emissions.

What Are the Types of Fuel Cells?

Fuel cells are often categorized by the electrolyte used. An

electrolyte is defined as a substance that when disolved in
38 Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995

a specified solvent (usually water), produces an ionically configured in tubular, planar, or honeycomb structures.

conducting solution. Five major classes of fuel cells are Their potential for internal fuel processing, high power

generally considered to be mainstream of the technology: density, and low cost makes them candidates for

Alkaline Fuel Cells. Used by the U.S. space program and

incorporated into most of the manned space missions,

alkaline fuel cells are reliable and offer high power

outputs in relatively small sizes. Unfortunately, their

potassium hydroxide electrolytes react with even minute

traces of carbon dioxide and eventually render the cell

useless. Extensive cleaning to remove residual carbon

dioxide from the air and fuel is required.

Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cells (PAFC). PAFC’s are the

most technologically mature of the terrestrial fuel cells.

The electrolyte tolerates carbon dioxide. The operating

temperatures are above 400 degrees Fahrenheit and

overall fuel-to-electricity efficiencies are about 40 percent

(with cogeneration efficiencies approaching 85 percent).

They are commercially available in sizes that range from

a 24-volt, 250-watt portable unit for small appliances, to

on-site power generators supplying up to 200 kilowatts of

electricity, to a central station power plant in Tokyo that

produces 11 megawatts of electricity. Phosphoric acid

fuel cells, which are well suited for buildings and heavyduty transportation applications, are used in the DOE

Urban Transit Bus Program.

Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) Fuel Cells. Also

known as polymer electrolyte fuel cells, PEM cells operate

at relatively low temperatures (175-200 degrees Fahrenheit), have high power density, meet shifts in power

demand quickly, and are suited for applications where

quick start-up is required. They are primary candidates

for buildings and light-duty vehicles, and are potentially

suited for much smaller applications.

Molten Carbonate Fuel Cells (MCFC). MCFC’s use a

lithium and potassium electrolyte, operate at about 1200

degrees Fahrenheit, and have efficiencies of 60 percent

when generating electricity and 80 percent or more when

cogenerating usable heat. This type of fuel cell is appropriate for electric utility applications. Capital costs are

expected to be lower than those of phosphoric acid fuel

cells. The first full-scale stacks have been tested, and

demonstration units have begun operation in a California

municipal utility and in a hospital.

Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFC). Still in the research and

development (R&D) stages, SOFC’s use a hard ceramic

material instead of a liquid electrolyte, allowing temperatures to approach 1800 degrees Fahrenheit. Efficiencies

are projected to be 60 percent. These fuel cells can be

transportation applications.

Fuel Cells Differ From Internal Combustion

Engines (ICE)

Fuel cells are unlike ICEs, turbines, and other heat engines

in three fundamental ways:

1. Fuel cells produce power without chemical

combustion, and thus are inherently cleaner than

heat engines could ever be.

2. Fuel cells are not subject to the same fundamental

laws of thermodynamics that limit the maximum

efficiency of turbines and ICEs. Fuel cell efficiency is twice as high as current heat engine

efficiencies. 

3. Fuel cells have no moving parts, and therefore, are

more quiet, have greater reliability, and require

less maintenance than the high-speed rotating or

reciprocating parts of ICEs and turbines.

Development Needs for Fuel Cells in

Transportation

The constraints in using fuel cells in transportation

applications are considerably different and more demanding than for those used in stationary applications.

The volume and weight of current fuel cell designs

preclude their use in many applications, particularly lightduty vehicles. Thus, the power density of fuel cells (power

output per unit volume or weight) needs improvement.

To achieve this result, fuel cell systems designed for use in

vehicles need development in the areas of the fuel

processor, the fuel cell stack, and the integration of the

balance-of-plant components into a complete system.

DOE’s Role in Developing Fuel Cells for

Transportation

The fuel cells for transportation program began in fiscal

year 1987 with development of three prototype PAFC

buses. In 1990, development of PEM fuel cell technology

began because it offers higher power density than most

other fuel cell technologies. This ongoing light-duty

vehicle program is based on the onboard reforming of
Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995 39

Pure hydrogen can be stored in the vehicle for use in fuel cells, or hydrogen can be produced by reforming a simple hydrocarbon fuel 35

stored in the vehicle.

methanol. In 1994, a parallel effort was initiated to universities to conduct the necessary precompetitive 35

develop the PEM fuel cell system with onboard hydrogen Research and Development in a cooperative manner.

storage. Using their own vehicle design, data, and analysis

methods, the three major U.S. automakers are each

pursuing different technical approaches under costshared research projects with DOE. In the last 5 years,

significant accomplishments in the fuel cell stack have

been made in increasing power density and decreasing

platinum loadings and costs. DOE has also developed

multifuel reforming technology that will enable the use of

existing petroleum-based fuels as well as alternative fuels

(like methanol, ethanol, and natural gas). The current

DOE program emphasizes development of advanced

PEM fuel cell stacks, fuel processors, and other system

components, as well as core research in electrodes,

membranes, and catalysts. Government and industry

have agreed to form an alliance between the domestic

automakers, fuel cell suppliers, national laboratories, and

Alternative Fuel Refueling Sites

Increasing the availability and convenience of alternative

fuel refueling facilities is a key element in the expansion

of alternative fuel use. Table 17 shows the distribution of

refueling sites across the United States.

Data on the locations of refueling sites for CNG, M85, E85,

and LPG, including detailed information about the sites,

are maintained by the Alternative Fuels Data Center.

Information and maps are available on the World Wide

Web at http://www.afdc.doe.gov. For additional refueling site information, contact the National Alternative

Fuels Hotline at 1-800-423-1DOE.
40 Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995

Table 17. Alternative Fuel Refueling Sites by State and Fuel Type

State (M85) (CNG) (E85) (LPG) Electricity (LNG) Total

Methanol Natural Gas Ethanol Gas Natural Gas

Compressed Petroleum Liquefied

Liquefied

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 85 102

Alaska .............. 8 8

Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 21 45 67

Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 104 112

California . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 140 214 34 446

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 43 48 93

Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . 11 19 30

Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6 12

Dist. of Columbia . . . . . . 1 8 1 10

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 222 280

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 62 80 142

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 20 27

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 25 10 163 200

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 1 124 164

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6 108 119

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 2 38 59

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 35 44

Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 44 1 62

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 12

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 28 21 1 52

Massachusetts . . . . . . . 17 41 58

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 36 1 182 221

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5 125 147

Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . 75 75

Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1 83 95

Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 48 59

Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5 47 62

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 20 30

New Hampshire . . . . . . . 1 31 32

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . 24 36 60

New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . 19 46 65

New York . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 55 100 162

North Carolina . . . . . . . . 10 72 82

North Dakota . . . . . . . . . 5 17 22

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 65 98 165

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . 48 56 104

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 21 30

Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . 1 52 133 186

Rhode Island ......... 4 5 9

South Carolina . . . . . . . . 3 43 46

South Dakota . . . . . . . . . 5 7 24 36

Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6 80 88

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 202 289

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 20 83

Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 33 34

Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 39 70

Washington . . . . . . . . . . 2 30 37 69

West Virginia . . . . . . . . . 1 42 16 59

Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . 27 2 139 168

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 33 53

 Total .............. 86 1,239 41 3,298 34 2 4,700

 Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Alternative Fuels Data Center Database (Extracted October 17, 1996).
Appendix A

Estimation Methods

and Data Quality
Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995 43

These States are Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New 36

Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, Vermont, and Washington.

Energy Information Administration, State Energy Data Report 1994, DOE/EIA-0214(94)(Washington, DC, July 1996). 37

Appendix A

Estimation Methods and Data Quality

Estimation methods and data quality issues for alterna- Federal AFV inventory estimates for 1997 were based on

tive-fueled vehicle (AFV) inventories (Chapter 2) and estimated acquisitions needed to meet the requirements of

alternative and replacement fuel consumption (Chapter 3) the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT), which calls for

are presented in this appendix. For the most part, data for one-third of the Federal light-duty vehicles purchased in

1992 through 1994 are from Alternatives to Traditional fiscal year 1997 to be AFV’s. Light-duty vehicle purchases

Transportation Fuels 1993 and Alternatives to Traditional were projected by GSA.

Transportation Fuels 1994–Volume 1. Any revisions to those

data are explained below. No substantial changes in

methodology have been introduced in Alternatives to

Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995, which focuses on

historical data for 1995 and projected or planned data for

1997.

Alternative-Fueled-Vehicle Inventory

The methods employed to estimate the number of AFV’s

in use (AFV inventories) vary by vehicle ownership

category (Federal Government, State and local government, and private) and by fuel type.

Federal 

The number of Federal AFV’s in use in 1995 and 1996 was

estimated from vehicle acquisition data compiled by the

U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Office of Energy

Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Those data were based

on Federal agency counts of AFV’s purchased or

converted and AFV’s planned to be purchased or

converted. The acquisition data were adjusted to account

for retirements of AFV’s. Estimates of retirements were

based on information from the U.S. General Services

Administration (GSA). The geographic and weight class

distributions of Federal AFV’s were obtained separately

through contacts with the Federal agencies that operate

AFV’s.

In a few cases, the estimated number of Federal AFV’s in

use prior to 1995 were revised. The revision was made

because new information was obtained about the years in

which vehicles were acquired. The revision primarily

affected electric vehicle counts.

State and Local Government Fleets and

Privately Owned AFV’s

Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Vehicles. The U.S. total

of LPG vehicles in use is estimated from State-level data.

The motor vehicle departments or fuel tax offices of all 50

States were contacted for data on LPG vehicles or on all

AFV’s. Sixteen States reported data on AFV’s or LPG

vehicles that were deemed reasonably accurate. If States 36

reported total AFV’s only, LPG vehicles were estimated by

subtracting estimated vehicle counts for compressed

natural gas vehicles, alcohol-fueled vehicles and electric

vehicles from the total AFV counts. For the 34 States

without reasonably accurate data, the numbers of LPG

vehicles in use were imputed. To impute the vehicle

counts, an estimate of average fuel consumption (gallons

of LPG per vehicle) was calculated for the 16 enumerable

States using estimates of LPG consumption in onroad

transportation engines, as reported in the State Energy

Data Report 1994. A State’s total LPG consumption was 37

then divided by the implied average consumption per

vehicle to estimate the minimum number of LPG vehicles
44 Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995

The estimated average LPG consumption per vehicle per year is significantly higher than average fuel consumption for gasoline vehicles. A higher 38

percentage of LPG vehicles are heavy-duty vehicles. Undercounting of LPG vehicles may also be responsible for the difference.

in the State. The national LPG vehicle inventory is vehicles confirm the inconsistencies (on average) for 38

therefore the aggregation of reasonably accurate vehicle reported fuel usage and vehicle counts.

counts in 16 States and imputed minimum vehicle counts

in 34 States. Data limitations also create uncertainty in identifying the

As indicated above, reasonably accurate government or

private sources of data on the number of onroad LPG

vehicles exists for about one-third of the States. The most

accurate estimates are from States that combine a

mandatory fuel use decal program with a rigorously

enforced annual inspection and registration program. A

comprehensive review of the 50 States and the District of

Columbia suggests that no more than 4 States (dropping

to 3 States starting in mid-1995) are in this category. Even

in these four States, adjustments are necessary for nonLPG alternative fueled vehicles, especially natural-gasfueled vehicles.

An additional 10 states have either a decal program that

is nominally optional but effectively preferable to paying

fuel taxes at the pump or a mandatory decal program but

lax or nonexistent annual vehicle inspections. Reasonable

estimates of the minimum number of vehicles are

available in these 10 States. However, many of these States

acknowledge that underreporting and misreporting is

common among vehicles converted to LPG, and fuel use

identification for vehicle registration (either new or

converted) is routinely ignored by end-users and State

governments.

Two other States have credible estimates of vehicle counts

based on data from the State propane gas association, the

State department of transportation, or some combination

of sources.

It is worth noting that the States for which credible vehicle

counts can be estimated change from year to year because

several States during the past few years have either

introduced or discontinued decal programs or annual

inspection and registration requirements.

It is also important to note that the quality of data on LPG

usage as an onroad engine fuel varies from State to State.

States with pump-based fuel taxes tend to have more

accurate estimates than States with decals in lieu of pumpbased taxes. On the other hand, States with lax or

nonexistent annual inspection programs tend to have

more misreporting of fuel use regardless of decals or

pump-based taxes. The implied usage of fuel per vehicle

per year varies widely (by more than a factor of 5) from

State to State. Other data on sales of tanks for use in road

weight and ownership classifications of vehicles. Only a

few States can supply unambiguous decal counts by

weight class. No two States use the same definition of

weight classes. For the States with detailed vehicle counts

by weight class, the percentage represented by heavyduty vehicles varies by at least a factor of three. States

with a strong LPG vehicle infrastructure have much

higher percentages of light-duty vehicles than those

where LPG is used mostly for non-vehicular applications.

Similar variations exist for the ownership by State and

local governments and private entities. The estimated

fractions used in this report (20-percent heavy-duty and

20-percent State and local) are approximate figures drawn

from a limited sample of widely divergent State inputs.

The ownership percentages, however, are believed to

more accurately reflect the distributions than percentages

estimated in previous years. For that reason, data for 1992

to 1994 have been revised with this report.

Although very careful enumeration and imputation

generates a fleet count of roughly 259,000 in 1995, the

actual count could be as high as 300,000 to 350,000. The

known data limitations, the inconsistencies between tank

sales and decal sales, and the widespread acknowledgment of misreporting and underreporting of vehicles

and fuels imply that the values reported in this document

are minimum values.

Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Vehicles. Estimates of

the number of CNG vehicles in use as of the end of 1995

and expected to be in use in 1996 and 1997 were derived

from a private, independent survey of natural gas suppliers and owners of CNG refueling stations conducted in

1996. This survey updates similar surveys conducted in

1993, 1994, and 1995. Respondents reported the number

of vehicles served in their service areas (by vehicle type

and ownership) as of the end of the calendar year. Data

were collected by ownership class, including utility,

private, and government (State-owned, local governmentowned, and federally owned).

Overall, the quality of CNG vehicle data is slightly lower

than in past years. The 1996 survey had a response rate of

about 92 percent compared to almost 100 percent in 1995.

Several of the largest fuel suppliers either did not report

data or reported the data in a manner that required
Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995 45

imputation of a part of the data. In most cases, impu- small. Therefore, vehicles can be easily tracked by State

tations were based on previous year’s responses. There offices and private associations.

were also some inconsistencies in reporting caused by

differences in recordkeeping among the respondents.

Variability within the industry has increased dramatically

over the past year due to a number of factors, and most of

the growth in CNG vehicle use now appears to be

occurring at the utilities with the largest fleets. A fair

number of utilities were sufficiently uncertain of their

near-term outlook that they omitted forecasts.

Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Vehicles. Estimates of the

number of LNG vehicles are based on reported or planned

purchases of LNG transit buses and other vehicles. Data

were obtained from fuel suppliers, transit bus fleets, and

other fleet operators. Fleet operators were identified from

industry literature and other contacts.

The LNG-fueled vehicle data are reasonably accurate; large percentage of electric vehicles that do not operate

ownership is concentrated at transit bus companies and a the same way as conventional vehicles, and by possible

few truck operations, so data collection consists primarily incentives for vehicle associations to inflate estimates.

of identifying all LNG users. The local natural gas Some of this uncertainty has been removed by slightly

companies are not sufficient sources for LNG information restricting the definition of electric vehicles. For example,

because they do not necessarily supply the LNG. The prototypes, large golf carts, school-based kit vehicles,

numbers reported are believed accurate with a margin of unconfirmed hobbyist vehicles, and nonhighway vehicles

error between 3 percent and 5 percent. were excluded from the electric vehicle definition. Electric

Alcohol-fueled Vehicles. Vehicle counts for each State

were obtained from State energy offices (or their equivalents) and, to a lesser extent, transportation departments,

corn growers associations (ethanol only), fuel supply

companies, vehicle demonstration programs, and manufacturers and converters of vehicles and engines.

Because almost all methanol vehicles are operated in

California, an accurate enumeration in that State would

virtually ensure an accurate national count. California

methanol vehicle counts were obtained principally from

the California Energy Commission (CEC). Starting in

1995, CEC data are based on vehicle sales by model year.

It is unclear how the CEC adjusts these data for retirements and reconversions. The CEC counts were adjusted

to account for the phase-out of M100 buses by the Los

Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority. Counts

of methanol-fueled vehicles for all other States are

considered fairly accurate because they are based on

State-by-State enumerations of relatively small vehicle

fleets. 

Ethanol-fueled vehicle data are reliable. The national total

is based on an enumeration from individual State

government agencies, corn growers associations, fuel

suppliers, and, to a lesser extent, vehicle manufacturers.

The number and size of ethanol-fueled vehicle fleets are

Electricity. Data from States with appreciable numbers of

electric vehicles were collected from telephone contacts

with State energy, transportation, or conservation offices;

national electric vehicle associations (the Electric Automobile Association’s State and local chapters and the

Electric Transit Vehicle Institute); and electric utilities.

Original equipment manufacturers and converters were

also contacted. Independent surveys by the Electric

Vehicle Association of the Americas and the Electric

Transit Vehicle Institute, were the principal sources used

to disaggregate total vehicle counts by vehicle type.

Some degree of uncertainty is associated with the electric

vehicle data. Uncertainty is caused by differences in the

definitions of an onroad electric vehicle, by the relatively

vehicle counts for 1992 to 1994 have been revised to reflect

these definitional changes.

Alternative Fuel Consumption

Alternative fuel consumption was calculated using the

following four basic inputs:

 1. Alternative-Fueled Vehicle Inventories: By vehicle fuel

(e.g., M85, M100, E85), ownership (i.e., private, State

and local government, Federal Government), and

classification (e.g., autos, light-duty trucks, heavyduty trucks, school buses, and transit buses).

 2. Conventional Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT): In miles

per year, by vehicle ownership and classification.

 3. Miles-per-Gallon (MPG) on Conventional Fuel: For

gasoline or diesel, by vehicle classification.

 4. Thousands of Btu (kBtu) per Native Unit of Fuel: By

neat (i.e., pure) replacement fuel. The native units

used are gallons (M85, M100, E85, E95, LPG, and

LNG), therms (CNG), and kWh (electricity).

The following is a description of the seven-step approach

to estimate total annual fuel consumption.
46 Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995

Vehicle Classification/Fleet Type

Vehicle Weight

 (pounds)

Annual Vehicle Miles

Traveled Miles per Gallon

Automobile/Private Rental and Service .......... 0-8,500 24,600 24 

Automobile/Passenger Vehicles and Car Pools . . . 0-8,500 12,000 24 

Automobile/Government Pool .................. 0-8,500 8,000 24 

Light-Duty Truck ............................ 0-8,500 16,400 16 

Medium-Duty Truck .......................... 8,501-14,000 16,400 8 

Heavy-Duty Truck ........................... 14,001-26,000 16,400 6 

School Bus ................................. All 8,000 8 

Transit Bus ................................. All 33,200 4 

 Source: Science Applications International Corporation, “Alternative Transportation Fuels and Vehicles Data Development,”

unpublished final report prepared for the Energy Information Administration (McLean, VA, July 1996).

Table A1. Typical Conventional Vehicle Characteristics

1. Alternative-Fueled Vehicles

Categorization

Alternative-fueled vehicles in a given year were categorized according to vehicle classification (auto, lightduty truck, heavy-duty truck, school bus, and transit bus);

fuel (M85, M100, E85, E95, LPG, CNG, LNG, and

electricity); and ownership (privately owned and government owned).

2. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) by

Alternative-Fueled Vehicle

Classification and Fleet Type

The annual VMT values known from conventional fleets

were assigned to each vehicle classification. Light-duty

vehicles were segmented further into three broad fleet

types: rental and service vehicles, private passenger and

car pool vehicles, and government pool vehicles. Heavyduty trucks as defined by EPACT were segmented into

medium- and heavy-duty categories. The conventional

fleet characteristics used in the estimation process are

listed in Table A1.

3. Adjustments to Alternative-Fueled

Vehicle Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled

The annual VMT values of conventional vehicles shown

in Table A1 were revised downward to reflect the less

intensive use of AFV’s when compared to conventional

vehicles. Average VMT is lower for AFV’s than for conventional vehicles due to differences in vehicle classification and issues of choice. Conventional light-duty fleet

vehicles are typically rental cars and high-usage service

vehicles, whereas AFV light-duty fleet vehicles are

typically government pool vehicles and relatively lowusage service vehicles. Factors that reduce AFV utilization

relative to conventional vehicles include the following:

  More frequent refueling because of lower heat content of alternative fuels

  Range restrictions because of limited fuel availability

  Higher maintenance needs and increased incidence

of mechanical failures

  Operator perceptions (when choice is available, fleet

and vehicle operators may drive conventional

vehicles more often than AFV’s because of their

perceptions of safety, cost, environmental impact,

vehicle performance, and refueling ease, regardless

of whether these perceptions are correct).

4. Alternative Fuel Consumption

Adjustments

As defined in EPACT, alternative transportation fuels

(ATF’s) may be in either a neat form (e.g., pure CNG,

LNG, LPG, M100, or electricity), or in a blend (e.g., M85,

E85, E95). In the latter case, consumption of ATF’s

includes both the replacement (i.e., alcohol) and

conventional fuel components.

For several AFV types, the effective total fuel cycle of ATF

consumption per mile of travel is higher than commonly

thought. Consumption of ATF’s is almost always

estimated by assuming that Btu-equivalent amounts of
Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995 47

A notable exception is in Argonne National Laboratory, Center for Transportation Research, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases from the Use of 39

Transportation Fuels and Electricity, ANL/ESD/TM-22, prepared by Dr. Mark Delucchi, Vol. 1 (Argonne, IL, November 1991) and Vol. 2 (Argonne IL,

November 1993), which provides miles-per-Btu adjustment factors for AFV’s.

(Thousand Btu per Native Unit of Fuel)

Fuel Type

Original Heating Value

per Native Unit of Fuela

(thousand Btu)

Added Fuel Loss

(percent)

Adjusted Heating Value

per Native Unit of Fuel

(thousand Btu)

Methanol ......................... 57.00/Gallon 0.01 57.00/Gallon

Ethanol ........................... 76.00/Gallon 0.01 76.00/Gallon

Liquefied Petroleum Gases (LPG) ..... 84.00/Gallon 0.00 84.00/Gallon

Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) ...... 93.00/Therm 0.50 92.54/Therm

Electricity ......................... 3.41/kWh 2.00 3.34/kWh

Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) ......... 68.00/Gallon 2.00 66.64/Gallon

Diesel ............................ 128.00/Gallon 0.00 128.00/Gallon

Gasoline .......................... 115.00/Gallon 0.00 115.00/Gallon

 Lower heating value. a

 Source: Science Applications International Corporation, emissions model prepared for the Energy Information Administration,

(McLean, VA, updated 1994).

Table A2. Original and Adjusted Lower Heating Values of Conventional and Replacement Fuels

ATF and traditional fuel produce the same VMT. This The efficiencies in miles per gallon of gasoline were 39

assumption is not strictly accurate because of venting of determined for all vehicle categories. These values were

fuel vapor during refueling and maintenance, leakage of adjusted to account for higher effective fuel consumption

gaseous fuels from fuel lines and storage cylinders, engine for LNG-, CNG-, and electricity-fueled vehicles. For these

efficiency differences, and vehicle weight differences. AFV’s, the miles per Btu ratio was lowered by decreasing

Although natural gas utilities, transit bus facilities, fleet the nominal heating values per native unit of fuel (Table

owners, and related industry members are not generally A2).

able to isolate and quantify these factors, the net effect is

lower miles per Btu for most AFV’s than for conventional

vehicles.

5. Vehicle Miles Traveled and Fuel

Consumption Adjustments for Bi-,

Dual- and Flexible-Fuel Vehicles

Dedicated vehicles were assumed to be fueled exclusively

by replacement fuels; therefore, no adjustment was

necessary. However, bi-, dual-, and flexible-fuel AFV’s

consume proportions of replacement and traditional fuels

that may be significantly different from the nominal

proportions in blended fuels. Flexible-fuel vehicles using VMT on 100% alternative fuel = (fuel availability) × (fuel

M85, for example, do not necessarily consume 85-percent choice) .

methanol and 15-percent gasoline. To obtain the net

amount of alternative fuel used by bi-, dual-, and flexiblefuel vehicles, their VMT values were divided by their

adjusted consumption proportions of alternative versus

traditional fuels. These proportions are a function of the

following:

  Replacement Fuel Availability: The percentage of

traditional fuel used because no replacement fuel is

available at the time of refueling

  Operator's Fuel Choice: The percentage use of

replacement fuel that results from the vehicle

operator’s fuel choice when available. Choice is

affected by perceptions of safety, cost, environmental impact, vehicle performance, and refueling

ease, and by familiarity with the fuel.

These adjustments can be expressed as follows:

6. Conversion to Replacement and

Alternative Fuel Consumption in Native

Units

The net adjusted annual VMT for 100-percent alternative

fuel use were then divided by miles per unit of alternative

fuel. The result was alternative fuel consumption by

AFV’s.
Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995 49

7. Conversion to Gasoline-Equivalent

Gallons

Fuel consumption in terms of gasoline-equivalent gallons

was computed by dividing the lower heating value of the

alternative fuel by the lower heating value of gasoline and

multiplying this result by the alternative fuel consumption value (from step 6).

Oxygenate Consumption

The consumption of ethanol and MTBE from 1992 through

the first quarter of 1996 was estimated from production,

net imports, and stock change data obtained from

Petroleum Supply Monthly (DOE/EIA-0109). Petroleum

Supply Monthly compiles data from the Monthly Petroleum Supply Reporting System, a series of surveys that

collect data from refiners, importers, and transporters of

crude oil and petroleum products. Oxygenate data are

also collected on the Form EIA-819M, “Monthly

Oxygenate Telephone Report.” Oxygenate consumption

is calculated as production plus net imports less stock

change. For the remainder of 1996 and for 1997,

consumption is derived from unpublished data prepared

in support of the Short Term Energy Outlook, Third Quarter

1996, DOE/EIA-0202(96/3Q).
Appendix B

U.S. Census

Region Map
TX

OK AR

LA

MS AL GA

FL

SC

TN

KY

NC

VA WV DC

DE

MD

SOUTH

WA

OR

CA

UT

MT

WY

ID

CO

AZ NM

NV

ND

SD

NE

KS MO

IA

MN

WI

IL

MI

IN OH

PA

NY

MA

ME

NH

VT

RI

CT

NJ

HI

AK

WEST

MIDWEST

NORTHEAST

52 Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995

Figure B1. U.S. Census Region Map

 Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census

Appendix B

U.S. Census Region Map
Appendix C

Alternative-Fueled

Vehicle Suppliers
Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995 55

Table C1. Alternative-Fueled Vehicle Suppliers

Name of Organization Address City State Zip Contact Phone Type 

4-Wheel Driveline Systems ....... 1160 Castleon Ave. Staten Island NY 10310 Jay Losey (718) 447-3038 Conv

A-1 Auto Electric .............. 2305 Stairislaus Ave. Fresno CA 93721 Mark Gilio (209) 485-4427 OEM A.D. Lift Truck ................. 5434 Natural Bridge Ave. St. Louis MO 63120 Bob Perkins (314) 389-1720 Conv

AMFAB ...................... 1410 E Broadway Rd. Phoenix AZ 85040-2308 Phil Terry (602) 243-5833 Conv

ARKLA (a NorAm Energy Co.). .... P.O. Box 21734 Shreveport LA 71151 Wm. L. Link (318) 429-4180 ConvAZ Technologies, Inc. ........... Rt. 2, Box 77 Hard (Highland) AR 72542 Les Adam (501) 856-3737 OEM 

Ace Gas Co. .................. 1111 Rt. 37 West Toms River NJ 08755 Brian Clayton (908) 349-1586 Conv

Acme Alternate Fuels Sys., Inc. .... 110 Butterworth St. Mankato MN 56001 Dale R. Hudson (507) 345-4000 Conv

Advanced Vehicle Systems, Inc. . . . 3101 Parker Ln. Chattanooga TN 37419 Joe Ferguson (423) 821-3146 OEM Air Quality Environmental, Inc ..... 8119 East 48th St. Tulsa OK 74145 Vic Ham (918) 663-1700 ConvAlabama Gas Corp. ............. 2101 6TH Ave. N. Birmingham AL 35203 Bob Strickland (205) 326-8449 Conv

All-State Ford Truck Sales ........ 1357 Gardiner Ln. Louisville KY 40213 John R. Jackson (502) 459-0550 ConvAllen Forklift Inc. ............... 425 West Lamar Sherman TX 75092 Pat Patterson/ (903) 893-5196 Deal

Doug Allen

Allied Propane Service, Inc. ...... 5000 Seaport Ave. Richmond CA 94804 Philip Teaderman (510) 237-7077 ConvAlternate Energy Corp. . . . . . . . . . . 3 Brook St. Providence RI 02903 Tom Aubee (401) 351-1232 Conv

Alternate Fuel Consul. & Conv. . . . . #1 Vorhees Dr. Little Rock AR 72209 Lloyd White-Whitey (501) 568-5771 ConvAlternate Fuel Technologies ...... 17092 Gothard St. Huntington Beach CA 92647 Bruce Eikelberger (714) 842-3017 Conv

Alternate Fuel Conversions ....... Rt. 2, Box 46A Caldwell TX 77836 Brian Kilpatrick (409) 272-3026 ConvAlternative Dual Fuels, Inc. ....... 6532 L.B.J. Dallas TX 75240 Robert A. Lynch (214) 392-1949 ConvAlternative Fuel Conversion Center . 9256 Bermudez St. Pico Rivera CA 90660 Jeff Johnson (310) 932-9400 OEM Amectran Corporation ........... 7950 West Flamingo Las Vegas NV 89117 Edmond Ramirez (702) 876-8997 OEM 

American Clean Cities Corp. . . . . . . 28 Garden St. New Rochelle NY 10801 Richard Mulle (914) 632-6666 ConvAmerican Dual Fuels, Inc. ........ 7182 Hwy. 14 Middleton WI 53562 Dan Mackin (608) 836-6300 Conv

Suite 701

American Natural Gas Power, Inc. . . 6601 Long Pont Rd. Houston TX 77019 Gary Leuck (713) 681-4700 ConvAmeriGas .................... P.O. Box 965 Vally Forge PA 19482-0965 Jack McMonagle (610) 337-7000 ConvAnthony Abraham Chevrolet ..... 4181 SW 8th St. Miami FL 33134 Melvin Shifke (305) 443-9000 DealArtkansas Western Gas Co. ...... P.O. Box 1288 Fayettville AR 727023 Charles W. Holt (501) 521-5400 ConvAskins Propane ................ 202 Commerce St. Robert Lee TX 76945 Rhonda Askins (915) 453-2060 Conv

Athey Products Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . P. O. Box 669 Raleigh NC 27602 Ray Akermann (919) 556-5171 OEM 

Atlantic Detroit Diesel Allison, Inc. . . 180 Rt. 17 South Lodi NJ 07644 Tim Meade (201) 489-5800 ConvAtlantic Lift Systems, Inc. ........ 5736 Sellger Dr. Norfolk VA 23502 Paul Haynsworth (804) 466-9280 ConvAutomotive Diagnostic Service .... 5730-A Roseville Rd. Sacramento CA 95842 Ahmed Mohamed (916) 332-5333 Conv

Automotive Inc. ................ 1730 East 18th Owensboro KY 42303 Steve Roberts (502) 926-9731 Conv

B.H.P. The Gas Company ........ P.O. Box 3379 Honolulu HI 96842 Brad Saito (808) 594-5584 ConvSee notes at end of table.
Table C1. Alternative-Fueled Suppliers (Continued)

Name of Organization Address City State Zip Contact Phone Type 

56 Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995 Baker Electromotive ............ 3200 W. Moore St. Richmond VA Joseph G. Baker, Jr. (804) 358-0481 Conv

Ballard Gas Service, Inc. ......... 1695 S. State St. San Jacinto CA 92583 Frances Ballard (909) 652-6854 Conv

Ballard Power Systems .......... 9000 Glenlyon Pkwy. Burnaby BC V5J5J9 Paul Lancaster (604) 454-0900 NA Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. ...... 7210 Windsor Blvd. Baltimore MD 21244 Leslie E. (410) 597-7601 Conv

Stephenson, Sr. Barbour Brothers, Inc. ........... 301 N. 87 Ave. / Box 66 Tulia TX 79088 Ray Barbour (806) 995-3366 Deal

Barnes Energy Service, Inc. ...... 113 North Ave. Moberly MO 65270 James Barnes (816) 263-1130 ConvBattery Auto. Trans. International . . Bill Wason (818) 565-5551 ConvBaytech Corporation ............ P.O. Box 1148 Los Altos CA 94023 Rebecca Royer (415) 949-1976 OEM Beacon Power Systems, Inc. ...... 447 E. Elmwood Troy MI 48083 Joann Blankenship (810) 589-7888 OEM Bemer Petroleum Corp. .......... 210 Commerce St. Glastonbury CT 06033 T. Michael Morrissey (203) 659-3515 Deal

Benson Repair Service, Inc. ...... 402 SE Water Ave. Sonora TX 76950 Fredrick C. Benson (915) 387-2966 Conv

Berkshire Gas Company, The ..... 115 Cheshire Rd. Pittsfield MA 01202-9987 David Grande (413) 442-1511 Conv

P.O. Box 1388 Big H, Inc. .................... 240 Denny Way El Cajon CA 92020 Howard F. Hawkins (619) 449-6263 Conv

Bill's Propane ................. 1635 West Point Colorado City TX 79512 Randy Wilkinson (915) 728-3749 ConvBlue Bird Corporation .......... North Camellia Blvd. Fort Valley GA 31030 Bruce Miles (912) 822-6646 OEM Blue Skies NGV Conversion Co. . . . 2022 E Francis St. Ontario CA 91761 Brian Brown (909) 923-8780 ConvBlue Valley Goodyear ........... 7908 State Ave. Kansas City KS 66112 Buck Bales (913) 788-7272 Conv

Bowgen Fuel Systems, Inc. ....... 3392 S. Bowgen Pkwy. Springfield MO 65807 Christina Watts (417) 887-4773 Conv

Bowie Butane Gas Co. .......... P.O. Box 248 Bowie TX 76230 Ken Reynolds (817) 872-2266 Conv

Brodie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Ballard Rd. Lawrence MA 01843 Bob Harron (508) 682-6300 Conv

Buckley Energy Group ........... 146 Admiral St. Bridgeport CT 06605 Robert J. Magas (203) 336-3541 Deal

Burkhardt Turbines ............. 1258 N. Main St., # B2B Fort Bragg CA 95437 John A. Takes (707) 961-0459 Conv

Bus Manufacturing USA ......... 325-C Rutherford Ave. Goleta CA 93117 Yolanda Davis/ (805) 964-0970 OEM 

Robert Davis C. Clark Propane, Inc. ........... 916 Wilks Pampa TX 79065 Mark Clark (806) 665-4018 Conv

C & M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2230 E Main St. Visalia CA 93292 Doug Martin (209) 625-3619 ConvCLI Worldwide ................. 515 N.E. 190 St. Miami FL 33179 Jason Green (305) 651-2220 ConvCNG Services of Pittsburgh, Inc. . . . 3940 Old Wm Penn Hwy. Pittsburgh PA 15235 Robert Petsinger (412) 372-5568 Conv

Suite 453 Cady Oil Co. .................. 5023 N. Galena Rd. Peorisa Heights IL 61614 Craig Dupuy (309) 688-2111 OEM 

Cajun Propane of Lafayette, Inc. . . . 111 Patin Rd. Scott LA 70583 Mike Kibodeaux (318) 261-1294 ConvCalifornia Electric Cars, Inc. ...... 1661 Del Monte Blvd. Seaside CA 93955 Thomas Brooks (408) 655-3969 OEM 

See notes at end of table.
Table C1. Alternative-Fueled Suppliers (Continued)

Name of Organization Address City State Zip Contact Phone Type 

Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995 57

Calvin Gas Co., Inc. ............ 1805 1/2 E. Scott Wichita Falls TX 76307 Patti Bryant (817) 766-0561 ConvCapuano GMC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Winsted Rd. Torringtion CT 06790 Roger Hackbarth (860) 492-2323 Conv

Car Doctor Inc., The ............ 3705 Industrial Rd. Las Vegas NV 89109 Jan Monaghan (702) 732-0112 ConvCarb. Equipment of El Paso ....... 3230 Gateway East El Paso TX 79905 Louis R. Davila (915) 533-1315 ConvCarburetion & Turbo Systems, Inc. . 1897 Eagle Creek Blvd. Shakopee MN 55379 David E. Leivestad (612) 445-3910 ConvCarburetion Labs of Midwest ...... 1819 Ridge Rd. Evanston IL 60204 Peter Suttle (847) 328-3161 Conv

P.O. Box 1088

Cardinal Automotive, Inc. ......... 7200 Fifteen Mile Rd. Sterling Heights MI 48312 Todd Rogers (810) 268-3800 Conv

Carolina Natural Gas Vehicles. .... 107 Center Ln. Hunterville NC 28078 Larry Lane (704) 875-2034 Conv

Champagne Alternate Fuel Systems 200 W 5th St. Lansdale PA 19446 Doug Marino (215) 361-1304 ConvChance Coach, Inc. ............. 4219 Irving Wichita KS 67209 Bob Ward (316) 942-7411 OEM 

Chesapeake Auto Enterprises, Inc. . Rear 47 Main St. Reistertown MD 21136 Bill Brill (410) 833-7700 ConvCheckeye LPG Carburetion, Inc. . . . 651 Pittsburgh St. Springdale PA 15144 Lyle Checkeye (412) 274-8778 DealChico Butane Gas Co. ........... Hwy 101 South Chico TX 76431 Mr. Buckner (817) 644-2624 ConvCity of Las Vegas .............. 400 E. Stewart Ave. Las Vegas NV 89101 Dan Hyde (702) 229-6446 ConvCity of Mesquite ............... 1101 E. Main Mesquite TX 75149 Gereal Hogue (214) 216-6903 ConvCity of Philadelphia ............. 1600 Arch St. Philadelphia PA 19154 Timothy K. Lynch (215) 686-1840 Conv

4th floor

Clean Air Fuels ................ 1945 Las Plumas San Jose CA 95133 Bill Gainey (408) 259-5710 Conv

Clean Air Partners, Inc. .......... 5066 Santa Fe St. San Diego CA 92109 Paul Beck (619) 581-5600 OEM 

Clean Vehicle Systems .......... 1160 Castleton Ave. Staten Island NY 10310 Robert Meeker (718) 447-3038 Conv

Comm. Truck & Tractor Repair, Inc . 330 Stiles St. Nutter Fort WV 26301 Michael W. Davis (304) 623-0981 Conv

P.O. Box 8253

Commonwealth Propane, Inc ...... 9200 Arboretum Pkwy. Richmond VA 23236 Tim Chase (804) 327-1310 Conv

Suite 140

Compressed Natural Gas Corp. .... 2809 C Broadbent Alburquerque NM 82107 Adrienne Stone/ (505) 343-8808 Conv

David Crutchfield

Concho Butane Co. ............. 8750 N U.S. Highway 87 San Angelo TX 76901 Tommy Tomerlin (915) 653-8924 ConvConnecticut Natural Gas Corp ..... P.O. Box 1500 Hartford CT 06144-1500 Peter Casarella (860) 727-3264 ConvConversions of Connecticut ....... 226 Pratt St. Southington CT 06489 Doug Mitchell (203) 238-3932 ConvCoots Carburetion & Service Ctr . . . 505 Center St. Lathrop MO 64465 Harold Coots (816) 528-4505 ConvCrane Carrier Company .......... 1925 N. Sheridan Tulsa OK 74115 Reginald Wallace (918) 836-1651 OEM Crawford Motors ............... 351 Richmond St. Chatham ON N7M1P5 Dan Crawford (519) 352-4957 ConvSee notes at end of table.
Table C1. Alternative-Fueled Suppliers (Continued)

Name of Organization Address City State Zip Contact Phone Type 

58 Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995 Crittenden Butane Co., Inc. ....... 1315 E San Rayburn Dr. Bonham TX 75418 Jim Crittenden (903) 583-4212 Deal

Cryogas, USA, Inc. ............. 401 Alexander Ave. Tacoma WA 98421 M.D. Herron (206) 272-6544 Conv

Building # 326 Cummins Southwest Inc. ......... 2239 N. Black Canyon Phoenix AZ 85009 Mike Depew/ (602) 252-8021 OEM

Hwy. Dave Crawford Cushman ..................... 900 N. 21 St. Lincoln NE 68501 Dammika (402) 474-8433 OEM 

 Weeratunga DRV Energy, Inc. ............... 1225 S.E. 29th Oklahoma City OK 73129 Sheri Vanhooser (405) 670-9099 Conv

Dee's Auto & Truck Service ....... 1428 N. Summit Arkansas City KS 67005 Don Rottmayer (316) 442-2781 ConvDiesel Equipment /Auto Air ....... 441 University Blvd. Birmingham AL 35205 Pat McKim (800) 733-3791 ConvDoran Motor Co. ............... 624 S. Archer St. Anaheim CA 92804 Rick Doran (702) 359-7356 OEM Dr. Dan's Alt. Fuel Works ........ 912 NW 50th St. Seattle WA 98107 Dan Freeman (206) 783-5728 ConvE-Motion Electric Vehicles ........ 7025 Riverside Dr. McMinnville OR 97128 Lon Gillas (503) 434-4332 OEM E-Z-Go (Textron) ............... P.O. Box 388 Augusta GA 30903 F.O. Smith (800) 448-7476 OEM 

EDO Automotive Natural Gas, Inc . . 265 N. Janesville St. Milton WI 53563 Chuck Nelson (608) 868-4626 Othe

P.O. Box 39 EV Development ............... P.O. Box 1025 Monroe NC 28111 Lawson Huntley (704) 283-1025 OEM 

East Bay Ford Truck Sales, Inc. . . . 333 Filbert St. Oakland CA 94607 Bob Holden (510) 272-4400 ConvEast Texas Lift Trucks, Inc.. ...... P.O. Box 8251 Tyler TX 75711 John Ellis (903) 581-1828 ConvEastern Maine Tech. College ...... 354 Hogan Bangor ME 04401 Gene Fadrigon (207) 941-4600 ConvEastern Truck & Auto. Repair . . . . . 50 Upton St. Manchester NH 03103 Jacqueline Benard (603) 669-8555 ConvEcoElectric Corp. .............. 1033 E. Miles Tucson AZ 85754 Mary Ann Chapman (520) 770-9444 OEM 

P.O. Box 85247 Electric Launch Co., Inc. ......... 261 Upper North Rd. Highland NY 12528 Charles Houghton (914) 691-3777 OEM 

Electric Motor Cars Sales & Serv. . . 4301 Kingfisher Houston TX 77035 K.D. Bancroft (713) 729-8668 ConvElectric Vehicles Northwest ....... 306 S. Michigan Seattle WA 98108 O. Sundin (206) 762-4404 ConvElectric Vehicles of America . . . . . . 48 Acton St. Maynard MA 01754 Bob Batson (508) 897-9393 ConvElectricar Corp. of America ....... 720 Laramie Dr. Lewisville TX 75067 Michael Bain (214) 221-4840 ConvEnergy Conversion Corp. ........ Route 6, Box 25B Santa Fe NM 87501 Calvin Hildebrand (505) 438-9192 ConvEnergy Conversions, Inc. ........ 6411 Pacific Hwy., E. Tacoma WA 98424 Paul Jensen/ (206) 922-6670 OEM 

Scott Jensen Engine Technology Center ........ 121 Bartlett St. Marlboro MA 01752 Richard E. Stakutis (508) 480-0937 OEM 

Enginuity ..................... 1424 N. Great Neck Rd. Virginia Beach VA 23454 Bill Dozier (804) 481-7374 OEM Environmental Conversions, Inc. . . . 944 W. 2Oth St. Ogden UT 84401 Jerry Williamson (801) 629-0999 ConvEnvirotech .................... 202 Country Club Rd. Sherwood AR 72116 Nelson Brumley (501) 835-1209 Conv

See notes at end of table.
Table C1. Alternative-Fueled Suppliers (Continued)

Name of Organization Address City State Zip Contact Phone Type 

Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995 59

Evans Propane Service .......... 1305 North 3rd St. Ironton OH 45638 Dave Evans (614) 532-7817 Conv

ExproFuels ................... 500 N. Loop 1604 E. San Antonio TX 78232 Frank Alderman (210) 490-9400 Conv

Suite 250

Fallsway Equipment Co. . . . . . . . . . 15 Florist St. Youngstown OH 44505 Donald Fischer (330) 744-3333 DealFarr Automotive Specialists ....... 136 West Main Bozeman MT 59715 Francis Farr (406) 587-8781 Conv

Fleet Authority ................. 3170 Draper Dr. Fairfax VA 22031 Phil Jones (703) 691-2100 Conv

Bay 10

Fletcher Service Co. ............ 9800 Hwy 1021 Eagle Pass TX 78852 Douglas J. (210) 773-2816 Conv

Fletcher, III

Flowers Pontiac-Cadillac Co. ...... 5915 Broadway Galveston TX 77553 Bob Tillman (409) 744-5711 ConvFord Motor Company ............ AFV products hotline (800) ALT-FUEL OEM 

Fosseen Manu. & Develop. LTD . . . 206 May St. Radcliffe IA 50230-0010 Dwayne Forseen (515) 899-2115 Conv

P.O. Box 10

Fraley Butane Co. .............. 4301 Pine St Abilene TX 79601 James Holmes (915) 673-3766 Conv

Frank's Fuels, Inc. .............. 3410 W. Loop 338 Odessa TX 79764 Jeff Straint (915) 332-0829 Conv

Frank's Repair ................. 18951 Wolf Rd. Makena IL 60948 Frank Stone (708) 479-4407 Conv

Franklin & Son, Inc. ............ 308 W. Front Stanton TX 79782 Barbara McKenzie (915) 756-2808 ConvFricks Butane Gas, Inc. .......... 2307 E 9th St. Texarkana AR 71854 Clay Fricks (501) 774-5892 Conv

Fuel Tec, United ............... 707 N Main S. Hutchinson KS 67505 Stan Matlock (316) 663-6300 ConvG&M Service Center, Inc. ........ 7901-5 Hill Park Ct. Lorton VA 22079 Mike Kalcheff (703) 550-1467 ConvG.M. Barnadol & Son ............ 7659 Airline Hwy. Baton Rouge LA 70814 Dale Babbin (504) 924-5378 ConvGFI Control Systems, Inc. ....... 100 Hollinger Cres. Kitchener ON N2K2Z3 Susan Cudahy (800) 667-4275 ConvGWU/CMEE Program ........... 801 22nd St., NW Washington DC 20052 Dr. Bedewi (202) 994-6915 OEM Gales Gas Service ............. 2100 Airport Rd. Pierre SD 57501 Jack Nafus (605) 224-5518 ConvGarrison Oil Company ........... 1107 Walter Griffin St. Plainview TX 79072 David Wood (806) 296-6353 Conv

Gas Development Resources, LLC . 8480 E. Valley Rd. Prescott Valley AZ 86314 Demetri Wagner (602) 772-6000 ConvGassWagen, Inc. ............... 1250 Bittner Blvd. Lebanon PA 17046 Rick Arnold (717) 270-4530 ConvGeneral Motors Corporation ...... 3044 West Grand Blvd. Detroit MI 48202 Dr. Gerald J. Barnes (313) 556-7723 OEM 

Mail Code 482-112-257

Georgia Gas Distributors, Inc. ..... 3715 Northside Pkwy. Atlanta GA 30327 Wayne Register (404) 364-4427 Deal

Bldg. 200 Northcreek, Ste. 625

Gillig Corporation ............... 25800 Clawiter Rd. Hayward CA 94545 Charles Koske (510) 264-5031 OEM 

Glaser Gas, Inc. ............... 215 Auburn Dr. Colorado Springs CO 80909 David E. Glaser (719) 596-4765 Conv

See notes at end of table.
Table C1. Alternative-Fueled Suppliers (Continued)

Name of Organization Address City State Zip Contact Phone Type 

60 Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995 Glendale Dial-A-Ride ............ 6210 West Myrtle Ave. Glendale AZ 85301 Larry Plew (602) 930-2621 Conv

Suite111 Glenn’s Sales & Service ......... 1711 Rt. 21 Shotrsville NY 14505 Glenn Salisbury (716) 289-4298 Conv

Globe Gas Corp ............... 5843 Paramount Blvd. Long Beach CA 90805 Ed Humphrey (310) 422-0405 Conv

Graeber Brothers, Inc. ........... P.O. Box 188 Clarksdale MS 38614 James Graeber (601) 624-4326 Conv

Green Motorworks ............. 5228 Vineland Ave. N. Hollywood CA 91601 William Meurer (818) 766-3800 Deal

Green’s Blue Flame Gas Co., Inc. . . 14823 Packard Houston TX 77040 Joe Green (713) 462-5414 Conv

Greene's Auto Service ........... 111 W Raymond St. Indianapolis IN 46225 Kenny Pearson (317) 786-6253 Conv

Greengas America .............. 685 Ramsey Ave. Hill Side NJ 07205 Al Venezio (210) 344-4442 Conv

Greenville Automatic Gas Co. . . . . . FM 118 Greenville TX 75403 Tim Stainback (903) 455-4546 Conv

Greenway Environmental Res. .... 40104 Industrial Park Cir. Georgetown TX 78626 Don Greenway (512) 869-7278 Conv

Griffin Butane Co. .............. 5537 W 22nd St. Odessa TX 79763 Calvin Yancey (915) 381-2481 Deal

Griffin Propane ................ 107 Murchison Eldorado TX 76936 Curtis Griffin (915) 853-2880 Deal

P.O. Box 540 Gtr Cleveland Reg. Transit Auth. . . . 615 Superior Ave., West Cleveland OH 44113 Maynard Z. Walters (216) 665-5224 Othe

Haigood & Campbell ............ P.O. Box 427 Archer City TX 76351 Herb Victory (817) 574-4622 Conv

Hall Propane Co. ............... P.O. Box 602 Port Lavaca TX 77979 Sharon Hall (512) 552-5587 ConvHargreaves Propane ............ P.O. Box 7 George West TX 78022 Henry Hargreaves (512) 449-1051 ConvHarvey’s LP Gas Co. ............ P.O. Box 101 Los Fresnos TX 78566 Alfredo Escalante (210) 233-4356 ConvHeritage Propane Corp. .......... P.O. Box 5745 Helena MT 59604 Pat West (406) 442-9759 Conv

Hunter Propane ................ 2001 W. Corpus Christy Beeville TX 78104 John Hunter/ (512) 358-5097 Conv

Sammy Mondez IEV Corp. .................... NAWC Tech. Park Warminster PA 18974 Jim Smith (215) 646-8686 Conv

IMPCO Technologies, Inc. ........ 16804 Gridley Place Cerritos CA 90703-1741 Pearl Kamdar (206) 575-1594 ConvIMPCO Technologies, Inc. ........ 708 Industry Dr. Seattle WA 98188 David Smith (310) 860-6666 DealIndependent Oil Co. dba Dixie LP . . 305 N. Waco St. Hillsboro TX 76645 Lynn B. Gray (817) 582-5359 DealIndustrial Truck Sales & Service . . . 4100 Randelman Rd. Greensboro NC 27407 Ted Hand (910) 275-9121 DealInstitute of Gas Technology ....... 1700 S. Mt. Prospect Rd. Des Plaines IL 60018 Chris Blazek (312) 890-6466 ConvIntermountain Gas Company ...... 555 S. Cole Rd. Boise ID 83707 Micheal E. (208) 377-6059 Conv

Huntington J & L Propane, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rt. 1 Box 3383 Miller Rd. Krum TX 76249 Raymond Johnson (817) 482-3225 Conv

J-W Operating Company ......... 36629 U S Highway 385 Wray CO 80758 Kendall Read (970) 332-3151 Conv

JL Associates (JLA) . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Enterprise Pkwy. Hampton VA 23666 Curtis Higbie (804) 838-8400 ConvJettgas ...................... 302 Boomtown Rd. Laredo TX Laredo Eloy Garza (210) 723-5551 ConvKamps Propane ................ 7750 N. Sepulveda Van Nuys CA 91405 Robert Bagshaw (818) 989-7559 Conv

See notes at end of table.
Table C1. Alternative-Fueled Suppliers (Continued)

Name of Organization Address City State Zip Contact Phone Type 

Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995 61

Kaylor Energy Products .......... 20000 Big Basin Way Boulder Creek CA 95006 Roy Kaylor (408) 338-2200 OEM 

Kelly’s Truck Repair, Inc. ......... P.O. Box 210 Oakland CA 94604 Kelly Green (510) 655-9090 Conv

King County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 900 King Co. Admin. Seattle WA 98104 Bill Glenn (206) 296-6521 Conv

Bldg.500 4th/Rm. 858

Kleenair Systems, Inc. .......... 1003 Fairfax Ave. Martinsburg WV 25401 James M. Seibert (304) 267-6441 Conv

Kress Service Center ........... 196 Butler St. Etna PA 15223 Frederick Kress (412) 781-9837 Conv

Krutsinger Services, Inc. ......... 5402 E. Hanna Ave. Tampa FL 33610 Steven M. Krutsinger (813) 216-4484 Conv

LP Gas Carb. & Appliance Svc. .... 601 N I-27 Lubbock TX 79403 Travis Callaway (806) 765-9573 Conv

LEKTRO, Inc. ................. 1190 SE Flightline Dr. Warrenton OR 97146 Eric Paulson (800) 535-8767 OEM 

LP Gas Equipment ............. 12475 W. Custer Butler WI 53007 John Pfeiffer (414) 781-5777 Conv

LP Propane Service, Inc. ......... 20638 Krick Rd. Cleveland OH 44146 Les Ashby (216) 232-4111 Deal

Lamesa Butane Co. ............. 501 S. Lynn Lamesa TX 79331 Arlen Morris (806) 872-5200 Conv

Leahy’s Metered Gas Service ..... 130 White St. Danbury CT 06813-0130 Stephen G. Rosentel (203) 748-3539 Conv

P.O. Box 130

Lee County Sheriff's Dept. ........ 2955 Van Buren Ft. Myers FL 33916 Lt. Firmes (914) 338-2505 Conv

Liberty Propane ................ P.O. Box 563 Alvord TX 76234 Bubba Bell (817) 427-3721 Conv

Loren's Auto Repair ............. 817 West Center St Kalispell MT 59901 Loren Sallie (406) 755-7757 ConvLovett's LP Gas ................ 2618 Central Dr. Junction City KS 66441 Jerry Lovett (913) 762-5160 Conv

M&M Propane ................. P.O. Box 502 Donna TX 78537 Troy McMillan (210) 464-3522 Conv

M.F. Automotive ............... 416 W. 6th Amarillo TX 79101 Mark Francis (806) 379-6941 Conv

Mack Trucks, Inc. .............. P.O. Box 1907 Allentown PA 18105 Ed Merkel (610) 709-8125 OEM 

Martin LP Gas ................. 2606 N. Longview St. Kilgore TX 75666 Jerry Sullivan (903) 984-0781 Conv

Mathes Electric Motor Car Corp. . . . P.O. Box 44 Ocala FL 34478 Charles West, Jr. (352) 307-9068 OEM McClures Fuel Service, Inc. ....... P.O. Box 247 Konawa OK 74849 George Winters (405) 925-3256 Deal

McKie Ford ................... P.O. Box 740 Rapid City SD 57709 Kevin Haberstroh (605) 348-1400 ConvMid-Continent LP Service ........ 3711 N. Main Great Bend KS 67530 Dick Cougherty (316) 793-3573 Conv

 P.O. Box 369

Midamerican Energy Company .... 509 Douglas St. Sioux City IA 51102 Terry W. Slaughter (712) 277-7603 Conv

Midtex LP Gas ................. 3675 Highway 287 E. Midlothian TX 76065 Rodney Jenkins (214) 723-3900 Conv

Miller’s Truck Repair, Inc. ........ 145 Higginson Ave. Lincoln RI 02865 Bob Miller (401) 723-9030 Conv

Mission Gas Co. ............... 10625 Hwy 181 S. San Antonio TX 78223-5040 Ted Terry (210) 633-0721 Conv

Modern Auto Service Ltd. ........ 111 3rd St. West Brooks AB CANADA T1R 1B3 Larry Hartmann (403) 362-3425 ConvModern Engineering ............ 15201 N. Commerce Dr. Dearborn MI 48120 Bob Childs (313) 317-9510 ConvMonroe Truck Equipment ......... 901 Joliet St. Janesville WI 53545 Deb Sisko (608) 755-3940 Conv

See notes at end of table.
Table C1. Alternative-Fueled Suppliers (Continued)

Name of Organization Address City State Zip Contact Phone Type 

62 Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995 Montana Dakota Utilities ......... 801 Airport Rd. Bismarck ND 58501 Don Knapp (701) 224-5881 Conv

Montana Power Company . . . . . . . . 40 East Broadway Butte MT 59701 Wally Norley (406) 723-5421 Conv

Morrison Knudsen Locomotive ..... 4600 Apple St Boise ID 83705 Michael Nelson (208) 389-4800 OEM Morton's CNG Conversions ....... 13404 Jefferson Davis Woodbridge VA 22191 Jerry Morton (703) 494-7914 Conv

Hwy. Motorfuelers, Inc. .............. 13790-B 49th Street, N Clearwater FL 34622 James E. Morton (813) 572-9762 Conv

Moulden Supply Co., Inc. ......... 3600 Hwy. 80 W. Jackson MS 39209 John Titcomb (601) 922-4611 Conv

Mountain Fuel Supply Co. ........ 1175 West 130, S Salt Lake City UT 84104 Terry Keddington (801) 539-3673 ConvMulti-Fuel Corp ................ 2384 Cedar Key Lake Orion MI 48360 Tony Lorts (810) 391-3524 Conv

Mutual Liquid Gas & Equipment .... 17117 S. Broadway Gardena CA 92704 Steven Moore (310) 515-0553 Conv

NACCO Materials Handling Group . . 5200 Greenville Blvd., Greenville NC 27834 Peter M. Siessel (919) 931-5154 OEM 

NE NESC, Williams Inc. ............ 5333 Northfield Rd. Cleveland OH 44146 Earl Biederman (216) 662-0225 Conv

18 Harrison St. NEVCORP ................... 120 Cleveland Eugene OR 97402 Carl Watkins (541) 687-5939 OEM

NGC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1381 SR 125 Amelia OH 45102 George McAuliffe (513) 753-4614 Conv

Suite 11C NGV Ecotrans Group, Inc. ........ 2424 East Olympic Blvd. Los Angeles CA 90021 Dennis Osaka (213) 362-7281 Conv

Bldg. #3 NGV Refuel. & Conv. of AR, Inc . . . 716 E. 9th Little Rock AZ 72202 Mary Yelenich (501) 375-0804 Conv

NGV Southeast Technology Ctr .... 616 Hwy 138 Riverdale GA 30067 Pat McKim (770) 907-0999 Conv

National Fuel Gas .............. 365 Mineral Springs Rd. Buffalo NY 14210-1999 Carment E. Rossi (716) 827-5520 ConvNatoma Auto Center ............ 12181 Folsom Blvd. Rancho Cordova CA 95742 Rick Yakesh (916) 985-3618 Conv

Natural Fuels Corp. ............. 5855 Stapleton Dr. N Denver CO 80216-3312 Paul Nelson (303) 322-460 Conv

Suite 135 Natural Gas 2000, Inc. ........... 808 North Pike Rd. Cabot PA 16023 Chuck Martin (412) 352-9100 Conv

Naumann/Hobbs Material Hand .... 4336 S. 43rd Place Phoenix AZ 85040 Ken Settle (602) 437-1331 Conv

New Flyer Industries Limited ...... 600 Pandora Ave. W Winnipeg MB R2C3T4 Rick G. Zebinski (204) 224-6378 OEM 

New Haven Body, Inc. ........... 395 State St. North Haven CT 06473 David Cataldo (203) 248-6388 Conv

New York State Electric & Gas .... 432 E. Main St. Endicott NY 13760 Stanley Augustine (607) 786-3290 Conv

Norman's Automotive Svcs, Inc. . . . 7649A Fullerton Rd. Springfield VA 22153 Norman Canfield (703) 451-9222 ConvNorth American Fleet Services .... 3820 East Winslow Ave. Phoenix AZ 85040 Macy Neshati (602) 254-4366 Conv

North Valley Propane ............ 526 S. Butte St. Willows CA 95988 Vance L. Pattison (916) 934-7005 ConvNortheast Energy Equipment ...... 128A South Country Rd. Bellport NY 11713 Frank Dupointe (516) 286-5600 ConvNorthwest Natural Gas Company . . 220 NW 2nd Ave. Portland OR 97209 Douglass Dunford (503) 721-2476 ConvSee notes at end of table.
Table C1. Alternative-Fueled Suppliers (Continued)

Name of Organization Address City State Zip Contact Phone Type 

Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995 63

Northwest Propane Sales, Inc. .... 8450 Depot Rd. Lynden WA 98264 Steve VanderYacht (360) 354-4471 Conv

Nova BUS Incorporated . . . . . . . . . . 42 Earl Cummings Loop, Roswell NM 88201 Jim McDowell (505) 347-7513 OEM 

W

O'Gwynn Inc. .................. 303 Mildred St. Montgomery AL 36104 Benny J McDaniel (334) 264-2243 Conv

Old Dominion University ......... Norfolk VA 23529 Griff Mcree (804) 683-3789 ConvOmni Instruments ............. Joe Stevenson (707) 766-8587 OEM Orion Bus Industries ............ 165 Base Rd. Oriskany NY 13424 John Riet (315) 768-8101 OEM Otivia Electric Vehicle Co. ........ 6990 Lake View Pt. Longmont CO 80503 Carl Lawrence (303) 444-0569 OEM 

PACA/TEECO Products Co., Inc. . . 7471 Reese Rd. Sacramento CA 95828 Gary Lane (916) 688-3535 ConvPacific Electric Vehicles,LLC ...... 3907 N. State St., #18B Ukiah CA 95482 Bill Warf (707) 485-5799 OEM 

Peterbilt Motors Company ........ 3200 Airport Rd. Denton TX 76201 Jim Zito (817) 566-4084 OEM 

Petty Butane Co. ............... 10224 Hwy. 287, W Vernon TX 76384 Scott Inglish (817) 552-7072 Deal

Piedmont Natural Gas Co. Inc, .... 1915 Rexford Rd. Charlotte NC 28211 Greg A. Johnson (704) 364-3120 Conv

Pinnacle CNG Systems, LLC ...... 3400 West 7th Big Spring TX 79720 Drew Diggins (915) 866-7002 ConvPotomac Industrial Trucks ........ P.O. Box 940 Stephens City VA 22655 Bill Wisham (540) 869-6100 ConvPro Energy Corporation . . . . . . . . . 11 Apple St. Tinton Falls NJ 07724 Ron Cassell (908) 747-3795 Conv

Quality Auto Service ............ 303 S. Wyoming St. Butte MT 59701 Carl M. Popovich (406) 723-9213 ConvQueen Oil & Gas Co. ........... 606 West Richey Artesia NM 88210 Richard B. Leaton (505) 746-4322 Conv

R & W Supply, Inc. ............. Hwy 385 South Littlefield TX 79339 Shawn Pickrell (806) 385-4447 ConvRODAGAS Energy Systems ...... 10355 Capital Oak Park MI 48237 Gerald G. Flood (810) 398-3660 DealRanch Butane Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rt 3 Box 298 Corpus Christi TX 78415 Nelson Lanam (512) 855-7231 Conv

Recreational Electric Veh, Inc. ..... 9330 Industrial Trace Alpharetta GA 30201 Stephen Janis (770) 664-6559 OEM 

Reliable Gas Co. ............... P.O. Box 4039 Tyler TX 75712 David Guthrie (903) 882-6106 Conv

13776 Hwy 69, N

Richter Enterprises ............. 5120 Cane Run Rd. Louisville KY 40216-1157 Troy Royalty (502) 447-7304 Conv

Rust Tractor Company .......... 4000 Osuna Rd., NE Albuquerque NM 87109 Pete Van Dyk (505) 345-8411 Deal

Sales Equipment ............... P.O. Box 82455 Oklahoma City OK 73148 Chris Link (405) 634-2426 Conv

San Francisco State University .... Transportation Dept. San Francisco CA 94132 Patrica Tolar (415) 338-6029 OEM 

1600 Holloway Ave.

Sarasota Sheriff’s Dept. .......... 425 Old Venice Rd. Osprey FL 34229 Steven W. Meadows (941) 486-2363 Conv

Savage Auto Care .............. P.O. Box 179 North Hyde Park VT 05665 John Savage (802) 635-9733 ConvSawtooth Repair ............... 1708 East Lincoln Rd. Idaho Falls ID 83401 Joel Phelps (208) 522-9697 Conv

Schagrin Gas ................. 1000 N. Broad St. Middleton DE 19709 Christopher Cafarella (302) 378-2000 Conv

Schless Engineering, Inc ......... 3165 E Main St. Ashland OR 97520 Ely Schless (541) 488-8226 OEM Servigas ..................... 6319 Doniphan Dr. El Paso TX 79932 David Chavez (915) 833-2961 ConvSee notes at end of table.
Table C1. Alternative-Fueled Suppliers (Continued)

Name of Organization Address City State Zip Contact Phone Type 

64 Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995 Sharp, E.O., Butane Co., Inc. ..... P.O. Box 599 Smithville TX 78957 Ted Parks (512) 237-2521 Conv

Shelton’s Propane Company ...... 149 W Industrial Sulphur Springs TX 75482 James D. Shelton (903) 885-7666 ConvSmith & Smith Propane Service .... 327 S. 38th St. Killeen TX 76543 L.R. Smith (817) 699-5343 ConvSolectria Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Industrial Way Wilmington MA 01887 Karl Thidemann (508) 658-2231 OEM 

Soleq ........................ 7137 Austin Ave. Niles IL 60714 S. Ohba (312) 792-3811 OEM 

Southeastern Michigan Gas ....... 2915 Lapeer Rd. Port Huron MI 48061 Charles F. Lambert (810) 987-7900 Conv

Southern Arizona Gas ........... 186 N. Old Tuscon Rd. Nogales AZ 85621 Darrell Miller (520) 281-2028 Conv

Southern LP Gas ............... 512 East Stillwell Dequeen AR 71832 Ron Moore (501) 642-2234 Conv

Southwest Lift ................. 7505 Mines Rd. Laredo TX 78041 Danny Ortiz (210) 722-0988 Conv

Spartan Motors ................ 1000 Reynolds Rd. Charlotte MI 48813 John Gaedert (512) 543-6400 Conv

Stewart & Stevenson-Albuquerqu . . 2929 Vassar Dr., NE Albuquerque NM 87107 Nelson Koontz (505) 881-3511 ConvStewart & Stevenson-Farmington . . 1515 West Murray Dr. Farmington NM 87401 Dale Stevens (505) 325-5071 ConvStix Gas Co., Inc. .............. Hwy 77 Sinton TX 78387 Steve Schmalstieg (512) 364-2284 Conv

Suburban Propane .............. P.O. Box 206 Whippany NJ 07981 Bill Coulter (201) 503-9963 Conv

Sunset Auto Repair . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Sunset Dr. Kalispell MT 59901 Joe Drewnick (406) 752-7479 ConvTRANSTAR Technologies ........ 2415 Beatrice Dallas TX 75208 Barry White (214) 741-1647 ConvTeledyne Brown Engineering ...... 300 Sparkman Dr. Huntsville AL 35807-7007 Terry Reiman (205) 726-1340 Conv

Mail Stop 78 Texgas Propane ............... 4344 S. Main Pearland TX 77581 Ronnie Yard (713) 482-7007 Conv

Flxible Corporation, The ......... 970 Pittsburgh Dr. Delware OH 43105 Dave Kossler (614) 362-2607 OEM 

People’s Natural Gas Co., The .... 625 Liberty Ave. Pittsburgh PA 15222 Vincent J. Meinert (412) 497-5612 Conv

CNG Tower Thompson's Gas, Inc. ........... 1431 N. Illinois St. Belleville IL 62220 Phil Thompson (618) 233-6541 Conv

Tiger Tractor Corp. ............. P.O. Box 1340 Lee’s Summit MO 64063-1340 Eli Durante (816) 525-3900 OEM Tipton Oil & Butane ............. 119 E Houston Floydada TX 79235 Wayne Tipton (806) 983-3144 ConvTonawanda Truck Repair Inc. ..... 1453 Military Rd. Kenmore NY 14217 Melvin A. Raab (716) 873-1044 ConvTorchiana Automotive ........... 1119 West Chester Pike West Chester PA 19382 Joseph H. Tochiana, (610) 431-4564 Conv

III Transport. Design & Manu. ....... 13000 Farmington Rd. Livonia MI 48150 Ted Hansen (313) 458-9100 Conv

Transportation Systems, Inc. ...... 729 Thomas Dr. Bensenville IL 60106 Paul J Valention (708) 787-0170 ConvTri-Co Propane ................ 109 W. Mesquite Rogers TX 76569 Jack E. Walzel Jr. (817) 642-3885 DealTri-Tex Energy Co. ............. 1408 IH-20W Cisco TX 76437 Rick Roark (817) 442-1611 ConvTrio Fuels .................... P.O. Box 1190 Big Spring TX 79720 Clark Durham (915) 267-9434 Conv

See notes at end of table.
Table C1. Alternative-Fueled Suppliers (Continued)

Name of Organization Address City State Zip Contact Phone Type 

Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995 65

Truck Suppliers, Inc. ............ 2401 West Towne Glendive MT 59330 Jim Stanfill (406) 365-5284 Conv

U.S. Electricar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Thomas Mellon Cir. San Francisco CA 94134 Scott Cronk (415) 656-2414 OEM 

U.S. NGVs ................... 1695 S. 7th St. San Jose CA 95112 Ray Tate (408) 292-6487 NA 

United Propane Corp. ........... 200 E. Minner Bakersfield CA 93308 Don Atkins (805) 393-4088 Conv

Vermont Electric Car . . . . . . . . . . . . RD 3 Box 3272 Middlesex VT 05602 Hilton Dier (802) 223-6652 Conv

Villa Marin Chevrolet ............ 2699 Richmond Ter. Staten Island NY 10303 Dennis Clancy (718) 442-1155 Deal

Vinyard Engine Systems, Inc. ..... 7373 Caribou San Antonio TX 78238 Mr. Shannon Vinyard (210) 520-7924 Conv

Virginia LP Trucks, Inc, .......... 11486 Blue Star Hwy. Strong Creek VA 23882 Jim Mathews (804) 246-8257 OEM 

Walker Automotive ............. Rt. 4 Box 702 Jacksonville TX 75766 Charlie Walker (903) 586-6008 Conv

Welsh Technologies, Inc ......... Box 4214 River Edge NJ 07661 Jonathan W. Welsh (210) 489-3465 ConvWestern Natural Gas Company .... 2960 Strickland St. Jacksonville FL 32254 George Pompilius (904) 387-3511 Conv

Westex Propane ............... 5524 El Paso Dr. El Paso TX 79905 Gary Vera (915) 772-1404 ConvWill-Press .................... 501 Avenue C, SW Winterhaven FL 33880 Bill Myers (941) 299-1474 Conv

Williams Automotive Service ...... 200 E. 5th Fort Stockton TX 79735 Mike Williams (915) 336-2341 ConvWilmutt Gas & Oil Company ...... P.O. Box 1649 Hattiesburg MS 39403 Greg Ryland (601) 544-6001 ConvWisconsin Industrial Truck Co. .... 4500 N. 1119th St. Milwaukee WI 53225 Doug Wilson (414) 466-9900 Conv

Wise Oil Co. .................. Old Dallas Hwy. Hillsboro TX 76645 Russ W. Wise (817) 582-2261 Conv

Wylie LP Gas, Inc. .............. Hwy 54 W Petersburg TX 79250 Jerry Bright (806) 667-3591 Conv

P.O. Box 707

Yellow, Checker, Star Cab Co. .... 3950 W. Tompkins Las Vegas NV 89103 Jack Owens (702) 873-8012 Conv

Yosemite Sam's ............... 611 NW Gordon Topeka KS 66608 Sam Veal (913) 235-5411 ConvZAP Power Systems ............ 117 Morris St. Sebastopol CA 95472 James McGreen (707) 824-4150 OEM Zeigler LP Systems, Inc. ......... 456 Pan American Livingston TX 77351 Bob Zeigler (409) 327-2225 Conv

 CNG = Compressed natural gas. HD = Heavy duty. LD = Light duty. LNG = Liquefied natural gas. LPG = Liquefied petroleum gas. MD = Medium duty. NA = Not applicable. NG = Natural Gas. OEM = Original Equipment Manufacturer. Source: Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-886, “Alternative Fuel Vehicle Suppliers’ Annual Report.”
Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995 67

Glossary

Aftermarket Conversion: A standard, conventionally alternative fueled vehicles. An AFV converter can convert

fueled, factory-produced vehicle to which equipment has (1) conventionally fueled vehicles to AFV's, (2) AFV's to

been added that enables the vehicle to operate on an conventionally fueled vehicles, or (3) AFV's to another

alternative fuel. alternative fuel.

Alcohols (CH -(CH ) -OH): 3 2n The family name of a group

of organic chemical compounds composed of carbon,

hydrogen, and oxygen. The series of molecules vary in

chain length and are composed of a hydrocarbon, plus a

hydroxyl group (for example, methanol, ethanol, and

tertiary butyl alcohol).

Aldehydes: One of several families of compounds formed

as products of incomplete combustion in engines using

gasoline, methanol, ethanol, propane, or natural gas as

fuels. As a general rule of thumb, the presence of

methanol or methyl ethers in the fuel will lead to

formaldehyde as the primary aldehyde in the exhaust,

while ethanol or ethyl ethers will lead to acetaldehyde as

the primary aldehyde in the exhaust. In both cases, other

aldehydes are present, but in much smaller quantities.

Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde are toxic and possibly

carcinogenic.

Alternative Fuel: As defined pursuant to the EPACT,

methanol, denatured ethanol, and other alcohols,

separately or in mixtures of 85 percent by volume or more

(or other percentage not less than 70 as determined by

DOE rule) with gasoline or other fuels, CNG, LNG, LPG,

hydrogen, coal-derived liquid fuels, fuels other than

alcohols derived from biological materials, electricity, or

any other fuel determined to be substantially not

petroleum and yielding substantial energy security

benefits and substantial environmental benefits.

Alternative-Fueled Vehicle (AFV): A vehicle either

designed and manufactured by an original equipment

manufacturer or a converted vehicle designed to operate

in either dual-fuel, flexible-fuel, or dedicated modes on

fuels other than gasoline or diesel. This does not include

a conventional vehicle that is limited to operation on

blended or reformulated gasoline fuels.

Alternative-Fueled Vehicle Converter: An organization

(including companies, government agencies, and utilities),

or an individual who performs conversions involving

Barrel: A volumetric unit of measure for crude oil and

petroleum products equivalent to 42 U.S. gallons.

Bi-Fuel Vehicle: A vehicle with two separate fuel systems

designed to run on either an alternative fuel or

conventional fuel using only one fuel at a time.

Biodiesel: Any liquid biofuel suitable as a diesel fuel

substitute or diesel fuel additive or extender. A diesel

substitute made from transesterification of oils of

vegetables such as soybeans, rapeseed, or sunflowers (end

product known as methyl ester) or from animal tallow

(end product known as methyl tallowate). Biodiesel can

also be made by transesterification of hydrocarbons

produced by the Fisher-Tropsch process from agricultural

byproducts such as rice hulls.

British Thermal Unit (Btu): A standard unit for

measuring the quantity of heat energy equal to the

quantity of heat required to raise the temperature of 1

pound of water by 1 degree Fahrenheit.

California Air Resources Board (CARB): A State

regulatory agency charged with regulating the air quality

in California. Air quality regulations established by the

Board and often stricter than those set by the Federal

Government.

Carbon Cycle: All reservoirs and fluxes of carbon; usually

thought of as a series of the four main reservoirs of carbon

interconnected by pathways of exchange. The four

reservoirs, regions of the Earth in which carbon behaves

in a systematic manner, are the atmosphere, terrestrial

biosphere (usually includes freshwater systems), oceans,

and sediments (includes fossil fuels). Each of these global

reservoirs may be subdivided into smaller pools ranging

in size from individual communities or ecosystems to the

total of all living organisms (biota). Carbon exchanges

from reservoir to reservoir by various chemical, physical,

geological, and biological processes.
68 Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995

Carbon Dioxide (CO ): 2 A colorless, odorless, non- Dedicated Vehicle: A vehicle designed to operate solely

poisonous gas that is a normal part of the ambient air.

Carbon dioxide is a product of fossil fuel combustion.

Although CO does not directly impair human health, it is 2

a greenhouse gas that traps the earth's heat and contributes to the potential for global warming.

Carbon Monoxide (CO): A colorless, odorless gas slightly

lighter than air. It is poisonous if inhaled, in that it

combines with blood hemoglobin to prevent oxygen

transfer. It is produced by the incomplete combustion of

fossil fuels with a limited oxygen supply (as in automobiles). It is a major component of urban air pollution,

which can be reduced by the blending of an oxygenbearing compound such as alcohols and ethers into

hydrocarbon fuels.

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's): A family of inert, nontoxic,

and easily liquified chemicals used in refrigeration, air

conditioning, packaging, and insulation, or as solvents or

aerosol propellants. Because they are not destroyed in the

lower atmosphere, they drift into the upper atmosphere

where their chlorine components destroy ozone.

Clean Alternative Fuel: Any fuel (including methanol,

ethanol, or other alcohols (including any mixture thereof

containing 85 percent or more by volume of such alcohol

with gasoline or other fuels), reformulated gasoline,

diesel, natural gas, liquefied petroleum gases, and

hydrogen) or power source (including electricity) used in

a clean fuel vehicle that complies with the standards and

requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.

Compressed Natural Gas (CNG): Natural gas compressed to a volume and density that is practical as a

portable fuel supply (even when compressed, natural gas

is not a liquid).

Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment Area: Areas with

carbon monoxide design values of 9.5 parts per million or

more (generally based on data for 1988 and 1989).

Converted Vehicle: A vehicle originally designed to

operate on gasoline that has been modified or altered to

operate on an alternative fuel.

Criteria Pollutant: A pollutant determined to be

hazardous to human health and regulated under the

Environmental Protection Agency's National Ambient Air

Quality Standards. The 1970 amendments to the Clean Air

Act require the Environmental Protection Agency to

describe the health and welfare impacts of a pollutant as

the criteria for inclusion in the regulatory regime.

on one alternative fuel.

Diesel Fuel: A complex mixture of hydrocarbons with

a boiling range between approximately 350 and 650

degrees Fahrenheit. Diesel fuel (simply referred to as

“diesel”) is composed primarily of paraffins and

naphthenic compounds that auto-ignite from the heat of

compression in a diesel engine. Diesel is used mainly by

heavy-duty road vehicles, construction equipment,

locomotives, and by marine and stationary engines.

Dual-Fuel Vehicle: A vehicle designed to operate on a

combination of alternative fuel, such as CNG or LPG, and

conventional fuel, such as gasoline or diesel. These

vehicles have two separate fuel systems which inject both

fuels simultaneously into the engine combustion chamber.

E85: A fuel containing a mixture of 85 percent ethanol and

15 percent gasoline.

E95: A fuel containing a mixture of 95 percent ethanol and

5 percent gasoline.

Energy Efficiency: The inverse of energy intensiveness:

the ratio of energy outputs from a process to the energy

inputs (for example, miles traveled per gallon of fuel).

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): A government

agency, established in 1970. Its responsibilities include

the regulation of fuels and fuel additives.

Ethyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (ETBE), (CH ) COC H 33 2 5: A

colorless, flammable, oxygenated hydrocarbon blend

stock formed by the catalytic etherification of isobutylene

with ethanol.

Ethanol (C H OH): Otherwise known as ethyl alcohol, 2 5

alcohol, or grain-spirit. A clear, colorless, flammable

oxygenated hydrocarbon with a boiling point of 78.5

degrees Celsius in the anhydrous state. However, it forms

a binary azeotrope with water, with a boiling point of

78.15 degrees Celsius at a composition of 95.57 percent by

weight ethanol. It is used in the United States as a gasoline

octane enhancer and oxygenate (10 percent concentration). Ethanol can also be used in high concentrations

in vehicles optimized for its use.

Ether: The family name applied to a group of organic

chemical compounds composed of carbon, hydrogen, and

oxygen, and which are characterized by an oxygen atom

attached to two carbon atoms (for example, methyl

tertiary butyl ether).

Flexible-Fuel Vehicle: A vehicle with the ability to

operate on alternative fuels (such as M85 or E85), 100
Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995 69

percent traditional fuels, or a mixture of alternative fuel M100: 100 percent (neat) methanol.

and traditional fuels.

Global Warming: The theoretical escalation of global chief constituent of natural gas. Methane, a gas at normal

temperatures caused by the greenhouse effect. temperatures and pressures, boils at -263 degrees

Greenhouse Effect: A popular term used to describe the

roles of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other trace gases Methanol (CH OH): A colorless liquid with essentially no

in keeping the Earth's surface warmer than it would be odor and very little taste. The simplest alcohol, it boils at

otherwise. These radiatively active gases are relatively 64.7 degrees Celsius. It is miscible with water and most

transparent to incoming shortwave radiation, but are organic liquids (including gasoline) and is extremely

relatively opaque to outgoing long wave radiation. The flammable, burning with a nearly invisible blue flame.

latter radiation, which would otherwise escape to space, Methanol is produced commercially by the catalyzed

is trapped by these gases within the lower levels of the reaction of hydrogen and carbon monoxide. It was

atmosphere. The subsequent reradiation of some of the formerly derived from the destructive distillation of wood,

energy back to the Earth maintains the surface at which caused it to be known as wood alcohol.

temperatures higher than they would be if the gases were

absent. Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE), (CH ) COCH : A

Greenhouse Gases: Those gases, such as water vapor, contains 18.15 percent oxygen and has a boiling point of

carbon dioxide, tropospheric ozone, nitrous oxide, and 55.2 degrees Celsius. It is a fuel oxygenate produced by

methane, that are transparent to solar radiation but reacting methanol with isobutylene.

opaque to long wave radiation. Their action is similar to

that of increased humidity in a greenhouse. Midwest Census Region: This U.S. Census Bureau region

Gross Vehicle Weight Rating: The weight of the empty Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North

vehicle plus the maximum anticipated load weight. Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.

Heavy Duty Vehicles: Pursuant to the EPACT, trucks and Mcf: Million cubic feet.

buses having a gross vehicle weight rating of 8,500

pounds or more. Motor Gasoline Blending of Oxygenates: Blending of

Hydrogen (H ): 2 The lightest of all gases, the element Protection Agency's “Substantially Similar” Interpretive

(hydrogen) occurs chiefly in combination with oxygen in Rule (56 FR [February 11, 1991]).

water. It also exists in acids, bases, alcohols, petroleum,

and other hydrocarbons. Natural Gas: A mixture of hydrocarbon compounds and

Light Duty Vehicles: Automobiles and trucks having a the gaseous phase or in solution with crude oil in natural

gross vehicle weight rating of less than 8,500 pounds. underground reservoirs at reservoir conditions. The

Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG): Natural gas that has been wells also can contain significant amounts of ethane,

refrigerated to temperatures at which it exists in a liquid propane, butanes, and pentanes, and widely varying

state. amounts of carbon dioxide and nitrogen. Pipeline-quality

Liquefied Petroleum Gases (LPG): Propane, propylene, and other contaminants removed. On board a vehicle, it is

normal butane, butylene, isobutane, and isobutylene stored under high pressure at 2,500 to 3,600 pounds per

produced at refineries or natural gas processing plants square inch (psi). A gallon of natural gas at 2,000 psi

(includes plants that fractionate raw natural gas plant contains about 20,000 Btu; at 3,600 psi, a gallon contains

liquids). about 30,000 Btu.

Lower Heating Value (LHV): The Btu content per unit of Neat Alcohol Fuels: Straight alcohol (not blended with

fuel excluding the heat from the condensation of water gasoline) that may be either in the form of ethanol or

vapor in the fuel. methanol. Ethanol, as a neat alcohol fuel, does not need to

M85: A fuel containing a mixture of 85 percent methanol proof (90 to 95 percent). Most methanol fuels are not

and 15 percent gasoline.

Methane (CH ): 4 The simplest of the hydrocarbons and the

Fahrenheit.

3

33 3

colorless, flammable, liquid oxygenated hydrocarbon that

includes the following States: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,

gasoline and oxygenates under the Environmental

small quantities of various nonhydrocarbons existing in

primary constituent compound is CH . Gas coming from 4

natural gas has had most, but not all natural gas liquids

be at 200 proof; therefore, it is often used at 180 to 190
70 Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995

strictly “neat,” since 5 to 10 percent gasoline is usually methanol). Oxygenated fuel tends to give a more complete

blended in to improve its operational efficiency. combustion of its carbon into carbon dioxide (rather than

Nitrogen Oxides (NO ): Air-polluting gases contained in emissions. x

automobile emissions, which are regulated by the

Environmental Protection Agency. They comprise color- Oxygenated Gasoline: Gasoline with an oxygen content

less nitrous oxide (N O) (otherwise known as dinitrogen of 1.8 percent or higher, by weight, that has been 2

monoxide, or as the anaesthetic “laughing gas”), colorless formulated for use in motor vehicles.

nitric oxide (NO), and the reddish-brown-colored nitrogen

dioxide (NO ). Nitric oxide is very unstable, and on Ozone (O ): An oxygen molecule with 3 oxygen atoms 2

exposure to air it is readily converted to nitrogen dioxide, that occurs as a blue, harmful, pungent-smelling gas at

which has an irritating odor and is very poisonous. room temperature. The stratospheric ozone layer, which

Nitrogen dioxide contributes to the brownish layer in the is a concentration of ozone molecules located at 6 to 30

atmospheric pollution over some metropolitan areas. miles above sea level, is in a state of dynamic equilibrium.

Other nitrogen oxides of less significance are nitrogen Ultraviolet radiation forms the ozone from oxygen, but

tetroxide (N O ) and nitrogen pentoxide (N O ). Nitrogen can also reduce the ozone back to oxygen. The process 24 2 5

oxides are sometimes collectively referred to as “NO ” absorbs most of the ultraviolet radiation from the sun, x

where “x” represents any proportion of oxygen to shielding life from the harmful effects of radiation.

nitrogen. Tropospheric ozone is normally present at the ground

Nonattainment Area: A region that exceeds minimum air pollutants are present, the action of the sun's

acceptable National Ambient Air Quality Standards ultraviolet light can, through a complex series of reactions,

(NAAQS) for one or more criteria pollutants, in high produce a harmful concentration of ozone in the air. The

population density areas, in accordance with the U.S. resulting air pollution is known as photochemical smog.

Census Bureau population statistics. Such regions (areas) Certain air pollutants (e.g., chlorofluorocarbons) can drift

are required to seek modifications to their State Imple- up into the atmosphere and damage the balance between

mentation Plans, setting forth a reasonable timetable ozone production and destruction, resulting in a reduced

using means (approved by the Environmental Protection concentration of ozone in the layer.

Agency) to achieve attainment of NAAQS by a certain

date. Under the Clean Air Act, if a nonattainment area Ozone Precursor: A chemical compound (such as nitrogen

fails to attain NAAQS, the Environmental Protection oxides, methane, nonmethane hydrocarbons and hydroxyl

Agency may superimpose a Federal Implementation Plan radicals) that, in the presence of solar radiation, reacts

with stricter requirements or impose fines, construction with other chemical compounds to form ozone.

bans, or cutoffs in Federal grant revenues until the area

achieves applicable NAAQS. Petroleum:A generic term applied to oil and oil products

Northeast Census Region: This U.S. Census Bureau unfinished oil, refined petroleum products, natural gas

region includes the following States: Connecticut, Maine, plant liquids, and finished petroleum products).

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Propane (C H ): A normally gaseous straight-chain

Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM's): Vehicle temperature of -43.67 degrees Fahrenheit. It is extracted

manufacturers that provide the original design and from natural gas or refinery gas streams.

materials for assembly and manufacture of their product.

They are directly responsible for manufacturing and Reformulated Gasoline (RFG): Gasoline whose compomodifying vehicles, making the vehicles commercially sition has been changed (from that of gasolines sold in

available, and providing a warranty for the finished 1990) to 1) include oxygenates, 2) reduce the content of

product. olefins and aromatics and volatile components, and 3)

Oxygenated Fuel: Any fuel substance containing oxygen performance specifications for ozone-forming tendency

(includes oxygen-bearing compounds such as ethanol and and for release of toxic substances (benzene, formaldemonoxide), thereby reducing air pollution from exhaust

3

level in low concentrations. In cities where high levels of

in all forms (such as crude oil, lease condensate,

3 8

hydrocarbon, it is a colorless paraffinic gas that boils at a

reduce the content of heavy hydrocarbons to meet

hyde, acetaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, and polycyclic organic

matter) into the air from both evaporation and tailpipe

emissions.
Energy Information Administration/ Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1995 71

Replacement Fuel: The portion of any motor fuel that is Tax Incentives: In general, a means of employing the tax

methanol, ethanol, or other alcohols, natural gas, liquefied

petroleum gases, hydrogen, coal derived liquid fuels,

electricity (including electricity from solar energy), ethers,

or any other fuel the Secretary of Energy determines,

by rule, is substantially not petroleum and would yield

substantial energy security benefits and substantial

environmental benefits.

South Census Region: This U.S. Census Bureau region

consists of the following States: Alabama, Arkansas,

Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia,

Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North

Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas,

Virginia, and West Virginia.

code to stimulate investment in or development of a

socially desirable economic objective without the direct

expenditure from the budget of a given unit of government. Such incentives can take the form of tax exemptions

or credits.

Tertiary Amyl Methyl Ether (TAME) (CH ) (C H )- 32 2 5

COCH :3 An oxygenate blend stock formed by the

catalytic etherification of isoamylene with methanol.

West Census Region: This U.S. Census Bureau region

consists of the following States: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New

Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.