HD50 - The Use of Vehicles Powered by Clean Transportation Fuels

  • Published: 1991
  • Author: Joint Subcommittee
  • Enabling Authority: House Joint Resolution 113 (Regular Session, 1990)

Executive Summary:
This study was commissioned by the 1990 General Assembly through passage of House Joint Resolution No. 113 (HJR 113), sponsored by Delegate Arthur R. Giesen, Jr., of Waynesboro. HJR 113 specifically called on the subcommittee". . . to study the emissions, economics, safety, and other benefits of clean transportation fuels as they relate to the purchase or lease of motor vehicles by state agencies, school divisions, and local transit authorities. . . ." Although the subcommittee heard limited testimony and gathered some information relating to other "alternative fuels" (motor fuels other than gasoline and diesel fuel), it concentrated its attention on five fuels: ethanol, methanol, propane (liquified petroleum gas or LPG), compressed natural gas (CNG), and reformulated gasoline. These same five fuels were prominent in Congressional debates that led to the passage of the federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.

The subcommittee held seven meetings during which it considered information gathered by staff; testimony from experts in various aspects of motor fuel technology; the views of representatives of the natural gas and petroleum industries; and suggestions made by spokespersons for federal, state, and local government agencies. On the basis of this data, the subcommittee concluded that increased use of alternative fuels by government fleet vehicles is safe, desirable (because their use can benefit Virginia's air quality -- particularly in Northern Virginia, the Richmond-Petersburg area, and Hampton Roads), feasible (because use of selected alternative fuels may result in operational cost savings in the long term through lower fuel and maintenance costs), and attractive because their use may help reduce our dependence upon foreign-produced petroleum products.

The subcommittee feels that use of alternative fuels in government fleet vehicles is additionally desirable because it can serve (i) to acquaint the public with these fuels and their benefits and (ii) to eliminate the "chicken-and-egg" difficulty which results when alternative fuels are not generally available because vehicles to use them are not generally available and these vehicles are not generally available because of the difficulty of obtaining fuels for them. Government can serve a valuable and appropriate function in simultaneously creating markets for both alternative fuels and alternatively fueled vehicles.

The subcommittee recommends the passage of ten pieces of legislation (see Appendices I through X) aimed at (i) removing impediments to the use of alternative fuels (Appendices I, IV, VII, and IX), (ii) providing for pilot projects to demonstrate and further test these fuels (Appendices V and VI), (iii) providing incentives for Virginia production of alternative fuels, and (iv) continuing examination of ways in which alternative fuels may be used not only to improve air quality, but also to achieve long-term savings in government vehicle fleet operation costs (Appendix X). Several of these recommendations are focused on use of compressed natural gas. This is because of natural gas's low price (compared with gasoline or diesel fuel), safety, attractive emissions profile, availability from domestic sources, and beneficial impact on long-term vehicle maintenance costs. In many ways, natural gas is an ideal fuel not only for school buses, but also for other centrally-fueled fleet vehicles.

The subcommittee feels it is both desirable and feasible that Virginia's state government lead by example in promoting increased use of alternative fuels.