Energy Conservation - Efficiency In The Transportation Sector

fuel vehicles cars alternative

The U.S. transportation system plays a central role in the economy. Highway transportation is dependent on internal combustion engine vehicles fueled almost exclusively by petroleum. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) noted in its Annual Energy Review 2003 (2004) that the transportation sector accounted for 27% of all energy consumed in the United States in 2003. That year, Americans used 26.8 quadrillion Btu of energy for transportation (see Figure 1.9 in Chapter 1), of which petroleum made up 97%. Despite improvements in transportation efficiency in recent decades, the EIA's International Energy Outlook 2004 noted that the United States consumed 28% of total energy use for transportation in 2001 and is projected to consume 30% in 2025. This transportation share compares to 17% of total energy use for Canada and 23% for Western Europe.

Automotive Efficiency

Policymakers interested in transportation energy conservation have an array of conservation options. (See Table 9.2.) However, not all options are mutually supportive. For example, efforts to promote a freer flow of automobile traffic, such as high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes or free parking for carpools, may sabotage efforts to shift travelers to mass transit or to reduce trip lengths and frequency. Policymakers must consider how the implementation of one strategy will fit into an overall transportation plan.

In the United States the automobile dominates the transportation sector; cars and light-duty vehicles used 63% of all transportation energy in 2004, as reported by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics in National Transportation Statistics, 2003 (updated September 2004). This report also noted that motor gasoline, which is divided among passenger cars, light and heavy-duty trucks, aircraft, and miscellaneous other modes of transportation, consumed about 67% of the oil used in the United States in 2004. The major growth in fuel use over the past thirty years has been that consumed by pickup trucks, and in more recent years that consumed by vans and sport utility vehicles (SUVs). In 2004 pickup truck, van, and SUV fuel use was approximately 75% of the amount used by automobiles and motorcycles. Meanwhile, automobile fuel use has remained fairly constant because of fuel efficiency increases that have offset the growth in car miles traveled. Boosting truck, van, and SUV efficiency will become increasingly important in holding down oil demand.

THE CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY (CAFE) STANDARDS. The 1973 OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) oil embargo painfully reminded the United States how dependent it had become on foreign sources of fuel. This situation prompted Congress to pass

TABLE 9.2

Transportation conservation options
*U.S. transit subsidies, already among the highest in the developed world, may merely promote inefficiencies.
KEY: CAFE = corporate average fuel economy; E = economic incentive; HOV = highoccupancy vehicle; I = public investment; maglev = trains supported by magnetic levitation; R = regulatory action; RD&D = research, development, and demonstration; vmt = vehicle-miles traveled.
SOURCE: "Table 5-1. Transportation Conservation Options," in Saving Energy in U.S. Transportation, Office of Technology Assessment, 1994, http://www.wws.princeton.edu/cgibin/byteserv.prl/~ota/disk1/1994/9432/943208.PDF (accessed November 17, 2004)
Improve the technical efficiency of vehicles
  1. Higher fuel economy requirements—CAFE standards (R)
  2. Reducing congestion: smart highways (E,I), flextime (E,R), better signaling (I), improved maintenance of roadways (I), time of day charges (E), improved air traffic controls (l,R), plus options that reduce vehicular traffic
  3. Higher fuel taxes (E)
  4. Gas guzzler taxes, or feebate schemes (E)
  5. Support for increased R&D (EJ)
  6. Inspection and maintenance programs (R)
Increase load factor
  1. HOV lanes (I)
  2. Forgiven tolls (E), free parking for carpools (E)
  3. Higher fuel taxes (E)
  4. Higher charges on other vmt trip-dependent factors (E): parking (taxes, restrictions, end of tax treatment as business cost), tolls, etc.
Change to more efficient modes
  1. Improvements in transit service
    1. New technologies—maglev, high speed trains (EJ)
    2. Rehabilitation of older systems (I)
    3. Expansion of service—more routes, higher frequency (I)
    4. Other service improvements (I)—dedicated busways, better security, more bus stop shelters, more comfortable vehicles
  2. Higher fuel taxes (E)
  3. Reduced transit fares through higher US. transit subsidies (E)
  4. Higher charges on other vmt/trip-dependent factors for less efficient modes (E)—tolls, parking
  5. Shifting urban form to higher density, more mixed use, greater concentration through zoning changes (R), encouragement of "infill" development (E,R,I), public investment in infrastructure (I), etc.
Reduce number or length of trips
  1. Shifting urban form to higher density, more mixed use, greater concentration (E,R,I)
  2. Promoting working at home or at decentralized facilities (EJ)
  3. Higher fuel taxes (E)
  4. Higher charges on other vmt/trip-dependent factors (E)
Shift to alternative fuels
  1. Fleet requirements for alternative fuel-capable vehicles and actual use of alternative fuels (R)
  2. Low-emission/zero emission vehicle (LEV/ZEV) requirements (R)
  3. Various promotions (E): CAFE credits, emission credits, tax credits, etc.
  4. Higher fuel taxes that do not apply to alternative fuels (E), or subsidies for the alternatives (E)
  5. Support for increased R&D (EJ)
  6. Public investment—government fleet investments (I)
Freight options
  1. RD&D of technology improvements (E,I)

the 1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act (PL 94-163), which set the initial Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. The standards were modified in 1980 with the Automobile Fuel Efficiency Act (PL 96-425).

The CAFE standards required domestic automakers to increase the average mileage of new cars sold to 27.5 miles per gallon (mpg) by 1985. Under CAFE rules, car manufacturers could still sell large, less efficient cars, but to meet the average fuel efficiency rates, they also had to sell smaller, more efficient cars. Automakers that failed to meet each year's CAFE standards were fined. Those that managed to surpass the rates earned credits that they could use in years when they fell below the CAFE requirements. Faced with the CAFE standards, the car companies became more inventive and managed to keep their cars relatively large and roomy while increasing mileage with innovations like electronic fuel injection and using four valves per cylinder.

The CAFE regulations have had a significant effect on fuel efficiency. In the decades since the first oil shock in 1973, the fuel economy of motor vehicles (which includes passenger cars, vans, pickup trucks, SUVs, and trucks) increased from 11.9 mpg in 1973 to 17.0 mpg in 2002. (See Table 9.3.) Greater gains have been made in the economy of passenger cars. In 1974, just after the oil embargo, cars averaged 14.2 mpg (according to the Environmental Protection Agency); in 2003 the average newcar fuel economy was 24.6 mpg. (See Figure 9.3.) The total automobile fleet fuel economy is expected to increase as more fuel-efficient cars enter the market and older, less fuel-efficient autos drop out of the nation's fleet. However, new-car fuel economy has risen only slightly since 1986; since 1988 nearly all gains in automobile efficiency have been offset by increased weight and power in new vehicles.

The Persian Gulf War in 1991 was another strong reminder to the United States of its continuing heavy dependence on foreign oil, prompting some members of Congress to want to raise the CAFE standards to forty-five mpg for cars and thirty-five mpg for light trucks. Those in favor of raising CAFE standards claimed that this would save about 2.8 million barrels of oil per day. They also noted that if cars become even more fuel-efficient in the future, emissions of carbon dioxide would be significantly reduced. The domestic auto industry opposed the bill to raise CAFE standards, and actions to increase automobile efficiency failed in Congress. For model year 2001 passenger cars, the CAFE standard was 27.5 mpg and for light trucks it was 20.7 mpg. The efficiency standard for model year 2005 for light trucks had increased to 21.0 mpg. CAFE standards are set by the National Highway Safety Administration, unless Congress prohibits changes.

SUVs, vans, and pickup trucks make up the "light truck" automotive group, the fastest growing segment of the auto industry. Light trucks accounted for 48% of the U.S. light vehicle market in 2003 (see Figure 9.4) and produced most of the profits of the major auto companies. In 1999 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) imposed new regulations tightening emissions standards on cars, minivans, SUVs under 8,500 pounds, and small pickup trucks. This was the first time that SUVs and other light-duty trucks became subject to the same national pollution standards as cars. The standard of an average of

FIGURE 9.3

0.07 grams per mile for nitrogen oxides came into effect in 2004. Standards for hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and particulates were phased in beginning in 1999 and ending in 2008.

The potential for savings from increased fuel economy in large trucks is huge, since their current fuel economy is so much lower than that of automobiles. In 2001 the EIA projected a small increase in fuel efficiency for the heavy-truck fleet and a larger (but still small) increase for the small-truck fleet. If the heavy-truck fleet were to reach a fuel efficiency of ten mpg through technological improvements, projected oil demand would drop by 300,000 barrels per day. Over the past few years, aerodynamically designed trucks have become more common on American roads.

Cheap gasoline prices throughout the 1990s took away the sense of urgency surrounding fuel efficiency, which was demonstrated by the high growth of large vehicle sales. In addition, when the federal fifty-five-mph speed limit law was repealed, many states allowed increased speed limits, lowering fuel efficiency. Carmakers have resisted building highly efficient cars, claiming that government mandates would saddle American motorists with car features they would not want and might not buy. In contrast, the European Commission has proposed an ambitious target of forty-seven mpg for gasoline-driven cars

TABLE 9.3

Motor vehicle mileage, fuel consumption, and fuel rates, selected years, 1949–2002
Passenger cars1 Vans, pickup trucks, and sport utility vehicles2 Trucks3 All motor vehicles4
Year Mileage (miles per vehicle) Fuel consumption (gallons per vehicle) Fuel rate (miles per gallon) Mileage (miles per vehicle) Fuel consumption (gallons per vehicle) Fuel rate (miles per gallon) Mileage (miles per vehicle) Fuel consumption (gallons per vehicle) Fuel rate (miles per gallon) Mileage (miles per vehicle) Fuel consumption (gallons per vehicle) Fuel rate (miles per gallon)
1Through 1989, includes motorcycles.
2Includes a small number of trucks with 2 axles and 4 tires, such as step vans.
3Single-unit trucks with 2 axles and 6 or more tires, and combination trucks.
4Includes buses and motorcycles, which are not separately displayed.
R=Revised.
P=Preliminary.
Web Pages: For data not shown for 1951–1969, see http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/enduse.html.
SOURCE: Table 2.8. Motor Vehicle Mileage, Fuel Consumption, and Fuel Rates, Selected Years, 1949–2002," in Annual Energy Review 2003, U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, September 7, 2004, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/aer.pdf (accessed September 28, 20
1949 9,388 627 15.0 5 5 5 9,712 1,080 9.0 9,498 726 13.1
1950 9,060 603 15.0 5 5 5 10,316 1,229 8.4 9,321 725 12.8
1955 9,447 645 14.6 5 5 5 10,576 1,293 8.2 9,661 761 12.7
1960 9,518 668 14.3 5 5 5 10,693 1,333 8.0 9,732 784 12.4
1965 9,603 661 14.5 5 5 5 10,851 1,387 7.8 9,826 787 12.5
1970 9,989 737 13.5 8,676 866 10.0 13,565 2,467 5.5 9,976 830 12.0
1971 10,097 743 13.6 9,082 888 10.2 14,117 2,519 5.6 10,133 839 12.1
1972 10,171 754 13.5 9,534 922 10.3 14,780 2,657 5.6 10,279 857 12.0
1973 9,884 737 13.4 9,779 931 10.5 15,370 2,775 5.5 10,099 850 11.9
1974 9,221 677 13.6 9,452 862 11.0 14,995 2,708 5.5 9,493 788 12.0
1975 9,309 665 14.0 9,829 934 10.5 15,167 2,722 5.6 9,627 790 12.2
1976 9,418 681 13.8 10,127 934 10.8 15,438 2,764 5.6 9,774 806 12.1
1977 9,517 676 14.1 10,607 947 11.2 16,700 3,002 5.6 9,978 814 12.3
1978 9,500 665 14.3 10,968 948 11.6 18,045 3,263 5.5 10,077 816 12.4
1979 9,062 620 14.6 10,802 905 11.9 18,502 3,380 5.5 9,722 776 12.5
1980 8,813 551 16.0 10,437 854 12.2 18,736 3,447 5.4 9,458 712 13.3
1981 8,873 538 16.5 10,244 819 12.5 19,016 3,565 5.3 9,477 697 13.6
1982 9,050 535 16.9 10,276 762 13.5 19,931 3,647 5.5 9,644 686 14.1
1983 9,118 534 17.1 10,497 767 13.7 21,083 3,769 5.6 9,760 686 14.2
1984 9,248 530 17.4 11,151 797 14.0 22,550 3,967 5.7 10,017 691 14.5
1985 9,419 538 17.5 10,506 735 14.3 20,597 3,570 5.8 10,020 685 14.6
1986 9,464 543 17.4 10,764 738 14.6 22,143 3,821 5.8 10,143 692 14.7
1987 9,720 539 18.0 11,114 744 14.9 23,349 3,937 5.9 10,453 694 15.1
1988 9,972 531 18.8 11,465 745 15.4 22,485 3,736 6.0 10,721 688 15.6
1989 110,157 1533 119.0 11,676 724 16.1 22,926 3,776 6.1 10,932 688 15.9
1990 10,504 520 20.2 11,902 738 16.1 23,603 3,953 6.0 11,107 677 16.4
1991 10,571 501 21.1 12,245 721 17.0 24,229 4,047 6.0 11,294 669 16.9
1992 10,857 517 21.0 12,381 717 17.3 25,373 4,210 6.0 11,558 683 16.9
1993 10,804 527 20.5 12,430 714 17.4 26,262 4,309 6.1 11,595 693 16.7
1994 10,992 531 20.7 12,156 701 17.3 25,838 4,202 6.1 11,683 698 16.7
1995 11,203 530 21.1 12,018 694 17.3 26,514 4,315 6.1 11,793 700 16.8
1996 11,330 534 21.2 11,811 685 17.2 26,092 4,221 6.2 11,813 700 16.9
1997 11,581 539 21.5 12,115 703 17.2 27,032 4,218 6.4 12,107 711 17.0
1998 11,754 544 21.6 12,173 707 17.2 25,397 4,135 6.1 12,211 721 16.9
1999 11,848 553 21.4 11,957 701 17.0 26,014 4,352 6.0 12,206 732 16.7
2000 11,976 547 21.9 11,672 669 17.4 25,617 4,391 5.8 12,164 720 16.9
2001 R11,831 R534 22.1 R11,204 R636 17.6 R26,602 R4,477 5.9 R11,887 R695 17.1
2002P 12,203 551 22.1 11,365 645 17.6 27,062 4,637 5.8 12,172 715 17.0

FIGURE 9.4

(compared to the current average of twenty-nine mpg) and fifty-two mpg for diesel-powered cars by 2005. The general secretary of the European Council of Automotive Research and Development also announced in January 2001 that all ten European auto manufacturers plan to build cars with low carbon dioxide emissions and high mileage by 2008. In 2004 China issued compulsory fuel efficiency standards for its passenger cars, ruling that fuel consumption in Chinese passenger vehicles must decline by 10%. Cars under production will be granted a one-year grace period to meet the standard.

It must be noted that while European countries do not generally legislate fuel efficiency, the cost of gasoline in Europe is more than twice that in the United States. That serves as a powerful incentive to European drivers to buy fuel-efficient vehicles. Many experts also see Europe as having a history of energy consumption not matched by the United States.

Alternative Fuel Vehicles (AFVs)

MANDATING AFVS. Several laws have been passed to encourage or mandate the use of vehicles powered by fuels other than gasoline. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (PL 101-549) required certain businesses and local governments with fleets of ten or more vehicles in twenty-one metropolitan areas nationwide to phase in alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) over time—20% of those fleets had to be AFVs by 1998. While great strides have been made in increasing the use of AFVs, there is no way to determine current compliance with the mandates because reporting and enforcement methods are inadequate.

The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (PL 102-486) was passed in the wake of the 1991 Persian Gulf War to conserve energy and increase the proportion of energy supplied domestically. It required the federal government to purchase 22,500 AFVs by 1995 and increase the percentage of AFV acquisitions from 25% of all acquisitions in 1996 to 75% in 1999 and thereafter. Agency budget cuts and inadequate enforcement have slowed compliance with these regulations. Still, many municipal governments and the U.S. Postal Service have put into operation fleets of natural gas vehicles, such as garbage trucks, transit buses, and postal vans.

NUMBERS AND TYPES OF AFVS. In 1995, 246,855 AFVs were on U.S. roads. Projections for 2004 showed 547,904 AFVs in use. (See Table 9.4.) These totals include vehicles originally manufactured to run on alternative fuels, as well as converted gasoline or diesel vehicles. The manufacture of new AFVs has been steadily increasing.

A number of different types of fuels are used in AFVs:

  • Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) is a mixture of propane and butane. LPG was the most common type of alternative vehicle fuel used in 2004. Thirty-five percent of all AFVs ran on LPG that year.
  • Ethanol is ethyl alcohol, a grain alcohol, mixed with gasoline and sold as gasohol. The 85% formulation of gasohol was the second most common AFV fuel, powering 27% of all AFVs in 2004.
  • Compressed natural gas (CNG) is natural gas that is stored in pressurized tanks. CNG releases one-tenth the carbon monoxide, hydrocarbon, and nitrogen of gasoline. It was the third most common AFV fuel in 2004, used by 26% of AFVs.
  • Electricity, used by 10% of AFVs in 2004, can be used for battery-powered, fuel cell, or hybrid vehicles.
  • Methanol is a liquid fuel that can be produced from natural gas, coal, or biomass (plant material, vegetation, or agricultural waste). The 85% formulation of methanol was used by only 0.8% of all AFVs in 2004. Its use is declining.
  • Liquefied natural gas (LNG) is natural gas (mostly methane) that has been liquefied by reducing its temperature to -260 degrees Fahrenheit. It was used by only 0.6% of all AFVs in 2004.
  • Biodiesels (not listed in Table 9.4) are liquid biofuels made from soybean, rapeseed, or sunflower oil, or from animal tallow. They can also be made from agricultural products, such as rice hulls.

TABLE 9.4

Estimated number of alternative-fueled vehicles in use, by fuel, 1995–2004
2003 2004 Average annual growth rate (percent)
Fuel 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 (Projected)
1The remaining portion of 85-percent methanol and both ethanol fuels is gasoline.
2In 1997, some vehicle manufacturers began including E85-fueling capability in certain model lines of vehicles. For 2002, the EIA estimated that The number of E-85 vehicles that are capable of operating on E85, gasoline, or both, is about is 4.1 million. Many of these alternative-fueled vehicles (AFVs) are sold and used as traditional gasoline-powered vehicles. In this tble, AFVs in use include only those E85 vehicles believed to be intended for use as AFVs. These are primarily fleet-operated vehicles.
3Excludes gasoline-electric hybrids.
Notes: Estimates for 2003, in italics, are based on plans or projections. Estimates for historical years may be revised in fututure reports if new information becomes available.
SOURCE: "Table 1. Estimated Number of Alternative-Fueled Vehicles in Use in the United States, by Fuel, 1995–2004," in Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 2003 Estimated Data, U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, February 2004, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/datatables/afvtable1_03.xls (accessed November 18, 2004)
Liquefied petroleum gases (LPG) 172,806 175,585 175,679 177,183 178,610 181,994 185,053 187,680 190,438 194,389 1.3
Compressed natural gas (CNG) 50,218 60,144 68,571 78,782 91,267 100,750 111,851 120,839 132,988 143,742 12.4
Liquefied natural gas (LNG) 603 663 813 1,172 1,681 2,090 2,576 2,708 3,030 3,134 20.1
Methanol, 85 percent (M85)1 18,319 20,265 21,040 19,648 18,964 10,426 7,827 5,873 4,917 4,592 −14.3
Methanol, neat (M100) 386 172 172 200 198 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
Ethanol, 85 percent (E85)1,2 1,527 4,536 9,130 12,788 24,604 87,570 100,303 120,951 133,776 146,195 78.8
Ethanol, 95 percent (E95)1 136 361 347 14 14 4 0 0 0 0 0.0
Electricity3 2,860 3,280 4,453 5,243 6,964 11,830 17,847 33,047 45,656 55,852 39.1
Non-LPG subtotal 74,049 89,421 104,526 117,847 143,692 212,670 240,404 283,418 320,367 353,515 19.0
Total 246,855 265,006 280,205 295,030 322,302 394,664 425,457 471,098 510,805 547,904 9.3

TABLE 9.5

Estimated number of alternative-fueled vehicles in use, by state and fuel type, 2002
State Liquefied petroleum gases Natural gas Methanol Ethanol Electricity Total
Notes: Natural gas includes compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquefied natural gas (LNG). Methanol includes M85 and M100. Ethanol includes E85 and E95. Excludes gasoline electric hybrids. Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding.
SOURCE: "Table 4. Estimated Number of Alternative-Fueled Vehicles in Use, by State and Fuel Type, 2002," in Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 2003 Estimated Data, U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, February 2004, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/datatables/afvtable4_03.xls (accessed November 18, 2004)
Alabama 4,289 1,341 0 2,713 636 8,979
Alaska 145 401 0 720 11 1,277
Arizona 1,082 7,243 201 1,583 1,662 11,771
Arkansas 2,199 340 0 300 0 2,839
California 21,537 24,990 4,787 9,517 10,670 71,501
Colorado 5,611 2,694 3 3,491 126 11,925
Connecticut 379 2,762 1 1,849 156 5,147
Delaware 85 489 10 783 11 1,378
District of Columbia 7 1,462 50 1,408 316 3,243
Florida 4,171 4,152 6 7,856 357 16,542
Georgia 4,418 4,484 39 2,076 4,550 15,567
Hawaii 842 0 0 1,467 204 2,513
Idaho 1,581 3,412 0 240 0 5,233
Illinois 5,259 3,120 17 6,916 89 15,401
Indiana 1,426 3,397 0 1,670 91 6,584
Iowa 2,179 18 27 1,903 12 4,139
Kansas 3,565 748 1 1,649 22 5,985
Kentucky 2,214 1,191 0 2,313 0 5,718
Louisiana 1,117 896 3 1,309 0 3,325
Maine 158 77 0 134 21 390
Maryland 2,570 3,634 7 2,901 45 9,157
Massachusetts 249 1,006 36 1,331 78 2,700
Michigan 4,822 991 48 4,840 1,606 12,307
Minnesota 2,162 509 0 3,361 0 6,032
Mississippi 1,193 140 0 543 0 1,876
Missouri 2,642 476 95 3,878 11 7,102
Montana 2,980 268 0 309 0 3,557
Nebraska 4,338 370 0 1,095 11 5,814
Nevada 1,487 3,111 0 973 0 5,571
New Hampshire 718 42 0 169 167 1,096
New Jersey 358 2,723 4 2,681 190 5,956
New Mexico 6,069 1,969 11 2,140 435 10,624
New York 6,213 13,100 88 3,723 9,299 32,423
North Carolina 4,560 559 0 4,539 112 9,770
North Dakota 1,310 155 0 354 0 1,819
Ohio 2,487 2,647 26 4,537 242 9,939
Oklahoma 17,839 3,322 0 1,122 0 22,283
Oregon 3,084 1,034 20 1,528 212 5,878
Pennsylvania 1,107 2,299 108 4,008 89 7,611
Rhode Island 122 331 0 391 0 844
South Carolina 3,047 362 0 4,051 0 7,460
South Dakota 1,374 44 0 384 0 1,802
Tennessee 2,623 763 0 3,068 200 6,654
Texas 39,279 9,961 162 6,706 82 56,190
Utah 3,227 1,961 8 1,966 0 7,162
Vermont 366 5 0 199 178 748
Virginia 927 4,735 7 3,740 1,086 10,495
Washington 4,397 1,925 73 2,760 11 9,166
West Virginia 39 378 0 595 0 1,012
Wisconsin 1,459 1,207 35 3,075 37 5,813
Wyoming 2,368 303 0 87 22 2,780
U.S. total 187,680 123,547 5,873 120,951 33,047 471,098

The largest numbers of AFVs are located in California, Texas, New York, and Oklahoma. Together, these four states account for 39% of the estimated number of AFVs in use in 2002. (See Table 9.5.) Transit buses are one type of heavy-duty vehicle that has seen much AFV activity. In 2003 in the United States, 9,278 alternative fuel buses were in use. Most of these were transit buses, rather than school buses, intercity buses, or trolleys ("Table 35: Reported Number of Onroad AFV Buses in Use, by Bus Type, Fuel Type and Configuration, 2003," Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.doe.gov/ [accessed January 10, 2005]).

ALTERNATIVE FUEL AND THE MARKETPLACE. AFVs cannot become a viable transportation option unless a fuel supply is readily available. Ideally, an infrastructure for

TABLE 9.6

Alternative fuel station counts, by state and fuel type, as of November 22, 2004
State CNG E85 LPG ELEC BD HY LNG Totals by state
Notes: CNG is Compressed Natural Gas, E85-85% is Ethanol, LPG is Propane, ELEC is Electric, BD is Biodiesel, HY is Hydrogen and LNG is Liquefied Natural Gas
SOURCE: "Alternative Fueling Station Counts by State and Fuel Type," U.S. Department of Energy, Alternative Fuels Data Center, November 22, 2004, http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/infrastructure/station_counts.html (accessed November 22, 2004)
Alabama 8 0 60 0 0 0 0 68
Alaska 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 9
Arizona 28 2 76 26 3 1 8 144
Arkansas 4 0 60 0 0 0 0 64
California 192 2 299 519 14 7 35 1,068
Colorado 25 10 74 4 11 0 0 124
Connecticut 14 0 26 4 1 0 0 45
Delaware 3 0 5 0 3 0 0 11
District of Columbia 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2
Florida 26 2 109 6 3 0 0 146
Georgia 23 0 47 1 3 0 0 74
Hawaii 0 0 6 4 3 0 0 13
Idaho 8 1 31 0 2 0 1 43
Illinois 10 17 79 0 4 0