Long Beach Transit

1. Long Beach Transit Alternative Fuel Assessment

3. LBT Alternative Fuel Study Assess the benefits and risks of continuing to follow the Gasoline Hybrid Pathway Assess other feasible pathways including: CNG, LNG, Conventional Diesel, Diesel Hybrid, Fuel Cell Hybrid and Battery Electric Recommend an alternative fuel pathway for future vehicle procurements

4. LBT Gasoline Hybrid Experience Gasoline Hybrid Selling Points Emissions As of 2003 � cleanest alternative fuel Already met 2007 requirements Facility upgrades/modifications � very limited Coach cost Capital - $200k per bus Operating � projecting fuel saving 5.5 mpg Safety � already have unleaded Technology � leading edge (no track record at the time) LBT chose gas hybrid path in 2003

5. LBT Gasoline Hybrid Experience As of February 2010, 87 gasoline hybrid buses in service Over 10 Million miles of service 50 coaches exceeding 100,000 miles 41 coaches exceeding 150,000 miles 6 coaches exceeding 200,000 miles

6. Gasoline Hybrid Issues Lower than expected fuel economy 3.8 mpg average Lower reliability than legacy diesel coaches Lower miles between road calls More manpower and higher spare ratio required to meet pull-out Long lead time for spare parts Higher Capital and Operating Costs More manpower to maintain the hybrid buses Replacement parts are more expensive Some components require more frequent replacement

7. Gasoline Hybrid Issues Unexpected Component Failures Engine Failures Engine design � not a heavy duty engine Engine placement, Use of improper coolant, Due to custom modifications the engine was not a low cost replacement as expected. Replacement interval ~175,000 miles Ultracapacitor Problems Susceptibility to moisture permeation � recently grounded the entire 2900 series fleet Continual failure of ancillary items such as contactors, fan control boards Increased maintenance to replace cooling fans to minimize risk of overheating leading to ultracapacitor failures ISE replacing ultracapacitors on all 87 coaches to mitigate safety issues and premature failures

8. Gasoline Hybrid Issues Power Inverter Issues Unexpectedly high number of inverter failures Failures caused by vibration related failure of electrical connections between control board and IGBTs leading to catastrophic inverter failure Long lead time on replacement inverters ISE suggests replacing duo inverters with new mono inverter configuration as a solution

9. Gasoline Hybrid Issues Substantial progress has been made by ISE in resolving these issues: ISE replacing �black� UCAPs on all existing coaches with improved �blue� UCAPs Improved reliability of �mono-inverter� over duo-inverters Future engines will make more extensive use of OEM Ford components but will still require replacement at 175,000 miles

10. Gasoline Hybrid Performance

11. Gasoline Hybrid Performance

12. Gasoline Hybrid Performance

13. Technologies Considered Based on a comprehensive review of the existing and developing alternative fuel/technology options for transit applications, eight propulsion technologies were considered as options for LBT future procurements:

14. Factors Considered Compliance with federal, state, and local regulations Maturity of the technology Reliability, availability and maintainability Fuel efficiency, criteria emissions, GHG emissions Infrastructure requirements Life cycle costs Vendor stability, support and warranty Fuel availability Operator and mechanic training requirements

15. Environmental Regulations SCAQMD Rule 1192 All new transit vehicle or urban bus purchases or leases must be alternative-fuel heavy-duty vehicles employing CNG, LNG, propane, methanol, electricity, fuel cells, or other advanced technologies that do not rely on diesel fuel. Highly unlikely that any legal challenge of this rule by LBT would be successful. This rule effectively eliminates conventional-drive diesel and diesel hybrid electric from consideration as options for LBT.

16. Environmental Regulations CARB Zero Emission Bus Regulation Affects agencies with >200 urban buses (40-ft or larger) - LBT currently has 194. LBT could exceed the 200 bus and become subject to this requirement in the near future. Requires 15% of new bus purchases to be zero emissions vehicles Purchase requirement postponed pending further evaluation (no later than July 2012). Actual implementation date is still unclear LBT should seriously consider participating in a demonstration program involving one or more ZEV technologies.

17. Maturity of Technology For the purposes of this study, the maturity of technologies was categorized as: Technologically Feasible: In early design stages Prototype Stage: 1-3 vehicles in demonstration at several locations Pre-Production Stage: 50-100+ vehicles in operation at a small number of locations Fully Commercialized: Fleets of 100+ vehicles in regular use at multiple locations To qualify for consideration in as a full-scale procurement option for LBT, the research team believes that a technology must at a minimum be in the Pre-Production Stage.

18. Maturity of Technology Technologies ready for full-scale procurement Conventional-Drive Diesel Conventional-Drive CNG Conventional-Drive LNG Diesel-Hybrid-Electric Gasoline-Hybrid-Electric Technologies NOT ready for full-scale procurement for normal transit service Battery-Electric Hydrogen Fuel Cell Hybrid Battery-Intensive Hybrid

19. Reliability of Technology All major technologies have undergone substantial change to keep pace with emissions regulations: Diesel: active particulate filters, SCR CNG: move from lean-burn to stoichiometric Gasoline Hybrid: technology is still maturing All of these options will be challenged to some degree by reliability issues associated with new technologies. No one option stands out as having a clear advantage over the others in terms of anticipated reliability. All three technologies will require personnel training.

20. Life Cycle Cost Analysis LCC Elements Vehicle Cost Extended Warranty Cost Diagnostic Equipment Cost Operator & Mechanic Training Cost Fueling & Maintenance Facility Infrastructure Cost Vehicle Fuel Cost Major Component Replacement cost (engine, transmission, energy storage system rehabilitation Scheduled & unscheduled maintenance cost Fueling facility operation and maintenance cost

21. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Vehicle Cost

22. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Diagnostic Equipment Cost No additional diagnostic equipment cost needed for gasoline hybrid or CNG buses Operator and Mechanic Training Used TCRP C-15 defaults

23. CNG Infrastructure (Jackson)

24. CNG Infrastructure (Anaheim)

25. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Fuel Cost Projections

26. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Fuel Economy Model

27. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Major Component Replacement/Rehab Engine CNG: First replacement at 6 years, second replacement at 4 years, cost $34,490 per occurrence Gasoline Hybrid: First two replacements under warranty, third replacement at LBT cost of $20,670

28. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Major Component Replacement/Rehab Transmission CNG: First replacement at 6 years, second replacement at 4 years, cost $27,002 per occurrence Gasoline Hybrid: Anticipate that each bus will require one major hybrid propulsion system rehabilitation at a cost of $60,000 ESS Rehabilitation Anticipate one major ESS replacement at a cost of $45,000

29. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Scheduled and Unscheduled Maintenance

30. Life Cycle Costs

31. Life Cycle Costs

32. Life Cycle Costs Gasoline-Hybrids exhibit the highest overall life cycle costs but not excessively above the other options. CNG appears closely matched to conventional diesel in terms of life cycle costs. Although a large upfront cost that requires budgetary planning, CNG fueling and maintenance infrastructure comprises 6% of total life cycle cost for CNG buses.

33. Fuel Availability Gasoline � already available at LBT CNG available from pipelines but will require upgrades to existing city pipelines. Concern that potential non-availability of CNG in emergency situations could limit ability to provide emergency services. Conversion of only a portion of the fleet to CNG while maintaining gasoline-hybrid buses mitigates the impact of loss of CNG supply in an emergency situation.

34. Greenhouse Gas Implications

35. Viable Options Given the regulatory environment in Southern California and the state of available alternative fuel technologies, three viable alternatives emerge: Continue exclusively with gasoline hybrids Begin a full conversion to CNG at both Jackson and Anaheim Facilities Convert Jackson facility to CNG and continue to purchase gasoline hybrids at Anaheim. Anaheim more expensive to convert.

36. Recommendations It is not in LBT�s best interest to abandon gasoline hybrid buses completely at this time. May jeopardize continuity of ISE Corporation effort and the gasoline hybrid product offering Could negatively impact future maintenance and technical support from ISE for the existing 87 gasoline hybrid buses at LBT Would negatively impact gasoline hybrid programs at other transit properties who look to LBT for guidance and support.

37. Recommendations LBT should not embark on an all CNG fleet pathway at this time. Requires extensive and costly infrastructure investment at both the Anaheim and Jackson properties. Raises issues with availability of CNG fuel and LBT�s ability to provide emergency transportation services during disaster and emergency situations.

38. Recommendations There are two viable alternatives. Continue to pursue the all gasoline hybrid pathway. Begin converting the Jackson facility to a CNG fleet with plans to operate a diversified fleet made up of gasoline-hybrid coaches operating out of the Anaheim facility and CNG coaches operating out of the Jackson Facility.

39. Recommendations LBT should closely monitor Zero Emissions Bus demonstration projects at other transit properties and should give serious consideration to participating in or conducting a ZEV demonstration at LBT. Battery electric coaches with opportunity charging on niche routes would be a good candidate ZEV technology for a ZEV demonstration at LBT. Manufacturers of such buses include Proterra, Ebus and DesignLine. Due to proximity to LBT, Ebus could represent a good partnership for a ZEV demonstration.