1 / 25
Download Presentation

Developing CTA Performance Based Concept

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Developing CTA Performance Based Concept Transit Agency Subcommittee Meeting October 26, 2016 Diamond Bar, California

  2. Meeting Objective • To discuss questions that are needed to develop details of CTA’s performance based concept • Continue discussion on the latest cost information to identify areas of consensus and additional needs

  3. Considerations of Alternatives Health and Environment Benefits • Protect public health • Reduce NOx, PM, GHGemissions • Reduce other environmental risks Regulation and Incentive • Support existing programs • Promote new actions , no double counting • Ensure equal treatment of transit fleets • Ensure regulation is implementable and enforceable, and results are quantifiable • Impacts on funding opportunities Disadvantaged Community (DAC) • Ensure DAC benefits, and equitable benefits distribution Transit Agency • Improve transit efficiency • No service cuts • Enhance mobility, first/last-mile connectivity Industry • Provide clear market signal for zero emission transit • Build on past investments in zero emission technologies • Build economy of scale for zero emission buses

  4. Advanced Clean Transit -What is Achievable? • Can we enhance passenger service and mobility • Need to understand advanced technology opportunities and barriers • How to address initial costs and total ownership costs • Balance potential risks, uncertainties and rewards • Complement existing programs and policies • Can we achieve zero emission transit systems • What is the appropriate role of incentives

  5. Complementing Existing Programs • Achieve PM, NOx and GHG reductions beyond existing programs (cannot double count) • Engine emission standards (normal replacements) • Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection (SB 375) • Low Carbon Fuel Standard • Emission reductions from new measures must be real, quantifiable, verifiable, and enforceable

  6. CTA Concerns • ZEB technology neither offer the range nor the reliability • Significantly higher upfront capital cost and expensive infrastructure construction of ZEBs • No significant funding to cover the increased cost of ownership of ZEBs and to facilitate the transition to zero emission fleets

  7. CTA Proposed Framework • To authorize transit agencies to more cost-effectively procure renewable energy • Technology-neutral, more flexibility and best-suited for operational needs • Adoption of a combination of commercially viable and cost-efficient technologies to achieve the performance-based and petroleum targets

  8. What is a Performance Based Approach? • Can be like existing Transit Fleet rule for buses • PM percent reduction from individual fleet baseline year • Meet preset NOx standard goal by point in time • Did not address green house gas emissions • Near-term end goal • Did not include other modes, mobility enhancements, nor other transit system improvements • Can take a broader approach • Include range of vehicle modes and technologies • Incorporate transit system efficiency and mobility • Set GHG, PM and NOx reduction goals or targets • May need multiple baselines and targets • Milestones to long term end goal

  9. Defining CTA’s Performance Based Approach • How to develop concept as envisioned by CTA? • Key areas for discussion • Scope of a transit system • Metrics and surrogates to simplify approach • Establishing a baseline and targets • Addressing key variables like fuel types, vehicle mixes • General questions

  10. What’s the Scope of the Concept? • Controlled by transit agency? • Public private partnerships? • Buses, rail, ferries, van pools, bike sharing, car sharing, micro transit, ride sourcing services, taxi voucher, Uber pool discounts, single fare tickets, etc? • What about potential cross over with SB 375?

  11. Key Metrics and Surrogates • Needs to address PM, NOx and GHG • Surrogates can simplify accounting mechanism • Can we use data that is already reported and collected? • Would new reporting required? If so what and how?

  12. Metric for PM, NOx and GHG Emissions • PM and NOx emissions dependent on vehicle type, engine emissions by model year, drive cycle, vehicle usage characteristics, fuel type, other • GHG emission depends on vehicle type, fuel type, engine/vehicle efficiency and usage characteristics, other • Total fleet emissions change with fleet size, mode shifting, or changes in vehicle utilization • Emissions decline with normal replacements • Should it be normalized with transit system efficiency metric?

  13. NOx and PM Emission Metrics? • Which metrics to use, for varying useful life, mode and emission factors, fuel types, other? • Use engine standards, or inventory emissions? • How to address fleet variations? • Bus types (cutaway, standard, BRT, articulated) • Off-road (light rail, heavy rail, ferry, other) • Other (van pools, car sharing, enhanced mobility) • How to address expected transit system growth? • What are the data sources to track progress?

  14. Engine Standards Reduce Emissions with Normal Replacements Urban Bus Engine Emissions Standards for NOx PM emissions standards have been 0.01 g/bhp-hr since 2004.

  15. Off-Road Engine Standards (Locomotives and Marine Vessels) For comparison PM emissions standards for new on-road engines are 0.01 g/bhp-hr vs 0.1 g/bhp-hr.

  16. GHG Emissions Metrics • Which metrics to use, for varying useful life, mode and emission factors, fuel types, other? • Should RNG and RD accounted differently, because their GHG reduction are already part of LCFS and baseline? • Use LCFS defaults, vary with CI on bill, treat them the same? • Should a single metric like energy use be used across the fleet? • How to address expected vehicle efficiency improvements? • How to account for mode shifting and other mobility programs? • How to address potential overlap with actions already expected with SB 375 or normal trends?

  17. Transit System Efficiency Metrics • Can single metric be used for different modes? • Passenger miles, seat miles, total connected trip length/population or other? • What would be source of data? • National transit database, ARB reporting, other • Is there sufficient detail by mode to calculate emissions • Is additional reporting needed for other modes • Is historical information needed? • Any notable change in data collection methodology • Any issues with incomplete or missing data

  18. Fleet Passenger Loading (All Modes) *Was calculated by all modes listed in NTD data

  19. Establishing Targets • How to ensure reductions of each pollutant (NOx, PM, GHG)? • Set unique target for each fleet based on existing mix of different modes, or • Set same percentage emission reduction goal for all fleets regardless of their starting point • Set baseline and targets first for a bus only fleet and then apply same reduction to all fleets? • Set different targets for mixed fleets vs bus only fleets? • How to address actions already taken? • Other?

  20. How to Address Expected Growth • How to account transit system growth in the baseline and target (national trends, California trends, other)? • What metrics for system growth trends should be used? • Should trend be applied equally to all fleets? • How to factor expansion of enhanced mobility?

  21. How to Set GHG Emission Baseline and Targets? GHGWTW Emissions for Statewide Bus Fleet Baseline Rule Phase-In Assumptions: Baseline: Includes Low Carbon Fuel Standard Regulation Rule Phase In: Reflects 33% RPS starting 2020 and 50% RPS in 2030.

  22. How to Set NOx Baseline and Targets? Bus only fleet example of business as usual replacements without growth (Illustrative) Note: Figure represents emissions trend for a single bus fleet without changing number of buses and miles traveled.

  23. More Questions • How to minimize unintended consequences? • Guarding against service cuts to increase efficiency (especially for transit dependent riders and in DACs)? • Ridership fluctuations beyond the control of transit agencies? • Are there any transit fleet timing concerns with meeting milestones and normal fleet planning? • How to assess costs for existing and new innovative methods? • What tools are needed to allow for future planning?

  24. Next Steps • Summarize transit fleet responses on key issues • Develop proposed CTA methodology with best available information for review and comment • Identify any remaining questions • Developed proposal will help confirm if key goals are met • Seek feedback on concept for different fleet situations • Revise per CTA recommendation

  25. Cost Analysis Update • Cost Subgroup Lifecycle Cost Model shared with ARB on October 14, 2016 • Continue to work towards common inputs and understanding • ARB seeking comments on cost information documents

More Related