Alternative Fuels:

Where Are We?

Where Are We Headed?

CalACT 2007 Spring Conference & Expo

April 25, 2007

Paul Griffith
National Projects Manager
ATTI
 Presentation Outline

• Energy Basics
• Regulated Emissions and Greenhouse Gases
• Global Warming
• EPA and CARB Regulations
• Bus Fuel Options
• Historical Fuel-Use Trends in Bus Industry
• Comparative Emissions
• Conclusions
 Forms of Energy
Kinetic (motion) Potential (stored)
– Electrical – Chemical
– Radiant • Petroleum
• Natural Gas
• Solar
• Propane
– Thermal • Biomass
• Geothermal – biodiesel
– Motion – Stored Mechanical
• Wind – Nuclear
– Sound – Gravitational
• Hydropower

Sources: US Energy Information Administration

 Renewables vs. Nonrenewables

6% 94%

(CONSERVATION)

Source: US Energy Information Administration

 Secondary Energy Forms
• “Energy Carriers”
• Used to easily store, move, delivery energy
• Electricity
– 38% Natural Gas
– 20% Coal
– 17% Large Hydro
– 14% Nuclear
– 11% Renewable
• Hydrogen
– Natural Gas
– Water

Sources: US Energy Information Administration; CA Energy Commission

US Energy Consumption by Source & Sector

Source: US Energy Information Administration

 Energy Considerations: Availability

Dependence on Foreign/
Domestic Oil & NG production Unstable Sources Domestic Demand
past their peak

Sources: Assoc. for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas; US Army Corps of Engineers
Non-Renewables: Domestic & World Reserves
300
Domestic Reserves
250
Years of Reserves

World Reserves
200

150

100

50

0
Oil NG LNG Coal Uranium
Fuel

Source: US Army Corps of Engineers (ERDC/CERL TR-05-21)

Energy Considerations: Affordability

Prices

Domestic & World Demand

Source: US Army Corps of Engineers (ERDC/CERL TR-05-21)

 No. 2 Diesel - Average Retail Prices
350

300

250
Cents per Gallon

200

150

100
U.S.
50
California
0
1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006
Source: U.S. DOE, Energy Information Administration
 Natural Gas Prices (Commercial Rate)
18

16

14
Price ($/1000 cf)

12

10

4
Residential
2
Commercial
0
1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005
Source: U.S. DOE, Energy Information Administration
California Average Retail Electricity Prices
16
14
12
Cost (cents/kWh)

10
8
6
4 Residential

2 Commercial
Industrial
0
1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005
Source: California Energy Commission
Normalized Price Trends: Diesel, NG, Elect.
2.5
Price (Relative to 1994)

2.0

1.5

1.0
Diesel (US avg)
0.5 NG (commercial)
Electricity (commercial)
0.0
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Sources: U.S. DOE, Energy Information Administration; California Energy Commission
 Projected Price Trends
NON-RENEWABLES

Coal Nuclear LNG Oil NG

Fairly Stable Fairly Stable Fairly Stable Steady Increases Volatile

RENEWABLES

Conservation Solar Wind Ethanol

Declining Declining Stable or Declining Stable or Declining

?
Hydroelectric Biomass H2
Stable Stable Tech. Dependent

ELECTRIC GRID
Slow Increase

Source: US Army Corps of Engineers (ERDC/CERL TR-05-21)

 Energy Considerations: Security

Combustible fuels
Explosive fuels create security risks
Nuclear materials

US: 5% of world’s population,

uses 25% annual energy production
-- loss of goodwill
-- context for military conflicts

Source: US DHS; US Army Corps of Engineers

 Energy Considerations: Sustainability
Earth’s natural resources depleting at alarming rate
– 100 million years creation = 1-yr world consumption

Global warming
Smog
Acid rain
Ground-level ozone

Fuel mining/production
– destroys ecosystems & biodiversity

Sources: Jellinbah Resources; AP; PDPhoto.org;

US Army Corps of Engineers
 Oil

NG

LNG

Coal

Nuclear




N
O
x
&





G
H CO
G
s




D
ri l
lin


M g&
in
in Pro
g


Ex - du
pl Ma ctio
oi jo


Te tat rL nP
rro ion oc ollu


ris of al D tio
Sh tT R a n
ip e m


pi arg str ag
La ng e ic
ts te e
rg I d
 e mp Ar
W Th act ea
as er s s

t e ma
Ac D
i lS
ci s
de pos igna
nt al tu
s U re
D n
is
Source: US Army Corps of Engineers (ERDC/CERL TR-05-21)

p e re s
rs olv
e ed
R
Environmental Impacts: Non-Renewables

ad
io
ac
tiv
ity
 Wind
Solar
Ethanol

Biomass
Hydrogen

Geothermal
Conservation
Hydroelectric

Ag
. Im
pa


C
O ct
,N s&
O C
o


H x,
az PM mb
ar .E
do ;H m



La us ar is
nd W v es sio
C as t.
&
ns
t


Bi on
rd su e in Tr
m Pr an
Ki
lls p t o s.


Lr ; N ion du
g ct
D oi io
n
am se
;


So s: Vi
m R su
e iv
er al
Su


Ve H Po
lfu yd ll u
ry rE r tio
m lg n
Be y


Lo ni is ,H
w g si
on 2O
-H n s
ea Tm




Si d p.
g. H
Le yd
ro


N ss
o I M
Source: US Army Corps of Engineers (ERDC/CERL TR-05-21)

or
En mp
a e
Environmental Impacts: Renewables

vi ct Be
ro t
nm h an nign
en Fo
ta ss
lI
m il
Fu
pa
ct el
s
>90% of Californians Breath Unhealthy Air at Times

Source: California Air Resources Board

 Criteria Emissions
• Fine Particulate Matter (PM10)
– reduces visibility; penetrates deep into lungs, impairing function
• Carbon Monoxide (CO)
– invisible; reduces oxygen in blood
• Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
– brownish haze; impair breathing; react in sunlight to form ozone
• Non-Methane Hydrocarbons (NMHC)
– react in sunlight to form ozone

Ground-Level Ozone (O3)

– Invisible; powerful respiratory irritant; damages crops, degrades
rubber & paint

Source: US Environmental Protection Agency

Observed Climate Change

Magnitude, rate and duration of warming in the 20th century is

greater than in any of the previous nine centuries.

The 1990s were the warmest decade in the past 1,000 years.
Simplified Greenhouse Effect






Source: US EPA Climate Change Outreach Kit

Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gases

CA world’s 9th largest emitter

Source: SBAPCD; California Energy Commission

 CO2 and Temperature Records

Temperature Data CO2 Data Antarctic Ice Core Samples

3

2.5
Standard Deviations from Mean

1.5

0.5

-0.5

-1

-1.5

-2
800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0
Years Before Present
Sources: Leland McInnes; NOAA; ORNL
Carbon Emissions Since Industrial Revolution

Source: Robert A. Rohde; Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research

Global Temperature Since Industrial Rev.

20th Century:
Temp +1.1 °F (+0.6 °C)

Source: Robert A. Rohde; Global Warming Art

Top 6 Warmest Years Worldwide Since 1890s
1) 2005
2) 1998
3) 2002
4) 2003
5) 2006
6) 2004

(11 of 12 Warmest Years have Occurred Since 1995)

Source: Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA)

Scientific Consensus on Global Warming
1965 Increasing atmospheric CO2 could lead to “marked changes
in climate” by 2000 (Scientific Advisory Board to President
Johnson)

1990 “Observed warming could be largely due to natural climate

variability” (IPCC)

1995 “Evidence suggests a discernable human influence on global

climate” (IPCC)

2001 “New & stronger evidence that most of warming observed

over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities“ (IPCC)

2007 “Global warming very likely manmade” (IPCC)

Sources: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

 Glacial Retreat

Collection of
20 glacier
length records
Length

from different
parts of world

1500 2000

Source: World Glacier Monitoring Service

 Rhone Glacier, Swiss Alps

1859

2,500-m retreat,
450-m higher

2001

Source: Gary Braasch Photography

 Pasterze Glacier, Austria

1875

2,000-m retreat

2004

Source: Univ. Salzburg; Gary Braasch Photography

 Portage Glacier, Alaska

1914

Alaska's glaciers receding at

2x rate previously thought
(7-19-02 Science journal)

2004

Source: NOAA; Gary Braasch Photography

Grinnell Glacier, Glacier Nat’l Park, Montana

1911
NPS estimates that all
but a few of the 30
glaciers in this park will
be gone by mid-century
2000

Sources: National Park Service; Gary Braasch Photography

Water Withdrawals from Rivers & Lakes
. . . have doubled
since 1960

Lake Chad
1960
World’s 6th largest lake

1963-2001
Shrunk 95%;
wetlands spoiled

Sources: World Resources Institute;

UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme)
One Planet Many People:
Atlas of our Changing Environment
Amazon River Basin Drought Effects

Source: World Resources Institute

Destabilization of Ocean Currents

Measurements indicate a
30% reduction in ocean
circulation volume
since 1957
25º N lat
Significant climate
changes for areas like
Scandinavia and Britain
that are warmed by the
North Atlantic drift.

Sources: World Resources Institute; Ocean current figure: www.NASA.gov; Transect information: Bryden, Harry L.
et al. "Slowing of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation at 25° N." Nature 438: 655-657. 1 December 2005
Frequency of Weather Related Disasters

Source: Swiss Re 2005

That’s Where 1°F Gets Us . . .

Where to next?
Climate Model Predictions for Global Warming
SRES A2 Emissions Scenario (assumes no action taken to reduce emissions)

Source: Robert A. Rohde; Global Warming Art

Largest GHG Emitters

(5% of World Population)

Source: World Resources Institute

Think Globally, Act Locally

No Silver Bullet

Photo Credit: 101 In Motion

US Public Transportation Ridership
During First Six Months of 2006:
• ~5 billion passenger trips (+3.2%)
– Light rail +9.4%
– Commuter rail +3.4%
– Bus +3.2%
– Subways +2.6%
– Paratransit +3.8%
– Trolleybus +0.5%
– Other +0.2%

Source: APTA
 Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct)

• Mandated alternative fuels as component of

federal, state, and alt fuel provider fleets
• 2004 Final Rule exempts private & local
government fleets
• Although public transit fleets not subject to EPAct,
many have pioneered alt fuel technologies

Source: US Department of Energy

 California Urban Bus Emission Standards
18.0
Criteria Pollutants
Emission Standards (g/bhp-hr)

16.0
CO
14.0

12.0
98% Reduction 1988-2010
10.0

8.0
NOx
6.0

4.0

2.0 HC
0.0
PM NMHC
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Source: California Air Resources Board (CCR§1956.1)

Alternative Fuel Options: Mobile Applications

Fuel Characteristics

Transit Bus Manufacturer Comments

 Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)
• Works well as a bus fuel, but low energy content,
storage densities, and fuel efficiencies = low range.
• Powers: > 90% of alt fueled small buses
> 95% of alt fueled mid- to full-size buses
• US produces ~87% of NG it consumes with most of
remainder coming from Canada.
• 2400-3600 psi; onboard cylinders require periodic
inspection and certification.
• Extensive modifications to facilities that fuel, service,
and maintain CNG buses (ventilation and leak detection
& monitoring systems).
• Strong training programs crucial.
 Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)

• Cryogenic liquid fuel: very low temp (-120 to

-260F) & relatively low pressure (< 100 psi).
• Liquefaction process expensive & energy
intensive.
• Less common than CNG
• Similar fuel efficiency, training, facilities
modifications as CNG.
NG Fuels: Bus Manufacturer Comments
• “NG market consistent but not growing”
• “Initially problematic: engine problems, fuel
impurities, and infrastructure costs; those
problems generally resolved”
• “Lingering challenges: reduced range, higher
vehicle weight, fuel availability, and increased
fuel & maintenance costs”
• “LNG has fuel advantages over CNG, but interest
as bus fuel has faded over last 5 years”
• “Concerns about potential liabilities. CNG: high
pressures, potential leaks and fires. LNG:
cryogenic nature, potential to boil off as methane
creates emissions and additional safety concerns”
Source: ATTI Survey of Bus Manufacturers
Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG or Propane)

• Used in vehicles since the 1920s.

• Successfully deployed in 30-ft & under bus market.
• ~90% of LPG used in US is domestically produced.
• Range, fuel efficiency, and fueling station cost issues
less challenging than CNG or LNG.
• Heavier-than-air, precautions necessary to avoid
ignition sources in low-lying areas.
Propane: Bus Manufacturer Comments

• “Appropriate for small buses”

• “Higher vehicle cost and fuel availability
limits its application”
• “Safety concerns regarding heavier-than-air
characteristic”

Source: ATTI Survey of Bus Manufacturers

Alcohol-Based Fuels (Ethanol and Methanol)

• Not presently utilized as engine fuels in the bus market

(although some fuel cell demonstrations have used
methanol to produce hydrogen).
• Ethanol
– Previous users report higher costs, premature engine failures
– Industry focusing on lighter-duty engines
• Methanol
– Previous users report engine unreliability and high fuel prices
– Special precautions necessary as flame virtually invisible
Alcohol-Based Fuels: Bus Mfr. Comments

• Ethanol
– increased cost of operation
– option for vans; hybrid cutaway bus in development
• Methanol
– increased cost of operation
– toxic, water-soluble fluid, creating concerns about
groundwater contamination from release during an accident
– corrosive, attacking engine and fuel system components
– although regulated emissions reduced, formaldehyde is
produced

Source: ATTI Survey of Bus Manufacturers

 Biodiesel
• Domestically produced, cleaner burning, renewable
fuel derived from vegetable oils or animal fats.
• Usually blended with petro-diesel.
• Becoming increasingly popular since U.S. DOE
ruling in 2001 than EPAct credits apply to blends of
at least 20% (B20).
• Pending: B20 = “CARB Diesel”
• Because blends up to B20 can be used in existing
diesel engines without modifications, it has lowest
capital cost of alt fuels.
Biodiesel: Bus Manufacturer Comments

• “Blends of 10% or less (B5, B10) generally

supported by engine manufacturers; B20
generally not covered under warranty.”
• “Lack of engine warranty in part because
strong specification regulating biodiesel
production has not been adopted by all states.”

Source: ATTI Survey of Bus Manufacturers

 Battery-Electric
• Small (22-ft) electric buses successfully
deployed in Santa Barbara CA, Chattanooga
TN, Norfolk VA, and Miami Beach FL; to
date, limited to shuttle operations.
• Quiet, emission-free operation yields
substantial increases in ridership.
• Battery limitations have resulted in low
range, reduced reliability, increased life-
cycle costs.
 Hydrogen

• Derived from renewable sources or petroleum feedstocks.

• Can be utilized in ICEs and fuel cells.
• Currently plays minimal role in US energy mix; huge potential
• Ford demonstrating V-10, E-450 hydrogen cutaway buses
• Most industry officials believe hydrogen engine and fuel cell
paths at least 10 years away.
• Fuel infrastructure and fuel cell cost greatest challenges.
• Mitigation of hydrogen leaks inside buildings include proper air
ventilation, leak detectors, explosion-proof wiring.
• Safety issues: ability to detonate & to embrittle certain materials.
Hydrogen: Bus Manufacturer Comments
• “When we started fuel cell project we thought
technology 10-12 years out; after delivery to
customer, we believe it more like 15-20 years out”
• “Too expensive, ~$3 million per bus”
• “Costs can come down in volume, but transit
industry does not have necessary volume”
• “More promising platform is automobile, but
volume production won’t happen there before
HUGE investment in refueling infrastructure”
• “Well-to-wheels cost of hydrogen production ~2X to
3X that of petroleum products”
• Hydrogen economy won’t be competitive until
petroleum fuels reach ~$10/gal
Source: ATTI Survey of Bus Manufacturers
 Hybrid-Electric

• Substantial attention & development:

– Increased fuel economy (10-50% reported)
– Reduced vehicle emissions
– Reduced operating noise on acceleration
• Thirteen hybrid auto models in commercial production
• ~1,100 hybrid transit buses in regular service in NA
Hybrid-Electric: Bus Manufacturer Comments

• Most benefits, fewest concerns:

– Low regulated emissions
– No new emissions
– Lower fuel costs partially offset higher acquisition cost
– Quieter, smoother operation
– Positive perception / public relations reported by customers

• GM Allison developing smaller hybrid drive

• “Plug-in hybrids could result in further improvements
in fossil fuel economies”

Source: Survey of Bus Manufacturers

 Bus Manufacturer Survey Summary
• Evaluated CNG, LNG, propane, biodiesel, ethanol,
methanol, hydrogen, electric, and hybrid-electric.
• “Higher costs, reduced performance of alternative fuels
previously justifiable by substantial emissions savings”
• “Emissions differences between ultra-low sulfur diesel
and alt fuels becoming too small to justify the
incremental costs, challenges of alternative fuels”
• “Diesel hybrids achieve comparable emissions with alt
fuels, at lower fuel/maintenance costs”
• “Clear shift away from gaseous fuels toward hybrid-
electrics; near- to mid-term direction”
Source: Survey of Bus Manufacturers
Alt Fuels vs. 2005 Diesel Heavy-Duty Vehicles
Diesel w/ Biodiesel Battery-
CNG Propane
PM1 Trap (B20) Electric
significant slight
significant moderate no local
Emissions reductions reduction
reductions reductions emissions
until MY10 until MY07
Domestic 44% 87% 90% 100% (B100) 100%
$2.56/gal $2.91/gal 16¢/kWh
Fuel Price2
$2.81/gal $2.30/DGE3 $3.94/DGE $2.92/DGE $1.25/DGE
Life-Cyc Cost +~3% +~15% +~10% +~7% +~20%
Power same similar similar similar similar
slightly slightly slightly
Range same reduced
reduced reduced reduced
Refueling Infra.
same high moderate same moderate
Cost
3000 psi; heavier
Safety same same high voltages
facility mods. than air
1. Particulate Matter Sources: U.S. Department of Energy; Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy; SBMTD
2. Overall average prices, September 2005
3. Diesel Gallon Equivalent
 Alternative Fueled Buses Under 27.5-ft

2001 2002 2003 2004

CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) 833 700 810 716
LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) 21 21 21 0
LPG (Liquefied Petroleum Gas, Propane) 55 51 49 35
Battery-Electric 17 13 28 29
E85 (Ethanol) 0 0 0 0
M85 (Methanol) 0 0 0 0
Hydrogen 0 0 0 0

2005 data not yet available

Hybrid-electric buses not considered “alternative fueled” by EPA if input fuel is diesel or gasoline

Source: Energy Information Administration, U.S. Government

 Alternative Fueled Buses Over 27.5-ft

2001 2002 2003 2004

CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) 4,710 5,086 5,883 6,240
LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) 738 947 948 1,012
LPG (Liquefied Petroleum Gas, Propane) 86 101 300 317
Battery-Electric 56 38 11 4
E85 (Ethanol) 0 0 0 0
M85 (Methanol) 11 0 0 0
Hydrogen 0 0 1 1

2005 data not yet available

Hybrid-electric buses not considered “alternative fueled” by EPA if input fuel is diesel or gasoline

Source: Energy Information Administration, U.S. Government

Comparative Emissions

30-ft. Transit Buses

Criteria Emissions
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
2006 Comparative Emissions: Diesel vs. CNG
Certified Emissions for 2006 230-hp Cummins ISB/BG 230
NOx NMHC PM10 CO
LS Diesel1 (g/bhp-hr) 2.03 0.08 0.10 1.3
CNG (g/bhp-hr) 1.43 0.00 0.00 1.0
1 Tested with Low-Sulfur Diesel (500 ppm). Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel (15 ppm) reduces
emissions of sulfur compounds enabling NOx, HC, and PM reductions.

2007 & 2010 Regulations

NOx NMHC PM10 CO
2007 (g/bhp-hr) 1.2 0.14 0.01 1.3
2010 (g/bhp-hr) 0.2 0.14 0.01 1.3

Sources: Cummins; CARB; US EPA

 30-ft Diesel & CNG Bus Emissions
Fuel Density
Emissions (g/mi) = Emission Rate x
Brake Spec. Fuel Consumption x Fuel Efficiency
where:
Fuel Density = 7.16 lb/gal diesel
Brake Specific Fuel Consumption = 0.4 lb/bhp-hr diesel
Fuel Efficiency = 5.02 mpg diesel (2004 Gillig LF 30)

NOx NMHC PM10 CO

LS Diesel (g/mi) 7.2 0.29 0.36 4.6
CNG (g/mi) 4.9 0.00 0.00 3.4
2007-09 (g/mi) 4.3 0.50 0.04 4.6
2010 (g/mi) 0.7 0.50 0.04 4.6

Sources: Cummins; CARB; US EPA

 Biodiesel Emissions
Relative to LSD

Negligible criteria emissions benefits when blended with ULSD

Sources: US EPA; California Energy Commission, Consumer Energy Center

 30-ft Electric Bus Emissions
U.S. Marginal Off-Peak Power Generation Emissions
NOx NMOG PM10 CO
g/kWh 0.073 0.025 ? ?

Emissions (g/mi) = Emission Rate x AC Energy Consumption Rate

where: AC Energy Consumption Rate (30-ft EB) = 1.56 AC kWh/mi

NOx NMOG PM10 CO

g/mi 0.11 0.039 ? ?

Source: Electric Power Research Institute; SBMTD

 2006 30-ft Bus Emissions (Normalized)
100%
NOx
80% NMHC
PM10
Emissions

60% CO

40%

20%

0%
??
LS ULSD or Hybrid CNG Electric Electric
Diesel B20 (B20 or Local Total
MY2007 ULSD)
MY2010
Sources: Cummins; CARB; US EPA; EPRI; SBMTD
Well-to-Wheels Emissions

Source: California Energy Commission

 GHG Emissions: CO2
Transit Buses Combustion
1800 Fuel Production
1600
1400
1200
1000
g/km

800
600
400
200
0

CNG/LNG
Hybrid

Hybrid

Propane
B20
Diesel

(B20)

Source: CSIRO (Life-Cycle Emissions Analysis of Alternative Fuels for Heavy Vehicles)
 GHG Emissions: CH4
Transit Buses Combustion
3.0
Fuel Production

2.5

2.0
g/km

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

CNG/LNG
Hybrid

Hybrid

Propane
Diesel

B20

(B20)

Source: CSIRO (Life-Cycle Emissions Analysis of Alternative Fuels for Heavy Vehicles)
 GHG Emissions: N2O
Transit Buses
Combustion
0.14
Fuel Production
0.12
0.10
0.08
g/km

0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00

CNG/LNG
Hybrid

Hybrid
B20

Propane
Diesel

(B20)

Source: CSIRO (Life-Cycle Emissions Analysis of Alternative Fuels for Heavy Vehicles)
Global Warming Potential of GHGs
% of Global Warming
Greenhouse Gas
Total Potential (100-yr)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 72% 1

Methane (CH4) 18% 23

Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 9% 296

Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) 1% 4,600- 14,000

Sources: Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research;

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (3rd Assessment Report, 2001)
 Total GHGs: Weighted by 100-yr GWP
Transit Buses
1800 GWP Wtd. Combustion
g/km CO2-equivalents

1600
GWP Wtd. Fuel Production
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0

CNG/LNG
Hybrid

Hybrid

Propane
Diesel

B20

(B20)

Source: CSIRO (Life-Cycle Emissions Analysis of Alternative Fuels for Heavy Vehicles)
 Summary & Conclusions
• CNG has dominated the alt fuels bus market
• Emissions gap between diesel & alt fuels narrowing
– 2010 regulations: diesel emissions comparable with alt fuels
• Biodiesel
– lowest capital cost of alt fuels
– Renewable, energy security, reduced GHG emissions
• Bus industry moving towards diesel hybrids
– improved fuel economy, reduced emissions
• Electric Buses
– lowest emissions