CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO TRANSPORTATION BIOFUELS PLANNING STUDY

Transcription

1 1 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO TRANSPORTATION BIOFUELS PLANNING STUDY May 24, 2012 Jason Barbose UC Berkeley Goldman School of Public Policy Yuri Yakubov UC Berkeley Haas School of Business Bill Zeller City of San Francisco Department of the Environment

2 2 Where are we now? 2006 B20 Mayor s Directive Announced 2007 Scheduled Full Implementation of Directive Today Reached ~B10 Equivalent

3 3 Evaluation Criteria Maximize Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions Sustainability Locally Sourced Non-Food Competitive Utilize Waste Streams Minimize Total Fuel Costs Commodity Infrastructure Adverse Impacts on Criteria Emissions (NOx, SO2, PM, VO) Ensure Availability of Fuel

4 Baseline GHG Footprint for SF Fleet FY Fuel Consumption (% of total gallons) 99,070 Tons GHG Emissions (% of total GHG emissions) 4 5% 4% 26% 7% 62% Diesel B100 Gasoline 26% CNG 1% 69% Fuel Type Consumption (Gallons) GHG Emissions (Metric Tons CO2e) Diesel 5,342,129 68,036 B ,426 1,174 Gasoline 2,287,638 26,209 CNG 449,167 3,651 Total 8,666,360 99,070

5 Fuel Consumption (% of total gallons) 5% Baseline Fuel Cost FY $29,327,466 5 Fuel Cost (% of total spent) 2% 26% 7% 62% Diesel B100 Gasoline 25% CNG 9% 64% Fuel Type Consumption (Gallons) $/gallon Yearly Fuel Cost Diesel 5,342,129 $3.50 $18,697,451 B ,426 $4.30 $2,525,933 Gasoline 2,287,638 $3.25 $7,434,824 CNG 449,167 $1.49 $669,259 Total 8,666,360 $29,327,466

6 6 Retail Fuel Price $/GGE $5.00 B100 $4.50 $4.00 $3.50 Gasoline Diesel CNG CNG (NGV1) $3.00 $2.50 $2.00 $1.50 $1.00 $0.50 $0.00 5/24/06 1/9/07 8/27/07 4/14/08 11/30/08 7/19/09 3/6/10 10/23/10 6/10/11 1/27/12 Note: Data from U.S. DOE Alternative Fuels & Advanced Vehicles Data Center; PG&E Historical NGV1 Prices.

7 7 Fuel Price Relative to Diesel ($/GGE) $3.00 B100 Gasoline $2.00 Diesel CNG CNG (NGV1) $1.00 $0.00 -$1.00 -$2.00 -$3.00 5/24/06 1/9/07 8/27/07 4/14/08 11/30/08 7/19/09 3/6/10 10/23/10 6/10/11 1/27/12 Note: Data from U.S. DOE Alternative Fuels & Advanced Vehicles Data Center; PG&E Historical NGV1 Prices

8 8 Current Fuel Analysis Matrix Fuel GHG Emissions (gco2e/mj) Fuel Costs ($) Infrastructure Costs Availability Feedstocks Criteria Emissions Diesel 95 $3.50 N/A No Issues Petroleum Baseline Biodiesel 12 to 83 $4.30 $900k / storage tank Cheaper Procurement Needed Soy; FOG; Wastestream Potential increase in NOx; No other adverse impact Renewable Diesel 20 to 40 $8 to $22 $0 Uncertain Commercial Availability FOG; Sugar Cane; Sugar Beets No adverse impact Gasoline 96 to 99 $3.25 N/A No Issues Petroleum Baseline Ethanol 96 Renewable Gasoline Natural Gas 68 to 77 Biomethane 11 Hydrogen 32 to 70 $4.19 (GGE) $170k / filling station 20 to 40 $8 to $22 $0 $1.49 (GGE) $1.78 (GGE) $8.50 (GGE) $ million / filling station; $8-50k / vehicle $ million / filling station; $8-50k / vehicle $3 million / fueling facility; $2.5 million / bus No Issues Uncertain Commercial Availability Corn Herbaceous and Woody Biomass Increase in VOC; No other adverse impact No adverse impact No Issues Natural Gas No adverse impact Not commercially; can produce On-site Generation Food waste; sewage sludge Natural Gas or Biomethane No adverse impact No adverse impact

9 9 Fueling Mix Potential Scenarios Fiscal Year Baseline B20 Scenario Utilizes B20 in all diesel vehicles No action on gasoline vehicles B50 Scenario Utilizes B50 in all diesel vehicles No action on gasoline vehicles CNG Transition Scenario Use CNG in place of planned Biomethane in Biomethane Scenario Biomethane Scenario SFMTA replaces all diesel with Biomethane Replaces all existing CNG with Biomethane Replaces 25% of all gasoline with Biomethane All remaining diesel vehicles utilize B50 Other Scenarios?

10 10 Total Tons of CO2 Emissions by Scenario 120, ,000 80,000 99,070 93,041 74,663 85,805 60,000 40,000 36,764 20,000 0 Baseline B20 Scenario B50 Scenario CNG Scenario Biomethane Scenario

11 11 Total Cost of Fuel Mix Scenarios ($ in millions) $35 $32.0 $30 $29.3 $30.1 $29.0 $26.8 $25 $20 $15 $10 Biomethane CNG Gasoline B100 Diesel $5 $0 Baseline B20 Scenario B50 Scenario CNG Scenario Biomethane Scenario

12 12 Cost Effectiveness of GHG Reductions ($ per Metric Ton Reduced) $200 $150 $100 $135 $110 $50 $0 -$50 -$100 -$150 $0 -$6 -$200 -$250 -$184 Baseline B20 Scenario B50 Scenario CNG Scenario Biomethane Scenario

13 13 Biomethane - Pros Environmental Highest potential for GHG reduction Best Renewable Profile Integrates well with other environmental initiatives Financial Very low fuel cost Most cost effective way to reach GHG goals Fuel cost savings can be used to support debt service for capital investment. Strategic Means of production and feedstock controlled by City Long term control of fuel pricing Remove from petroleum supply chain $29 million in fuel costs remains in the City Replicable model for other cities Political City takes leadership role in biomethane development

14 14 Biomethane - Cons Environmental None Financial High initial capital cost Strategic None Political General resistance to change Long term commitment to Biodiesel may need to change Coordination among City departments with competing interests will be a challenge SFMTA, long term plan does not include gaseous fuels

15 15 Steps to Achieve Biomethane Scenario Secure Biomethane Production Recology Zero Waste Facility PUC Southeast Waste Water Treatment Plant PUC Oceanside Waste Water Treatment Plant Secure Access to PG&E Pipeline System Install Infrastructure for Gaseous Fuels Production Facilities Gas Cleaning Fuel Depots Storage, Compression & Dispensing Convert Fleet to Gaseous Fuels Recology Conversion of Fleet Underway Increase purchase of CNG equipped vehicles by CCSF Fleet Begin Conversion of SFMTA Fleet to CNG Financing of CCSF bonds by using fuel savings to service debt Coordination needed between Recology and PUC Wastewater

16 16 Primary Conclusions Develop more rigorous fuel consumption tracking Need to employ solid business analytical methods to ensure the most cost-effective GHG reductions Pursue the most sustainable biofuels that: Utilize Waste Stream Non-Food Feed-stocks Produced Locally CCSF has the potential to produce a significant portion of its own transportation biofuels Biodiesel in the near term Biomethane in the long-term Utilize CNG as bridge fuel for transition to biomethane

17 17 Next Steps - Study Process Commission an external study to: Refine this Planning Study to provide investment level results. To assess all the financial options available to the to finance the capital cost of the Biofuels options. To assess the EV options available and integrate these results with the Biofuels study results Explore funding options to finance external studies and SFE s lead coordinating role.

18 18 Next Steps Citywide Vision In coordination with the Mayor s office, conduct a multidepartmental process to develop Citywide Vision for transportation fuels biofuels and other alternative fuels Minimize Greenhouse Gas Emissions & Petroleum Use Minimize Costs (Fuel and Infrastructure) Maximize Reliability Create a Cohesive Policy on Feedstocks Locally Sourced Non-Food Competitive Utilize Waste Streams No Adverse Impacts on Criteria Emissions

19 19 Next Steps Citywide Vision (Cont.) Some key considerations for the Citywide Vision Transportation use vs Stationary use, such as power production Local sources of Biomethane Waste Recovery and Composting Wastewater ( SFPUC) Municipal transportation fuel users (SFMTA and Others)