Attachment 5

Compressed Natural Gas

“It gets easier after the first billion miles”

Los Angeles Metro’s Experience with Alternative Fuels, Compressed

Natural Gas (CNG), and Zero Emission Buses

John Drayton

Director of Vehicle Technology

Los Angeles Metro

June 2016

Los Angeles MetroHistory of Alternative Fuels andCNG Engines

Alternative Fuel Basics – What are Hydrocarbons?

More Carbon = More Energy + More Emissions

Hydrogen: H2 High Fuel Cost, lowest emissions

Methane (CNG): CH4 Lower Fuel Cost, lower emissions

Gasoline: C6H14 Higher Fuel Cost, higher emissions

Diesel: C15H32; Higher Fuel Cost, higher emissions

Coal: C240H90O4NS Lowest Fuel Cost, highest Emissions

Electricity: NA Note - Primarily sourced from hydrocarbons.

H C C C

H H

H H H

H

C C C C C C C C C C C C H

H H H H H

H H H H H H H H H H H H

H H H H H H HC HH

H

H

Methane Gas(CNG) CH4

Diesel Fuel C15H32

History of Metro Alternative Fuel and CNG Buses

Metro’s Alternative Fuel Fleet• First 10 CNG buses purchased in 1988

• Purchased fleet of 333 Methanol buses 1989-1992

• AFI Policy Adopted - Purchased only CNG buses since 1992

• First fleet purchase of 294 CNG buses in 1995

• CNG Fueling Public/Private Partnerships in 1998

• 100% CNG Operation since 2011

• ~ 1.5 billion miles on CNG buses1973 “Steam Bus”

• GMC New Look bus with custom built Leer Steam Engine

• Unreliable, inefficient, high emissions• “Not every idea is a good one”

Current Outlook for CNG at Metro

• We foresee continued refinement of CNG engines, exhaust systems.

• CNG fuel prices expected to be stable – diesel fuel prices are expected to be more volatile in our region

– Diesel currently $1.80/gallon – fuel cost ~$0.60/mile (price currently rising).

– CNG cost $0.465/therm – total fuel cost of ~$0.40/mile (price stable ~ last 48 months)

– Since 2002, average diesel fuel price for Metro is $2.80/gallon, which equates to $0.85 per mile in our service

– Since 2002, average CNG fuel price for Metro is $0.51/therm , which, including compression, equates to $0.38/mile in our service.

Comparison of CNG and Diesel Fuel Prices 2002-2016 (cost/mile)

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1/7/

2002

4/7/

2002

7/7/

2002

10/7

/200

21/

7/20

034/

7/20

037/

7/20

0310

/7/2

003

1/7/

2004

4/7/

2004

7/7/

2004

10/7

/200

41/

7/20

054/

7/20

057/

7/20

0510

/7/2

005

1/7/

2006

4/7/

2006

7/7/

2006

10/7

/200

61/

7/20

074/

7/20

077/

7/20

0710

/7/2

007

1/7/

2008

4/7/

2008

7/7/

2008

10/7

/200

81/

7/20

094/

7/20

097/

7/20

0910

/7/2

009

1/7/

2010

4/7/

2010

7/7/

2010

10/7

/201

01/

7/20

114/

7/20

117/

7/20

1110

/7/2

011

1/7/

2012

4/7/

2012

7/7/

2012

10/7

/201

21/

7/20

134/

7/20

137/

7/20

1310

/7/2

013

1/7/

2014

4/7/

2014

7/7/

2014

10/7

/201

41/

7/20

154/

7/20

157/

7/20

1510

/7/2

015

1/7/

2016

Dol

lars

Average Fuel Cost Per MileDiesel Fuel Cost/Mile CNG Fuel Cost/Mile

Resolved CNG Engine Issues

Over the last 5 years, Cummins-Westport has provided a number of engine and calibration upgrades that have improved CNG engine performance and reliability:

• EGR Cooler Coolant Leaks - Cummins campaigned 100% of Metro’s ISL-G engines and provided upgraded “Tube Style” EGR coolers. This has gone a long way toward mitigating turbo, sensor, piston and other failures from internal coolant contamination.

• ICM (ignition control module) failures– Cummins has retrofitted engines up to a Gen IV “bulletproof” ICM, to remedy ignition system misfires/check engine lights.

• Cracked/Warped/Leaking 2-piece exhaust manifolds have now been upgraded to a more robust 3-piece manifold.

Ongoing CNG Engine Issues

• Piston Failures – Cummins has made improvements in piston design, yet there is still ongoing, yet reduced, cracking issues. We expect to see more work here from Cummins in the future.

• More frequent PM schedule—Valve adjustments at 2000 hrs vs. 5000 hrs. on diesel ISL9 engine. Also, spark plug changes at 18,000 miles (none on diesel).

• Cylinder head/valve recession– Caused by high combustion temps, cylinder heads may need to be replaced more often than diesel engines.

Next Generation CNG?

Can “Near Zero” CNG engines reduce fleet emissions?

• Low NOx Engines with Renewable Natural Gas– New Low NOx engine certified at 0.02g/bhp

– 90% NOx and PM reduction possible.

– 80% reduction in CO and GHG with RCNG

– 0.02g/bhp NOx; PM <0.01g/bhp

– Nearly equivalent to battery electric ZE in Los Angeles

• Post 2020 – Smaller engines? Next generation of smaller displacement CNG engines optimized for HD applications– Metro expects CNG to be a core part of our operation for the

foreseeable future and a transitional step to economical, proven ZE technologies

1985 1990 1991 2000 2010 2016

NOx (g/hp-hr) 10.8 6 5 4 0.2 0.02

PM (g/hp-hr)

0.59 0.59 0.25 0.05 0.01 0.01

10

=

108054054

0.01

Emission Reductions Since 1980’s

One 1980 RTS-II 1000+ Low NOx CNG Engines

Next Generation CNG Engines

• Next generation diesel-derived spark ignited engine architecture

• Designed to provide:

– Improved power and torque over state-of-the-art diesel engines

– 15% product cost reduction compared to diesel engine plus after-treatment

– Much higher fuel economy through engine downsizing

– Near Zero NOx capability

• Stoichiometric operation and simple three-way catalyst after-treatment

• Using 100% natural gas; RNG, CNG or LNG

Source: Westport Innovations

Next Generation CNG Engines

Optimized in-cylinder air motion &

variable valve timing Packaged within

base diesel engine

architecture

Improved thermal mgt.

Lower peak cylinder

pressure than diesel

Simpler piston bowl with better heat dissipation

Improved airflow

distribution cyl-to-cyl

Carryover diesel bottom end for robust product

EGR for knock mitigation &

improved efficiency

Multi – point fuel injection &

high energy ignition

Summary

Los Angeles Metro is committed to moving into ZEB’s as aggressively as practical. However, Metro’s Zero Emission program also needs to be fiscally prudent, and built around proven, operational technologies.

– Wide variety of Zero and Near-zero emission options available today, and more coming.

– Technical Maturity? Available ZEB technology options are not suitable to every transit application. All ZEB options reviewed to date have technical, economic and/or operational trade-offs that would restrict immediate broad scale adoption at Metro.

– Scale? ZE technologies that work for a 10 or 100 bus fleet may not be operationally suitable for a 2,000+ bus fleet like Metro’s.

– Any Game Changers? Not that we’ve seen. At this time we do not see logical opportunities to “Leap Frog” directly into ZEB operation on a broad scale. The transition to ZEB’s is expected to take several years. All ZE technologies are evolving rapidly, and Metro is continually re-assessing all ZEB and Near ZE technology options.

– Low NOx, Near Zero CNG? At least with Los Angeles Metro’s fleet, there will be immediate air quality and economic benefits to pursuing a “Near ZE” approach using Low NOx engines and RCNG for the next 3-5+ years.

John DraytonLos Angeles MetroOne Santa Fe AveMS 63-1-1, Suite 100Los Angeles, CA 90013213-617-6285Draytonj@metro.net

Attachment 6

Seungju Yoon, Zhen Dai, John F. Collins, and Jorn D. Herner

California Air Resources Board

January 8, 2017

The 2017 Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting

Vocation-Specific Activity Patterns and Selective Catalytic Reduction Temperature Profiles of Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles in

California

California Needs Significant Reduction in NOX

California needs significant reduction in NOX emissions from today’s level to meet the NAAQS for PM2.5 and ozone by 2031 (Source: Proposed 2016 State Strategy for the State Implementation Plan, 2016)

South Coast Air Basin needs 80% NOX reduction San Joaquin Valley needs 50% NOX

reduction

Meeting the NAAQS provides significant health benefits Fewer premature deaths, hospital

admissions, and emergency room visits

2

(Source: ARB 9-22-2016 Board Meeting)

Need Further NOX Reduction from HDTs

Introduction of 2010 heavy-duty truck emission standards is resulting in substantial reduction in NOX emissions

Even further significant reduction in NOX emissions from heavy-duty trucks is needed to meet the NAAQS for PM2.5 and 0zone in California

3

(Source: Source: Proposed 2016 State Strategy for the State Implementation Plan, 2016)

(Source: ARB 9-22-2016 Board Meeting)

(Projection of Current Programs)

Performance of NOX Control Relies on Exhaust Temperature at the SCR

NOX emissions from 2010-technology heavy-duty diesel trucks (HDDTs) are controlled by an SCR aftertreatment system Performance of NOX control relies on exhaust temperature Exhaust temperature needs to be at least 200 °C to achieve

significant NOX reduction

4

Source: Diesel Technology Forum

Source: Guan et al. (2014)

Need Better Understanding of Vocational Truck Activity for Effective Air Quality Planning in California

2014

NO

Xan

d V

MT

Proj

ecte

d by

EM

FAC

fo

r T6

and

T7

Die

sel

Truc

ks in

Cal

iforn

ia

Significant NOX emissions from vocational trucks often operating near densely populated areas

5

Conducted a Vocational Truck Activity Study

For each vocational use such as line haul, drayage, delivery, transit, construction, and others, Characterize the 2010-technology heavy-duty diesel

vehicle activity profiles Characterize SCR functionality Develop drive cycles

To achieve the study objectives, University of California, Riverside conducted a vocational truck activity study funded by California Air Resources Board

6

Recruited Trucks for Vocational Uses

Line haul Drayage Agricultural Construction Food/beverage distribution Shuttle Refuse Transit buses Public work Utility Express buses

7

Vehicle Activity and Engine Information Data Collection from 90 Vehicles in California

Engine operation and location data for a minimum of one month for each truck Wi-Fi or Cellular-based GPS & ECU data loggers 1 Hz data frequency 170 SPNs in J1939 format

Vehicle and engine information Engine & VIN labels License plate Odometer Body (front, sides, rear) Exhaust temperature probes Etc.

8

Results: SCR Temperature Distributions for Line haul Trucks

More than 60% of time ran with SCR temperature at 200°C or higher

NOX control may be effective during their operation on freeways, but limited on arterials and locals

9

Results: SCR Temperature Distributions for Drayage and Utility Trucks

Only about 30% of time ran with SCR temperature at 200°C or higher

NOX control may not be effective for most of their operation

10

Results: SCR Temperature Distributions for Shuttle and Refuse Trucks

More than 80% of time ran with SCR temperature at 200°C or higher

NOX control may be effective for most of their operation

11

Results: Engine Start and Idle Distributions for Drayage Trucks

In Northern California: day time only operation In Southern California: day and night operation

12

Different NOX mitigation strategies for drayage trucks could be developed by geographic locations and operation hours

Results: VMT by Speed and Hour of the Day for Refuse and Line Haul Trucks

Refuse trucks: primarily during morning hours Line Haul trucks: throughout the day with

highest activity during the daytime

13

Refuse Line Haul – In State

Conclusions

Developing regional air quality plans in California should account for vocation-specific SCR functions and activity patterns SCR temperature profiles vary greatly depending on

vocation Engine start and idle distributions for drayage trucks

vary depending on geographic locations and operation hours Diurnal activity patterns vary greatly depending on

vocation

14

Next Steps

Use activity patterns to update California emission inventory model, EMFAC Idle and extended idle time distributions Engine start and soak time distributions VMT distributions by speed and hour of the day

Use activity patterns and SCR temperature profiles to inform development of air quality plans in California

15

Acknowledgements

16

University of California, Riverside Kanok Boriboonsomsin Kent Johnson George Scora Daniel Sandez Alexander Vu Tom Durbin

US Environmental Protection Agency Carl Fulper

California Air Resources Board Don Chernich Mark Burnitski Kathy Jaw Sam Pournazeri