Common use of Alternative Fuel Analysis Clause in Contracts

Alternative Fuel Analysis. 1.3.1. Analyze use of a variety of alternative fuels (e.g., hydrogen, renewable natural gas, hybrid fuels) for use in the Arlington County fleet and in County facilities 1.3.2. Develop a baseline evaluation of the County fleet’s alternative fuel vehicle (AFV) opportunities, including data collection and analysis down to the individual vehicle. This could include age, mileage, acquisition/fuel/maintenance costs, duty cycle, and/or any other operational metrics that would influence the decision of what AFV type is the most promising for any particular replacement. A baseline evaluation should include a cost comparison of the existing fleet with the potential incoming fleet of AFVs. 1.3.3. The best practice for enabling cost comparisons should focus on calculating the total cost of ownership (TCO). TCO calculations should account for the appropriate time value of money for the organization and should include the acquisition cost of the vehicle, fuel1, maintenance, depreciation, and other ancillary services (e.g., telematics costs). Dividing the TCO for each individual vehicle by the number of miles that vehicle travels will establish a cost per mile that makes for easy comparison across vehicles and technologies. 1.3.4. Develop a methodology to conduct an analysis similar to sections 1.3.1 - 1.3.3above for the entire Arlington community. 1.3.5. To help the community reach its goal of carbon neutrality by 2050, examine clean energy options for County facilities. 1.3.6. Create a baseline evaluation of the existing Arlington County government’s building and facilities inventory. 1.3.7. Identify a wide range of potential policies and programs that can help Arlington County government buildings transition from direct use of fossil fuel to electricity and quantify costs and benefits, including innovative fuels and technologies analysis. 1 It is important to educate stakeholders to compare fuel costs in an apples-to-apples manner. The total cost of fuel to achieve the mission of the fleet is more important than the relative cost per gallon or kilowatt-hour of each fuel because different fuel types have different energy content and different efficiencies of powering the vehicle. 1.3.8. Develop a high-level electrification and decarbonization plan with long, mid-, and near range strategies for Arlington County government to achieve 100% clean energy buildings, including technology solutions, costs, timelines, and community impacts (both positive and negative). Include in that analysis an estimated soonest date that it would be feasible for Arlington County government’s existing buildings to eliminate fossil fuels. 1.3.9. Develop a methodology to conduct an analysis similar to sections 1.3.5i – 1.3.8above for the entire Arlington community.

Alternative Fuel Analysis. 1.3.1. Analyze use of a variety of alternative fuels (e.g., hydrogen, renewable natural gas, hybrid fuels) for use in the Arlington County fleet and in County facilities 1.3.2. Develop a baseline evaluation of the County fleet’s alternative fuel vehicle (AFV) opportunities, including data collection and analysis down to the individual vehicle. This could include age, mileage, acquisition/fuel/maintenance costs, duty cycle, and/or any other operational metrics that would influence the decision of what AFV type is the most promising for any particular replacement. A baseline evaluation should include a cost comparison of the existing fleet with the potential incoming fleet of AFVs. 1.3.3. The best practice for enabling cost comparisons should focus on calculating the total cost of ownership (TCO). TCO calculations should account for the appropriate time value of money for the organization and should include the acquisition cost of the vehicle, fuel1, maintenance, depreciation, and other ancillary services (e.g., telematics costs). Dividing the TCO for each individual vehicle by the number of miles that vehicle travels will establish a cost per mile that makes for easy comparison across vehicles and technologies. 1.3.4. Develop a methodology to conduct an analysis similar to sections 1.3.1 - 1.3.3above for the entire Arlington community. 1.3.5. To help the community reach its goal of carbon neutrality by 2050, examine clean energy options for County facilities. 1.3.6. Create a baseline evaluation of the existing Arlington County government’s building and facilities inventory. 1.3.7. Identify a wide range of potential policies and programs that can help Arlington County government buildings transition from direct use of fossil fuel to electricity and quantify costs and benefits, including innovative fuels and technologies analysis. 1 It is important to educate stakeholders to compare fuel costs in an apples-to-apples manner. The total cost of fuel to achieve the mission of the fleet is more important than the relative cost per gallon or kilowatt-hour of each fuel because different fuel types have different energy content and different efficiencies of powering the vehicle. 1.3.7. Identify a wide range of potential policies and programs that can help Arlington County government buildings transition from direct use of fossil fuel to electricity and quantify costs and benefits, including innovative fuels and technologies analysis. 1.3.8. Develop a high-level electrification and decarbonization plan with long, mid-, and near range strategies for Arlington County government to achieve 100% clean energy buildings, including technology solutions, costs, timelines, and community impacts (both positive and negative). Include in that analysis an estimated soonest date that it would be feasible for Arlington County government’s existing buildings to eliminate fossil fuels. 1.3.9. Develop a methodology to conduct an analysis similar to sections 1.3.5i – 1.3.8above for the entire Arlington community.

Alternative Fuel Analysis. 1.3.1. Analyze use of a variety of alternative fuels (e.g., hydrogen, renewable natural gas, hybrid fuels) for use in the Arlington County fleet and in County facilities 1.3.2. Develop a baseline evaluation of the County fleet’s alternative fuel vehicle (AFV) opportunities, including data collection and analysis down to the individual vehicle. This could include age, mileage, acquisition/fuel/maintenance costs, duty cycle, and/or any other operational metrics that would influence the decision of what AFV type is the most promising for any particular replacement. A baseline evaluation should include a cost comparison of the existing fleet with the potential incoming fleet of AFVs. 1.3.3. The best practice for enabling cost comparisons should focus on calculating the total cost of ownership (TCO). TCO calculations should account for the appropriate time value of money for the organization and should include the acquisition cost of the vehicle, fuel1, maintenance, depreciation, and other ancillary services (e.g., telematics costs). Dividing the TCO for each individual vehicle by the number of miles that vehicle travels will establish a cost per mile that makes for easy comparison across vehicles and technologies. 1.3.4. Develop a methodology to conduct an analysis similar to sections 1.3.1 - 1.3.3above for the entire Arlington community. 1.3.5. To help the community reach its goal of carbon neutrality by 2050, examine clean energy options for County facilities. 1.3.6. Create a baseline evaluation of the existing Arlington County government’s building and facilities inventory. 1.3.7. Identify a wide range of potential policies and programs that can help Arlington County government buildings transition from direct use of fossil fuel to electricity and quantify costs and benefits, including innovative fuels and technologies analysis. 1 It is important to educate stakeholders to compare fuel costs in an apples-to-apples manner. The total cost of fuel to achieve the mission of the fleet is more important than the relative cost per gallon or kilowatt-hour of each fuel because different fuel types have different energy content and different efficiencies of powering the vehicle. 1.3.8. Develop a high-level electrification and decarbonization plan with long, mid-, and near range strategies for Arlington County government to achieve 100% clean energy buildings, including technology solutions, costs, timelines, and community impacts (both positive and negative). Include in that analysis an estimated soonest date that it would be feasible for Arlington County government’s existing buildings to eliminate fossil fuels. 1 It is important to educate stakeholders to compare fuel costs in an apples-to-apples manner. The total cost of fuel to achieve the mission of the fleet is more important than the relative cost per gallon or kilowatt-hour of each fuel because different fuel types have different energy content and different efficiencies of powering the vehicle. 1.3.9. Develop a methodology to conduct an analysis similar to sections 1.3.5i – 1.3.8above for the entire Arlington community.