web.mit.edu/environment MIT’s Experience with Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Vehicles in Fleet Operations Steven M. Lanou Program Manager for Sustainability Initiatives MIT Environmental Programs Office

web.mit.edu/environment Two CNG Vehicles in Use 2000 GMC Box Truck2002 Chevrolet Express Cargo Van

web.mit.edu/environment Why Do We Have Them? To Act on the Institute’s Commitment to Reduce the Environmental Impact of its Operations Road Test the Technology Demonstrate Leadership in and Feasibility of Campus Applications of Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

web.mit.edu/environment How Did We Choose CNG? Best Available Technology No Gasoline-Electric Hybrids No Biodiesel No Appropriate Electric Options Required a Duel-Fuel Technology to Reduce Risk

web.mit.edu/environment How Has CNG Worked for Us? Excellent performance – No Compromises No Additional Maintenance or Maintenance Costs Less Expensive Fuel - $80-$100 vs. $160/week Fast Filling Rate – Same as Gas Only Weekly Fill Required (Recycling Truck) No Dead-Heading for Recycling Truck Fuel Trips Builds Awareness of and Recognition for Environmentally Responsible Action

web.mit.edu/environment What Are the Drawbacks? Increased Cost for CNG Retrofits No Local Fueling Locations – Everett, MA High Cost and Political Barriers to Local Filling Station Siting Limited Scalability with No Local Filling May Not be Competitive with Newer Technologies: Environmental Performance (GHG/methane) Ease of Use / Convenience (vs. hybrid, etc.)

web.mit.edu/environment What Does the Future Hold? Should Periodically Assess Options CNG May Not be the Choice in the Future Other Technologies Now Viable Clean Diesel / ULSD Biodiesel Gas-Electric Hybrid, Other? Have to Consider Local Situation & Opportunities, e.g. Cambridge DPW Need for Campus-Wide Alt. Vehicle Guidance

web.mit.edu/environment University Innovations May Lead to New Solutions for Greening Our Transportation Infrastructure …