Physical Environment Environmental Quality Built Environment Search Policies & Programs

Display All Policies & Programs Contribute Content

Alternative fuels initiatives (state and city fleets)

Health Factors: Environmental Quality
Decision Makers: Businesses & Employers, Community Organizations, Government - Local, Government - State, Government - Federal
Evidence Rating: Insufficient Evidence
Population Reach: 100% of WI's population
Impact on Disparities: No impact on disparities likely

Is this program or policy in use in your community? Tell us about it.

Description

Alternative fuel initiatives support transition from traditional motor fuel sources (i.e., gasoline and diesel) to alternative sources such as biodiesel, ethanol, compressed natural gas, partial electric hybrids, hydrogen fuel cells, and liquid petroleum gas. Such initiatives are underway in many city and state fleets.

Expected Beneficial Outcomes

Decreased emissions

Evidence of Effectiveness

There is insufficient evidence to determine whether alternative fuel initiatives decrease emissions. Available evidence suggests that using alternative fuels can decrease emission of greenhouse gases and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (Mashayekh 2012, Demirbas 2007, Hill 2006, CTR-Wang 1998). However, alternative fuel production also creates emissions (Lutsey 2008, Ou 2010a) and may have other negative environmental effects (Mehaffey 2012). Large scale implementation of such policies is currently limited by high costs, a lack of technological advancement, and a lack of supporting infrastructure (Mashayekh 2012, Leiby 2003, Haller 2007).

Implementation Examples

United States

The EPA mandated conversion or specified alternatives for some federal, state, and fuel provider fleets to alternative fuels in both 1992 and 2005 (US DOE-AFAVDC). This has resulted in an increase in use of alternative fuels from 0.8% of fuel used in 1997 to 4.1% in 2008 (CDC-Healthy People 2010).

Wisconsin

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) administers the Clean Fuel Fleet Program (CFFP), which requires fleets in the six-county severe ozone non-attainment area in Southeastern Wisconsin to purchase a specific percentage of low emission vehicles (LEVs). The CFFP applies to both public and private fleets based on fleet size and vehicle weight (US DOE-AFAVDC).

Implementation Resources

CEC-RFVTP - The California Energy Commission (CEC). Alternative and renewable fuel & vehicle technology program (RFVTP). Accessed on June 12, 2012
Webpage: http://www.energy.ca.gov/altfuels/
NREL-Fleet - National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Fleet management. Accessed on June 12, 2012
Webpage: http://www.nrel.gov/applying_technologies/climate_neutral/fleet_management.html
US DOE-AFAVDC - US Department of Energy (US DOE). Alternative fuels & advanced vehicles data center (AFAVDC): Alternative fuel and advanced technology vehicles. Accessed on June 12, 2012
Webpage: http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/vehicles/index.html

Citations - Evidence

CTR-Wang 1998 - Wang MQ. Fuel-cycle greenhouse gas emissions impacts of alternative transportation fuels and advanced vehicle technologies. Argonne: Center for Transportation Research (CTR); 1998. Accessed on June 23, 2012
Webpage: http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/11181-JK7bZw/webviewable/11181.pdf
Demirbas 2007* - Demirbas A. Importance of biodiesel as transportation fuel. Energy Policy. 2007;35(9):4661-70. Accessed on June 13, 2012
Webpage: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421507001516
Haller 2007* - Haller M, Welch E, Lin J, Fulla S. Economic costs and environmental impacts of alternative fuel vehicle fleets in local government: An interim assessment of a voluntary ten-year fleet conversion plan. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment. 2007;12(3):219-30. Accessed on June 19, 2012
Webpage: http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=809207
Hill 2006 - Hill J, Nelson E, Tilman D, Polasky S, Tiffany D. Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol benefits. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. 2006;103(30):11206-10. Accessed on June 20, 2012
Webpage: http://www.pnas.org/content/103/30/11206.full.pdf+html
Leiby 2003* - Leiby P, Rubin J. Understanding the transition to new fuels and vehicles: Lessons learned from analysis and experience of alternative fuel and hybrid vehicles. St Louis: Elsevier Academic Press; 2004. Accessed on June 12, 2012
Webpage: http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=706260
Lutsey 2008* - Lutsey N, Sperling D. America’s bottom-up climate change mitigation policy. Energy Policy. 2008;36(2):673-85. Accessed on June 12, 2012
Webpage: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421507004405
Mashayekh 2012* - Mashayekh Y, Jaramillo P, Samaras C, et al. Potentials for sustainable transportation in cities to alleviate climate change impacts. Environmental Science & Technology. 2012;46(5):2529-37. Accessed on June 12, 2012
Webpage: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es203353q
Mehaffey 2012* - Mehaffey M, Smith E, Van Remortel R. Midwest US landscape change to 2020 driven by biofuel mandates. Ecological Applications. 2012;22(1):8-19. Accessed on June 12, 2012
Webpage: http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/10-1573.1?journalCode=ecap
Ou 2010a* - Ou X, Zhang X, Chang S. Alternative fuel buses currently in use in China: Life-cycle fossil energy use, GHG emissions and policy recommendations. Energy Policy. 2010;38(1):406-18. Accessed on June 12, 2012
Webpage: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421509007149

Citations - Implementation Examples

CDC-Healthy People 2010 - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Healthy People 2010 final review. Accessed on June 12, 2012
Webpage: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/healthy_people/hp2010/hp2010_final_review.htm
US DOE-AFAVDC - US Department of Energy (US DOE). Alternative fuels & advanced vehicles data center (AFAVDC): Alternative fuel and advanced technology vehicles. Accessed on June 12, 2012
Webpage: http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/vehicles/index.html

* Journal subscription may be required for access.

Comments from Users about this Policy/Program (Cost, Feasibility, Lessons Learned)

No comments

X
 

Health Factors

Health Behaviors
Tobacco Use
Diet & Exercise
Alcohol Use
Sexual Activity
 Clinical Care
Access to Care
Quality of Care
 Social & Economic Factors
Education
Employment
Income
Family & Social Support
Community Safety
 Physical Environment
Environmental Quality
Built Environment

Decision Makers

Businesses & Employers
Community Organizations
Government - Local
Government - State
Government - Federal
Healthcare Organizations
Individuals
Schools

Evidence Rating

Level of effectiveness based on a scan of academic literature and key recommendations of leading organizations.

  • Scientifically Supported Numerous studies or systematic review(s) with positive results
  • Some Evidence Research suggests positive impacts; further study may be warranted
  • Expert Opinion Recommended by credible groups*; research evidence limited
  • Insufficient Evidence Evidence limited or unavailable; further study warranted
  • Mixed Evidence Evidence mixed; further study warranted
  • Evidence of Ineffectiveness Research consistently shows program is detrimental or has no effect

Although many policies and programs are recommended by credible groups, we apply the rating ‘expert opinion’ only when policies are recommended but limited scientific evidence of effectiveness is available.

* The American Heritage Dictionary defines credible as 'capable of being believed; plausible.' and 'worthy of confidence; reliable.' To be considered an 'expert recommendation,' policies and programs must be recommended by one or more organizations that are recognized for their impartial expertise in the area of interest and have limited evidence available.

Potential Population Reach

Portion of Wisconsin's population likely to be reached by a policy or program if implemented statewide, based on its characteristics (e.g., target population(s), geographic limitations, and potential implementers).

<1%   20-49%
1-9%   50-99%
10-19%   100%

Potential Population Reach

Portion of Wisconsin's population likely to be reached by a policy or program if implemented statewide, based on its characteristics (e.g., target population(s), geographic limitations, and potential implementers).

<1%   20-49%
1-9%   50-99%
10-19%   100%

Potential Impact on Health Disparities

Likely impact of a given policy or program on racial/ethnic, socioeconomic, geographic or other disparities in Wisconsin based on its characteristics (e.g., target audience, mode of delivery, etc.) and best available evidence related to disparities.

  • Likely to decrease disparities
  • No impact on disparities likely
  • Likely to increase disparities