UBC Undergraduate Research

UBC Building Operations : strategic consultation Campbell, Tommy; Cobankiat, Coby; Choi, Lydia; Cruz, Jonathan; Thakkar, Vivek 2017-03-27

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata


18861-Campbell_T_et_al_SEEDS_2017.pdf [ 17.26MB ]
JSON: 18861-1.0356647.json
JSON-LD: 18861-1.0356647-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 18861-1.0356647-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 18861-1.0356647-rdf.json
Turtle: 18861-1.0356647-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 18861-1.0356647-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 18861-1.0356647-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

 UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student ReportCoby Cobankiat, Jonathan Cruz, Lydia Choi, Tommy Campbell, Vivek ThakkarUBC Building Operations  STRATEGIC CONSULTATIONCOMM 486MMarch 27, 2017University of British Columbia Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS Program provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or a SEEDS team representative about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report”.01    Executive Summary02    Situational Analysis03    Issues04    Alternatives Matrix05    Recommendations06    Implementation07    KPI Summary08    Risks and MitigationTable of Contents3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction Reducing GHG emissions to zero is an ambitious but essential goal that UBC wishes to achieve. Our strategy is to utilize top of the line technology to collect data while creating a sense of accountability across departments and individuals to make it their personal goal to achieve zero-emissions. While increasing collaboration opportunities with UBC departments, we also suggest Building Operations to transition from their existing fleet to electric vehicles and ultimately to autonomous vehicles. These initiatives will allow UBC to not only maximize efficiency of their fleets, but also bring down GHG emissions to the zero level that they aim to achieve. Situational Analysis To better understand the current scenario, we conducted a SWOT and an ERRC analysis. Building Operations’ biggest strength is their E3 Platinum fleet certification that provides them with credibility. A prime weakness is that Building Operations currently constitutes for only 2% of total UBC emissions and have not been able to utilize their practices across other UBC departments. A major opportunity is for UBC to adopt industry leading practices and technologies that have been listed in the case studied discussed later in this document. Finally, there is a threat of other UBC departments competing for a budget increase for their specific needs which could hinder progress towards GHG reduction. Our aim is to create a strategy that allows Building Operations to leverage their major strengths and opportunities, while tackling their weaknesses and threats. This entails creating a strategy that would eliminate under-utilization of vehicles while creating a centralized system that integrates the most updated technology to achieve emission reduction. A complete SWOT and ERRC grid is present in [Appendix A] Transition to electric and autonomous vehicles  The vision is to make Building Ops the epicenter of transportation innovation at UBC. The two greatest technological advancements which can drastically reduce GHG emissions of vehicles and maximize their efficiency are electric vehicles (EVs) and autonomous vehicles (AVs). We’ve created a two-fold strategic approach to help UBC adopt both of these advantageous technologies to simultaneously reduce BOp’s overall GHG emissions, improve fleet efficiency, and become the sandbox for initiatives to test new innovative vehicle technologies. By becoming an incubator and a proving grounds for these promising initiatives, BOp’s successes will be a testimony to persuade the rest of UBC’s department to follow suite.  Implement Gamification using Local Motion  Local Motion builds both a software application and the hardware solution to enable vehicle-sharing across user groups and departments, increase fleet utilization, and streamline fleet management operations using keyless access and cloud-based motor pool management technology. Implementation of Local Motion to replace ARI’s Telematics presents potential cost-savings of up to $11,000 as fleet size increases. 4  Local Motion’s ability to track user-level data regarding GHG emissions is foundational in establishing a culture where there is accountability for emissions at every level. To incentivize the change in culture and mindset of individuals within BOps and UBC, we recommend two gamification-oriented approaches: (1) creation of a campus-wide dashboard for performance tracking at department and individual levels to provide intrinsic motivation for employees and communicate individual impact on GHG emissions and (2) quarterly report cards for each department regarding GHG emissions to encourage a collaborative discussion regarding reductions.  Centralization of fleet management across UBC Departments While implementing gamification improves Building Operations’ efficiency, the broader aim is to align departments across UBC to collaborate with Building Operations. We recommend a 3-step process to achieve this change: create a sense of urgency, engage and involve key stakeholders and communicate the vision. Currently, Building Operations have found it difficult to convince departments about the benefits of working with them. This has been due to 2 primary reasons: lack of sufficient relevant data and absence of incentives to collaborate. We propose creating a sense of urgency by analyzing the data and providing evidence that suggests how good BOps is at fleet management. Student Housing and Hospitality Services (SHHS) is the key stakeholder that we wish to engage early on. They have the second largest fleet after BOps and are one of the bigger stakeholders whose involvement could be positive for BOps in the long run. Lastly, the vision will be communicated on a tailored basis, whereby each department’s incentives will be taken into consideration. These recommendations will allow for BOps to centralize UBC’s fleet management and essentially get more departments to buy into BOps’ practices.  Implementation Execution is extremely essential, as Building Operations would prefer to have departments on board as soon as possible to increase their chances of achieving their goal. Thereby we have prepared a detailed timeline for the next 2 years outlining a plan to allow BOps to approach departments. That entails installing the Local Motion device on existing vehicles and creating a case study to present. This will allow for BOps to back their efficiency claims while raising urgency. Having early buy-in will also allow for BOps to gain feedback from departments to improve their centralization services in the future, while gaining testimonials that can be utilized to bring more departments on board in the longer run. These implementation plans along with vehicle transition will allow for BOps to achieve their mission.  Key Performance Indicators and Conclusion The key performance indicators (KPIs) were divided into 4 segments: financial, departmental satisfaction, internal processes and growth. These will allow BOps to keep track of their progress. We have also taken into consideration the risks that may follow with implementing our strategy and how to effectively mitigate them. Eventually, we strongly believe that our strategy will allow BOps to reduce the GHG emissions to zero by 2050 across all of UBC’s fleets in a timely and effective manner.  5   Prior to coming up with a strategy for Building Operations’ (BOps) Fleet, our team began with a strategic analysis of BOps’ current situation. This allowed us to better understand what opportunities BOps had to maximize its strengths, minimize its weaknesses, and ultimately help us form the overarching issues. The details of the SWOT and ERRC are outlined in appendix A).  Through the analysis, it was evident that although BOps achieved Canada’s first E3 Platinum fleet certification, the fleet itself represented only 2% of UBC’s overall emissions. An apparent pain point was that BOps found it difficult to leverage its successes to create a valuable business case for UBC to follow suit and implement BOps’ processes campus-wide. Without the collaboration between departments regarding communication, utilization and management of vehicles and the communal effort campus-wide to lower fleet GHG emissions, the 2050 goal to reach 0 GHG emissions is going to be a difficult goal to accomplish. Change management is required, and BOps can spearhead this change.   With that being said, BOps must leverage the opportunities it has to not only push for new technologies that will aid in its ability to build a stronger business case for the rest of UBC to adopt its excellent processes, but also change the mindset to allow each UBC employee to be individually accountable for the overall GHG emissions. Only with the entirety of UBC campus on board will 0 GHG emissions in 2050 be realized.   7   Case study 1:   RechargeIT was an initiative within Google.org, the charitable division of Google, which was created with the aim to “reduce CO2 emissions, cut oil use, and stabilize the electrical grid by accelerating the adoption of plug-in electric vehicles”. It was announced in 2007, and was implemented onto the Mountain View Google Campus shortly thereafter. Created after the successful results of RechargeIT’s controlled test, Gfleet is a corporate car-sharing program for the Google campus which lets employees drive plug-in hybrid vehicles for free. They even brought on Enterprise Rent-a-Car to manage the fleet. Gfleet was also introduced and communicated as a perk for Google employees to use alternative methods of transportation.   After the Gfleet was rolled out, they soon discovered that typical campus driving behavior and usage was drastically different than typical US driving habits. There were lots of short trip, cold starts (i.e. no daisy-chaining), and lower observed MPG. Because Gfleet trips weren’t optimal for demonstrating the plug-in hybrid vehicle benefits, Google commissioned another road test to measure the efficiency and CO2 savings of plug-in hybrid vehicles versus regular combustion vehicles. The results demonstrated that their plug-in hybrid vehicles generated in upwards of 93.5 MPG, over 6 times as efficient as the lowest MPG of a traditional gasoline vehicle. The cost savings were also drastic, with the most efficient plug-in hybrid costing $6.90 per 100 miles, compared to the $31.50 of a regular vehicle, and producing 72.9% CO2 savings.   http://www.bc3sfbay.org/uploads/5/3/3/9/5339154/rolf_schreiber_-_google.pdf  In 2016, the Ontario provincial government launched an autonomous vehicle testing pilot project as part of it’s $2.95M investment towards Canadian AV adoption. The test took place at the University of Waterloo’s Automotive Research Centre.   8    As part of Cornell’s 2009 climate action plan (CAP), the university focused on improving the fuel efficiency of the campus fleet while simultaneously exploring new fueling alternatives like electrical energy.   http://www.sustainablecampus.cornell.edu/initiatives/greening-the-fleet    10   While the transition from our current vehicle fleet to a more energy-efficient fleet of electric vehicles is a step in the right direction, it is anything but straightforward. We have identified two major issues, or roadblocks, that need to be overcome:  Issue #1:  ! Issue: Low priority. With a GHG emissions contribution of just 2% to total campus emissions, UBC fleet operations is a relatively low priority item. ! End goal: Our end goal is to shift the conversation away from emissions contributions, and into one about innovation. Specifically, we want to establish BOps as the epicenter of transportation innovation at UBC. This will allow BOps to gain leverage despite a low emissions percentage.  Issue #2:  ! Issue: Fleet fragmentation. While 2/3 of UBC’s fleet is managed by BOps, the other 1/3 of vehicles are still operating independently. This is significant because while BOps has efforts in place for idling reduction, fuel data management, and training and awareness, other vehicle-owning departments may not. Without centralized control or collaboration across departments, UBC sacrifices fleet efficiency and GHG emissions reduction. ! End goal: We want to establish a culture where there is accountability for emissions at every level, all the way to each individual that utilizes a vehicle on campus.  There are three ways that we plan to to tackle these issues and arrive at our end goals:  1. Local Motion enables tracking of vehicle and user data, which is integral to our strategy. In terms of implementation, it will first be tested within BOps, and later scaled to include the rest of UBC fleet operations.  2. If we establish a culture that extends accountability for emissions reductions to an individual level within BOps,  we will then have a blueprint, and more importantly, a business case for implementation across campus.  3. Despite having a business case to back up our initiatives, we have to remain cognizant of how we implement change and get the rest of the campus community on board. Our approach to change management covers everything from creating a sense of urgency with key stakeholders, to sustaining change within UBC fleet operations.  12  Key assumptions: • Monthly telematics cost of $30-80 based on vehicle grouping of size and utility • Installation cost taken from TRACKER Fleet cost; conversion rate 1GBP:1.66CAD (http://www.telematics.com/fleet-tracking-prices-the-hidden-costs-types-of-contracts-pricing-examples-and-things-to-watch-out-for/) • Door actuator cost based on fleet vehicles produced 2000 or prior  To calculate the cost to increase the amount of telematics within the fleet, we first separated the vehicles within the fleet into three different classes, depending on size and frequency of use. From this classification, we can assign a monthly telematics cost from $30 to $80 to each vehicle, as indicated by the client. We assumed that this does not include any installation cost, which we factored in as about $406 CAD as based on the prices from Tracker - another fleet telematics competitor. From this, we obtained an initial month conversion cost of $95,450 to install telematics devices within the entire fleet. To make costs more realistic, we broke this amount up into percentages, reflecting the cost for each chunk of the fleet that we deem necessary for conversion.  Costs for Local Motion are much more straightforward, with each vehicle subject to both a $150 charge for hardware installation, and a $75 monthly monitoring fee. Older vehicles requiring actuators are also subject to an extra $250 fee for door actuator installation, which we included for all models in production prior to 2001. All in all, this yielded a Local Motion conversion cost of $55,000 for the entire fleet - results for other percentages of the fleet are displayed above.  The biggest takeaway from this information is that conversion to Local Motion is cheaper in every case. On one hand, the difference in cost between telematics and Local Motion rises exponentially with a higher percentage of the fleet to be converted, and on another hand, Local Motion’s tiered pricing allows for a reduction in monthly costs as the number of vehicles to monitor increases - this could yield a potential savings of an extra $11,000 from these figures once the fleet grows past 750 vehicles. Based on this analysis, we highly recommend the services of Local Motion over continued telematics costs through ARI.   13   The second issue we identified earlier is the challenge of getting everyone else from different departments to follow suit and adopt the processes used by Building Ops that allowed them to receive the E3 certification. With Local Motion’s ability to track individual data regarding GHG emissions, the ability to establish a culture where there is accountability for emissions at every level will become available, all the way to each individual that utilizes a vehicle on campus. However, simply having the technology to leverage individual accountability isn’t enough – there needs to be a system put in place to change the culture and mindset of the individuals within BOps and UBC. Only when we align the goals of the individual to the goals of UBC will individual accountability to achieved.   The idea is to showcase where an individual is placed so that collaborative conversations occurs and a community of reduction-oriented individuals. To do so, we recommend implementing two gamification-oriented approaches to change the internal culture of both Building Operations and the rest of UBC:  1. Create a campus-wide, public dashboard for data tracking for both departments and individuals and reward employees with weekly improvements. An issue that is currently hindering GHG reduction is that there’s no individual incentive for employees to watch their GHG emissions, as compensation and objectives of employees his aligns employees and departments to the university’s goal of reducing emissions campus-wide.   This provides an intrinsic motivation to allow employees to see their individual impact on GHG emissions, and watch how their actions affect their own levels of emissions. It also provides an extrinsic motivation for individuals to improve their scores as improvements in scores will lead to year end bonuses or other forms of rewards for reaching certain milestones such as % decrease that can be determined department wide depending on departments’ individual budget allocations. Note that rewards are not based on relativity of one’s reduction comparative to another department/individual.  2. Generate quarterly report cards for each department regarding GHG emissions (for Building Ops – subsections within Building Ops). Building Ops will spearhead this by creating report cards for each subsection within Building Ops (potentially by job groups), and each quarter, the best subsection will be paired with the worst performing section in BOps and have them discuss what they’re doing to reduce emissions, hopefully encouraging collaborative discussion regarding reductions and working together instead of in siloes. This is intended to be rolled out UBC wide after BOps successfully showcases effectiveness of this program. There is an integral lack of communication between departments, and this will allow UBC to provide a platform for collaborative discussions to occur.    14 Change doesn’t happen in a vacuum. While this initiative will be started and championed by Building Operations, it is meant to impact all UBC-owned vehicles operating within the UBC campus. What approach does UBC BOps take to get other UBC departments to buy in? 1. Creating a sense of urgency. By implementing Local Motion into the departments’ fleets, BOps will be able to precisely show why they have achieved the E3 platinum status and how it would be in the best interest of UBC to have BOps guide the fleet management scenario for all the other departments. When engaging with other departments, it is important to have an emotional element to the message - simply providing data is not enough. Data collected can be used to help other departments internalize the negative impacts GHG emissions can have on the environment through examples and visualizations. Using data to show the harm that the current inefficiencies in departments’ fleets has on the environment will allow BOps to pull an emotional cord and create the sense of urgency that will spur change.   2. Engaging and involving key stakeholders To instigate a drastic operational and behavioural change in staff mobility, cross-functional collaboration is necessary. Building Ops. will need buy-in from key stakeholders across campus early on - well before execution. Given the level of collaboration needed, one that involves planning, coordinating, and communicating activities, we identified three areas when selecting key stakeholders:  involvement with campus sustainability efforts (i.e. Campus + Community Planning, UBC CAP)  subject matter expertise (i.e. professors, researchers)  direct impact (i.e. end-users such as Student Housing and Hospitality) One of the departments that would be impacted the most is SHHS. With 38 vehicles, this group controls the second largest vehicle fleet after BOps. Getting SHHS to buy in would give BOps a key ally in implementing change with the rest of the departments across campus. With involvement in initiatives tackling sustainability (i.e. 20-Year Sustainability Strategy) and carbon emissions reductions (UBC Climate Action Plan 2020), we believe that there will be a willingness from SHHS to participate. 3. Communicating the Vision Involvement in this project should be uniquely appealing to each key stakeholder. A one-size-fits-all, mass communication approach will not work. However, the following key messages need to be repeatedly reinforced across all channels. The vision of an emission-free 2050 - What needs to be continually reiterated is every employee’s individual accountability and contribution to the attainment of the 2050 emissions goals.  Operational benefits - certain fleet management processes such as vehicle acquisition, maintenance, and disposal will be eliminated. This entails opportunities to reallocate employee hours away from administrative tasks to more impactful functions.  Department cost savings - if there is a reallocation of employee hours to more impactful tasks, this presents opportunities to reduce costs. 16   When calculating savings after converting to electric vehicles, two categories are to be considered - the 5 vehicles converted to Zerotrucks, and the remaining 43 vehicles converted to the Nissan eNV200. For the latter, we can perform a rudimentary calculation based on the estimated amount of gas savings from switching to electric vehicles minus the costs associated with charging the vehicles using a Level 2 charger. Assuming the average BOps driver travels about 20 kilometers per day during the work week, we can multiply the average mileage associated with the 43 vehicles of 14.3 L/100km by the bulk gasoline cost of $1.0935/L for a weekly savings of $15.64, or an annual gasoline savings of 813.13 if using EV technology. As UBC purchases electricity at $0.0629 per kilowatt hour, we can project our annual electricity costs to be just $57.57, which amounts to a savings of $755.56 per eNV200 - for the entirety of Tier 1 vehicles, this adds up to $32,489.02.  However, due to the relatively recent adoption of Zerotrucks, we have no detailed data on their performance - in turn, we must factor in qualitative factors into our savings analysis. The most striking non-gasoline factors are the savings on direct operating costs; in this case, the Zerotruck requires no oil changes, tune-ups, air filters, or exhaust system. This translates to a drastically decreased maintenance cost over the lifetime of the vehicle. These maintenance costs are minimized further with Zerotruck’s featured regenerative braking, which lends itself to a vastly extended brake life. In the end, while we may not have enough dependable numeric data to completely quantify the department’s savings, we have a very good idea that it would be a net positive for both cost savings and reducing GHG emissions.  17   Autonomous vehicle manufacturers like Waymo (Google) and Tesla are currently testing Level 4 driverless vehicles at designated autonomous transportation proving grounds in the United States. Currently, many labs and pilot projects are in the training phase of driverless car development. The foundational machine learning and real-time visual processing technology used by the vehicles have been created. The next step is systematically training this software with real-life driving scenarios so the software can learn how to handle the vehicle in any given circumstance.   Many automotive manufacturers including the Ford Motor Company are aiming to have Level 4 autonomous vehicles in commercial production by 2021. The adoption of AVs into UBC Building Operation’s fleet is a fundamental part of our team’s proposed strategy. A fleet of AVs which are able to make routine delivery and maintenance trips around UBC campus would drastically improve the efficiency of the department. IDEO projects that autonomous commercial vehicles can save around $101 billion in oil and gas expenditures in the US alone.  Levels of vehicle autonomy:  ! Level 0: Human controls all functions the vehicle.  ! Level 1: Specific functional automation. Automatic control of certain features and actions like cruise control, lane guidance, and parallel parking.  ! Level 2: Combined function automation. Usually considered as the ability for the driver to let multiple automated systems work in tandem to operate the vehicle in a specific and limited driving situation.  ! Level 3: Limited self-driving automation. All safety-critical components of driving are autonomous. Driver is still present and can intervene when necessary. Vehicle monitors when to transition back to driver control.  ! Level 4: Autonomous self-driving vehicles under specific conditions. Cars can automatically complete specified trips end to end without the need for a human driver.  ! Level 5: Full autonomy. Vehicles can meet or exceed the performance of a regular human driver, and can function autonomously on trips of all types and conditions.   http://www.vtpi.org/avip.pdf   18   The entrance of driverless vehicle technology into commercial fleets is poised to drastically improve the efficiency of fleet management organizations. By actively preparing for the arrival of autonomous vehicles, UBC Building Ops will be able to rapidly integrate the new technology into it’s fleet and start reaping the efficiency gains of driverless vehicles.  Autonomous driving technology is predicted to dramatically improve the driving experience in a number of areas such as safety, fuel economy, and emissions. As vehicles become smarter and more interconnected on the road, they will be able to actively improve their own acceleration and deceleration rates which will in turn lead to much better fuel use. According to a team of automotive engineers at Carnegie Mellon, AV technology could help vehicles achieve in upwards of 10% better MPG scores.  In addition, implementing driverless vehicle technology into UBC Building Ops’ fleet would mean more trips could be complete around campus at a fraction of the labor cost. A successful integration of UBC autonomous vehicles into the Building Ops fleet would let the department achieve a smaller fleet size.  http://www.autoblog.com/2016/03/24/study-autonomous-vehicles-improve-mpg-epa-tests/    19   Incorporating AVs into the UBC Building Ops fleet is our long-term moonshot strategic recommendation. In our research, we realized that there were far too many uncertainties surrounding when driverless vehicles will enter the market, to how much they will cost to craft a detailed list of tactics and an implementation plan. Instead, we’ve opted to provide three key strategic contingencies — events which must occur for UBC Building Ops to integrate AVs into their fleet.  UBC holds many valuable corporate and research partnerships with technology companies who are currently testing driverless vehicle technology. For example, Microsoft suggested UBC as a potential innovation hub in Vancouver during the Vancouver Emerging Cascadia Innovation Conference in September of 2016. UBC Building Ops can potentially leverage such a partnership to help Microsoft, whose partnered with Volvo to test autonomous vehicle technology, bring their own driverless car initiatives to UBC campus.   We identified many organizations who could potentially become coalition supporters on and off campus. Groups like the UBC Engineering Physics Student Association, and the BC Innovation Council have much to gain from autonomous vehicle technology being brought to UBC campus. By identifying and enlisting these organizations as supporters of a UBC AV fleet initiative, Building Ops stands a much better chance of funding and implementing a driverless vehicle fleet.  The final contingency would be the actual entrance of autonomous vehicles into the commercial market place. So far, the Ford Motor Company projected these vehicles could enter into widespread production as early as 2021.  21   The implementation plan has been constructed to effectively achieve the change management recommendation. Our team has not created an implementation plan for converting   The implementation timeline above provides a framework for effectively executing the recommendations. The first step is to contact Local Motion for the 200 vehicles that Building Operations currently manages. Contacting Local Motion, finalizing the contract and installing devices in the vehicles will be completed by end of June (3 months). During the same period, Telematics should be uninstalled from the vehicles, as Local Motion is a superior device and is an upgrade from Telematics. For the following 6 months, Building Operations would collect and analyze the data to create a strong business case to present to the UBC departments. This will include understanding the KPIs listed earlier and showing how they have been able to surpass the industry wide standards due to their best practices.   At the start of 2018, Building Operations will approach Student Housing with their business case. We suggest that they approach Student Housing first because their values align with Building Operations’. Presenting the business case and getting the approval through the boards will take 3 months. Post-approval, Building Operations will contact Local Motion to install their devices into the Student Housing fleet. Also, since Building Operations will be the primary body that will manage these fleets, the data shall be collected and analyzed by Building Operations to improve efficiency for Student Housing’s fleet. This will allow for Building Operations to further build their business case as the data collected for the next 6 months will allow them to show the improvement achieved by collaborating with Building Operations. This business case could then be presented to the other UBC departments to incentivize them to follow Student Housing.  While the above change management steps are being implemented, there will also be steps taken to transition from the existing vehicles to electric vehicles. As this is a significant change, it is difficult to predict the exact time it will take to fully transition, but it is expected to go beyond the two-year timeline. The transition will allow for UBC to achieve lower GHG emissions and this transition will also be implemented on any UBC department that wishes to collaborate with Building Operations.  22                               23     These analysis tools clarified the strengths and weaknesses of building ops, as well as the opportunities available for building ops to leverage. The details of each analysis allowed us to assess the situation and apply the best strategy while mitigating the risks.  24     *Forestry excluded because utilization involves driving off campus. Our scope only involves vehicles operating within the UBC campus. 25     Source: http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/efficiency/transportation/cars-light-trucks/buying/16770  26   *GJ = gigajoules Source: Survey for Consumption of Energy Survey for Universities, Colleges and Hospitals, 2003   27    E3 Fleet Rating Focus Areas ! Green Action Plan — Creating an action plan and business strategy for improving fuel efficiency, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and reducing overall environmental impact of equipment and operations. The plan should also demonstrate the organization’s commitment to corporate social responsibility and create awareness and acceptance in all levels of the organization. ! Training and Awareness — Training drivers and staff in fuel-efficient driving techniques, training dispatchers and managers in fuel-efficient management practices and creating a culture of fuel efficiency, cost management and environmental care. ! Idling Reduction — Eliminating unnecessary and wasteful idling of vehicles and equipment. ! Vehicle Purchasing — Purchasing the most energy-efficient vehicles and equipment for the intended use in a fleet. ! Fuel Data Management — Maintaining efficient and accurate fuel records and determining the true costs of fleet operations as related to fuel consumption. ! Operations & Maintenance — Optimizing the fuel efficiency of vehicles and equipment in a fleet, reducing down time caused by equipment failures or breakdowns and increasing awareness of how maintenance practices affect fuel efficiency. ! Trip & Route Planning — Lowering costs by maximizing the efficiency of trips and using the most direct or efficient routes. ! Asset Utilization — Matching the size of the fleet to the level of need, and taking action to identify and replace, retire or redeploy inefficient or under-used equipment and vehicles. ! Fuel Efficiency — Ensuring management programs, policies, activities and technologies improve fleet fuel efficiency. ! Greenhouse Gas Performance — Ensuring management programs, policies, activities and fuel and technology choices help reduce a fleet’s GHG emissions on an ongoing basis. Fleets are also encouraged to partially or fully offset GHG emissions.    28     


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items