UBC Undergraduate Research

Converting B. C.'s transport sector to natural gas : a policy brief Henry, Jessica Kiyomi Apr 7, 2015

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
52966-Henry_Jessica_GEOG_419_2015.pdf [ 3.4MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 52966-1.0103563.json
JSON-LD: 52966-1.0103563-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 52966-1.0103563-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 52966-1.0103563-rdf.json
Turtle: 52966-1.0103563-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 52966-1.0103563-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 52966-1.0103563-source.json
Full Text
52966-1.0103563-fulltext.txt
Citation
52966-1.0103563.ris

Full Text

 Henry   25                                           Author: Jessica Kiyomi Henry  April 7th  2015  Report prepared at the request of the Green Party of British Columbia in partial fulfillment of UBC GEOG 419: Research in Environmental Geography, for Dr. David Brownstein. Converting B.C.’s Transport Sector to Natural Gas A Policy Brief Henry 2 ! Table of Contents  Executive Summary……………………………….....………….……………………………..p.4 Research Question……………………………………………………………………..………p.5 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………p.5 Overview and Context……………………………………………………………………..pp.5-7 Natural gas as a transition fuel……………………………………………………...pp.5-6 Natural gas in B.C……………………………………………………………………….p.6 Natural gas and transport…………………………………………………………...pp.6-7 Method……………………………………………………………………………………..…...p.8 Results……………………………………………………………………………………..pp.8-18 The state of current technology…………………………………………………….pp.8-12 Natural gas vehicles today………………………………………………………p.8 Fuel and supply……………………………………………………….……pp.9-10 Vehicles……………………………………………………………………pp.10-12 Economic analysis………………………………………………………………...pp.12-16 ‘Feasibility’…………………………………………………………..…...pp.12-13 Assumptions……………………………………………………………….pp.13-14 Simple analysis results…………………………………………………….pp.14-15 The LNG income tax………………………………………………………pp.15-16 Barriers to conversion…………………………………………………………….pp.16-18 Recommendations……………………………………………………………………….pp.18-19 Further research options……………………………………………………………………..p.20 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………….p.20 Bibliography…………………………………......………………………………………pp.21-24 Appendix A: Vehicle equipment option matrix…………………………………….….pp.25-26 Appendix B: Economic analysis………………………………………………………...pp.27-41 Henry 3 !  This report has been compiled by Jessica Kiyomi Henry, BA Geography (Environment and Sustainability), minor Economics, for GEOG 419 (Research in Environmental Geography). This research course partners students with community partners, with the community partner in this case being the Green Party of British Columbia. The author and informants of the paper do not have any formal political affiliation with the Green Party. !Executive Summary Henry 4 This report explores the feasibility of converting part of the transport sector from gasoline and diesel to natural gas. The investigation of feasibility was organized into three sections: an assessment of the current state of technology, considerations of economic feasibility, and barriers to conversion. The following conclusions were reached. The conclusions are accompanied by associated policy recommendations for consideration:  1. Natural gas vehicles (NGVs) are already technically feasible, including through conversion of conventional vehicles, but there is opportunity to continue to improve vehicle technology and that of related infrastructure, and in doing so to potentially lower overall costs and improve the economic outlook for investors and early adopters. a. Recommendation: Support research and development into making technologies more cost effective, such as fuel system design. 2. While technological feasibility applies to most transport divisions, economic feasibility for many market participants is a threshold payback of 3-4 years, narrowing the vehicle types and circumstances of use that would naturally trigger conversions. a. Recommendation: Increase the economic attractiveness, including the likelihood of payback within the requisite timeframe, via targeted subsidization and incentives in those sectors that are most appealing for growth. 3. While there has been some question about the possibly detrimental effect of the recently introduced B.C. LNG income tax, it is not anticipated to be a significant disincentive to LNG fuel suppliers or to users of NGV vehicles. a. Recommendation: None 4. Barriers to deployment include the “chicken or egg” barrier associated with lack of infrastructure leading to lack of demand and vice versa, both direct and indirect costs, and perception of risks. a. Recommendation: coordinate fleet and fuel suppliers to achieve concurrent growth in demand and supply infrastructure. b. Recommendation: ameliorate high upfront costs through subsidization and/or incentives schemes. c. Recommendation: decrease indirect costs by maintaining up-to-date codes, standards and regulatory regimes in collaboration with the Canadian Standards Association, and provide support for development of training materials for vehicle repairs and NGV fleets. d. Recommendation: address the perception of risk through education and outreach to end-users, market influencers, and other key stakeholders. 5. As it is the first of a two-part investigation on conversion, with the second part being focused on the net environmental benefit and the market supply and demand effects, this report does not conclusively determine whether the BCGP should support conversion to natural gas. Irrespective of whether the BCGP supports conversion to natural gas vehicles, measures can be taken to help facilitate transition of the transport sector to sustainable alternatives more generally. a. Recommendation: a carbon tax, to increase price differentials between natural gas (or other alternative fuels) and petroleum-based fuels. B.C. already has a carbon tax in place, however, this should be regularly reviewed to ensure that it is incentivizing the right move to reduce greenhouse gas emissions quickly enough. b. Recommendation: stricter vehicle emissions standards, to constrain the permissible performance of emissions-intensive fuels and vehicles, and in doing so create the market space for alternative vehicles. Henry 5 ! Research Question How feasible is it to convert the transport industry to natural gas as a transition fuel? What are the barriers to making this conversion? How much impact does the 3.5% LNG income tax have on domestic producers and how big a disincentive is it to conversion? Introduction Currently, the B.C. government is promoting natural gas (NG) as an export industry, and an opportunity to gain revenue. While this development has seen some controversy, and government Prosperity Fund revenue estimates contested (Lee 2014), the Green Party of British Columbia (BCGP) is interested in considering the use of the Province’s natural resources domestically. With B.C.’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act (GGRTA) having come into effect in 2008, ways to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions need to be explored if B.C. is to reach the GGRTA’s ambitious goals of reducing GHG emissions by 33% below 2007 levels by 2020, and by 80% by 2050 (Government of B.C.). Against that backdrop, on behalf of the BCGP, this brief looks at the feasibility of using natural gas as an alternative transport fuel in British Columbia. Overview and Context Natural gas as a transition fuel Natural gas (NG) is the cleanest of fossil fuels to burn (Rooijers et al. 2009) and could be harnessed as an alternative transport fuel to the petroleum-based fuels dominating the transport fuel market. While the well-to-wheel comparative numbers vary depending on a variety of factors, the province’s main supplier of natural gas, Fortis BC, has calculated a 29.9% decrease in overall GHG emissions, a 30.9% decrease in NOx emissions, a 73.7% decrease in SOx emissions, and a 50.2% decrease in particulate matter when comparing diesel and natural gas use in transport (Bains 2015).1 Similarly, Natural Resources Canada has suggested that on a carbon content lifecycle basis, natural gas emissions are up to 20% lower than diesel (NR Can 2015). As natural gas transport technology is relatively mature, NG is an ideal “transition fuel”, towards a carbon-free economy, reducing GHG emissions in the short-term while work continues towards    1 These numbers were verified by Fortis BC using the GHGenius model v. 4.03. This model can be found at http://www.ghgenius.ca/downloads.php. The GHGenius model is a tool developed for Natural Resources Canada for analyzing emissions of contaminants associated with the production and use of traditional and alternative fuel transportations (S&T Consultants Inc. 2004). Henry 6 !  a longer-term reliance on clean and renewable energy supplies including biofuels, hydrogen, and electricity (Rooijers et al. 2009). While the transition fuel discourse has been accused of ‘greenwashing’ natural gas development, particularly in its application to other sectors (Stephenson et al. 2012), in the case of the transport sector, NG is consistently suggested as a cleaner option than conventional transport fuels. Natural gas in B.C. Natural gas is a naturally occurring hydrocarbon consisting primarily of methane, containing small amounts of ethane, propane, butane, and pentanes (Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers 2008). NG resides in the ground as conventional and unconventional (coalbed methane, tight gas, and shale gas) natural gas (Ibid.). With recent technological advances, the recovery of NG through unconventional means has increased potential reserves (Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers 2008; Hrastar 2014). In B.C., the total potential natural gas resources remains uncertain, with estimates ranging from 250 trillion cubic feet (tcf) in 2007, to 1000 tcf of undiscovered shale gas according to the BC Ministry of Energy and Mines in 2009 (Stephenson et al. 2012). In the past, the U.S. was Canada’s only export market for natural gas, but as the U.S. has harnessed its own supply of natural gas, exports have dropped by 16% over five years (Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers 2008). As a result, Canada has been exploring new market options, including LNG exports to Asia from Canada’s Pacific Coast (Ibid.). Natural gas and Transport Transport contributes almost 40% of CO2 emissions to the Province’s total (Government of B.C. 2014). As a result, the use of cleaner transport fuel and technology options will be key to a lower carbon B.C. The biggest contributor of CO2 emissions within the transport sector is road transportation, making up 63% (B.C. Ministry of Environment 2014). Figure 1 illustrates the transport sector’s GHG emissions by category in 2012. The burning of oil-based fuels by the transport sector emits a range of pollutants and GHGs into the atmosphere, including CO2, PM, SOx, and NOx   (Koltun and Tharumarajah 2012). Henry 7 !       Figure 1: Transport and road transportation total emissions breakdown (from: BC Ministry of Environment 2014, 26-28)  Canada’s transport uses significantly less natural gas than other major economic sectors of Canada (Roundtable 2010; NR Can 2015). However, this is not the result of a lack of technology or practicality, as evidenced by other countries including Argentina, Brazil, Iran, and Italy having seen natural gas vehicles achieve high market penetration and sustained growth (Yeh 2007). Natural gas can be used as a transport fuel in several forms, including compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquefied natural gas (LNG). While other fuel options such as methanol and hydrogen, which can be produced using natural gas (U.S. Department of Energy; U.S. Department of Energy 2015), are potential alternative fuels that could harness the natural gas resources of the province, this report will be specifically looking at direct natural gas applications in transport (LNG and CNG). Henry 8 ! Method Research was conducted primarily through a review of academic literature, industry, and government reports. The report was further informed by six expert interviews to gain further technical knowledge and information on the state of natural gas in the transport sector. The investigation has been organized into the sections of a review of technology, economic analysis, and an exploration of barriers to conversion. While anchored in relevant literature, this report also includes a simplified economic analysis considering payback periods. These have been compared to other economic analyses results for verification and comparison. The review of the state of current technology, and the exploration of barriers to conversion are rooted in literature review and consultations with experts in the field. Results The State of Current Technology Natural gas vehicles today There are currently 16.7 million NGVs operating worldwide (NGV Global 2015), with 12,745 vehicles operating in Canada (NR Can 2015). NGV technology is relatively mature at this point, however, NGVs have not benefitted from economies of scale as gasoline and diesel vehicles have (Krupnick 2011), implying that their cost of production is currently significantly higher than it needs to be. Technological barriers are not seen to be a major issue to the further adoption of NGVs (Morse et al. 2013). B.C. and Quebec are the two provinces leading the adoption of new factory-built trucks and buses (NR Can 2015), with B.C. having the largest number of public CNG stations in one province (Ibid.). Currently operating public CNG refueling stations in B.C. are run by the likes of Chevron, Farwest Fuels, and Petro Canada (CNGVA 2012). The fact that other countries have already seen high market penetration, and that the technology is already being used in Canada indicates that technology is readily available for conversion. Henry 9 !  Fuel and Supply A key part of the supply chain is the availability of NG liquefaction and distribution networks (Morse et al. 2013). Currently, Fortis BC is the owner and operator of the only two LNG facilities in B.C., the Tilbury Island facility (Delta) and the Mt. Hayes facility (Ladysmith) (Fortis BC 2015). Further, there are development plans for LNG liquefaction facilities for exporting purposes (Government of B.C. (b)). Distribution and refueling options are available in B.C., and as previously mentioned, have also been deployed within the Province. However, there are different suitable applications, distribution concerns, and refueling concerns for CNG and LNG. These are outlined in the table below.  Compressed NG Liquefied NG Characteristics • Takes up four times (3.8 Diesel gallon equivalent (DGE)) more space than diesel in terms of storage to get the equivalent amount of useable energy (NR Can 2015; Westport 2013). • Suited for light- to medium- duty applications, travelling <250 mi/ day (Westport 2013).     Distribution • Primarily produced by compressing NG supplied by existing pipelines (NR Can 2015). • System upgrades to existing utility distribution systems can be made relatively easily (NR Can 2015).     Refueling • Time-fill refueling: takes up 3-6 hours, or 8-10 hours to refuel a vehicle (Westport 2013; NR Can 2015). • Fast-fill refueling: Faster, but will lead to over 20% loss of storage (Westport 2013). Best for: return-to-base fleets, refueling overnight. Characteristics • Takes up twice (1.7 DGE) the space compared to diesel for the same amount of useable energy (NR Can 2015; Westport 2013).  • Suited for heavy-duty applications, travelling >250 mi/day (Westport 2013). • “Shelf-life” of seven days: if you do not use the LNG, it will evaporate, and you will lose it (Westport 2013; Anonymous 2015a).  Distribution • Multiple pathways to LNG, and more complex (TIAX 2012). • Need investments in upgrading existing infrastructure for liquefaction on-site (TIAX 2012), • Or create a “mother-daughter” refueling system by offloading LNG to bulk tanker trunks and supplying refueling stations (TIAX 2012).  Refueling • Fast-fill refueling: analogous to diesel refueling (Westport 2013).    Best for: fleets operating around the clock (Westport 2013), travelling longer distances. Table 1: Description of differing characteristics, distribution options, and refueling concerns for CNG and LNG. Henry 10 !  While complexities arise in the distribution process for LNG, the refueling process of CNG bring with it issues. For LNG distribution, the most successful strategy has been to build a pipeline-fed liquefier dedicated to supplying LNG for vehicle fuel production, which can benefit from being located near high-demand areas (TIAX 2012). Other options including mobile LNG refueling stations or small-liquefaction plants, can minimize investment risk due to reduced upfront costs (NR Can 2015; TIAX 2012). Another issue with distribution is the location of refueling stations. For refueling, while both technology applications are available, the inefficiencies of a fast-fill refueling system and energy storage for CNG results in it being an unsuitable fuel for vehicles operating around the clock and travelling long-distances (Westport 2013; Anonymous 2015a). Technologies in development include mobile CNG refueling, cheaper home refueling stations, small-scale LNG production and refueling, and increasing bulk transport capacity (NR Can 2015). These developments could help with better market penetration for NGVs by allowing for greater deployment of NGV supply technologies, decreasing upfront costs, and reducing risk for investors (Ibid.). In addition, Yeh (2007) suggests that beyond a “diffusion tipping point” of fueling stations, NGV markets would become self-sufficient. However, notes, that due to the long life of a vehicle fleet, and the nature of social and economic penetration barriers, intervention must be sustained for long periods before diffusion crosses the tipping point (Ibid.). Vehicles Natural gas vehicles can be purchased from the original equipment manufacturer (OEM), or conventional vehicles can be retrofitted (converted) to run on natural gas. Different types of fuel and engine configurations are available for alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs), including NGVs. These include the dedicated mono-fuel AFV, bi-fuel vehicles, and flexible fuel vehicles (FFV). The mono-fuel AFV operates using a single source of alternative fuel (MIT 2012). The bi-fuel vehicle is designed with two independent fuel systems (natural gas and diesel/gasoline), which can be independently run, but not operated simultaneously (Ibid.). FFVs operate on a single fueling system, which can accommodate combinations of varying quantities of two or more fuels (Ibid.). While the mono-fuel NGV is important in reinforcing the use of natural gas amongst drivers of the vehicles (Anonymous 2015a), bi-fuel and flex-fuel options can play an important role in the earlier stages of transitioning to NG, reducing concerns amongst NGV operators about the access to refueling (Kramer and Anderson 2012). Henry 11 !  For the purposes of this policy brief, this section will consider technical feasibility to be based on whether NGV technologies are readily available or not. The table below summarizes the technical feasibility of conversion in several different transport types. OEM and retrofitting options, as well as whether flex-fuel or bi-fuel options are available are factors considered in the review.  Transport Vehicle type Switching (OEM) Retrofit Bi-fuel/ dual-fuel option Light-duty vehicles (Class 1 and 2) e.g. automobiles, pickups, small vans, SUVs   ✓   ✓   ✓ Medium-duty vehicles (Class 3-6) School buses ✓ ✓ ✓ Urban delivery/ parcel van ✓ ✓ ✓ Heavy-duty vehicles (Class 7 and 8) Refuse trucks ✓ ✓ ✓ Transit buses ✓ ✓ ✗ Tractor trailer ✓ ✓ ✓ Marine Ferries ✓ ✓ ✓ Locomotives ! Limited/ prototype stage ✓ ✓ Indoor machines Forklifts ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓-indicates technology available; ✗-  indicates options not available/found. Table 2: Vehicle equipment option matrix, for a more comprehensive version, refer to Appendix A.   As can be seen on the table, most vehicle types have both retrofitting and OEM options available, with bi-fuel and dual-fuel options for different vehicle types. These bi-fuel and dual- fuel options may be important in the early stages of transition, particularly for tractor-trailers that do not usually operate on a return-to-base basis. For return-to-base fleets, such as refuse trucks, and buses, refueling is less of a concern, as the vehicles will regularly return to a central refueling point. Marine NG technologies have been commercialized, including B.C. Ferries who have natural gas ferries on order (BC Ferries 2015). The only major gap where NGV technology is still earlier on in commercialization is rail (Marbek 2010; Anonymous 2015a), where retrofitting is still earlier in deployment and prototypes are in development. While this paper does not go into detail about issues around power or torque of different AFV engines, it has been suggested that LNG is the only option beyond diesel for heavy-duty applications. Electric batteries lack the necessary punch to drive bigger vehicles (marine, heavy- duty, etc.), while these vehicles are large enough to serve as an economical platform for the Henry 12 !  equipment needed to deliver LNG to the engine (Krupnick 2011; Anonymous 2015b). In addition, as technologies mature, we can expect performance to continue to increase. NG engines such as Westport’s HPDI is said to have similar power, torque and fuel efficiency to a diesel engine (Westport 2015); performance is becoming less of a negative differentiator for NGVs than it may have been previously. As NG is less dense than diesel (or petroleum), the biggest disadvantage of NG fuel systems are the size and weight compared to a diesel system (NR Can 2015). For LNG-run tractor-trailers for example, there is a payload trade-off, where the vehicle is not able to carry as much of a load (Marbek 2010). Areas that need further work for cost efficiency include cost reduction and design improvements in CNG and LNG storage tanks, optimizing combustion systems in spark-ignited and direct-injection gas engines, improved aerodynamics, engine downsizing, advanced and optimized combustion systems, and exhaust heat recovery (Morse et al. 2013). While current technologies do have some such limits, the technology has developed to the point that it is feasible for different fleets to convert to natural gas. Further, as research continues into further flex-fuel engines (Ott et al. 2013), and ongoing research into increasing the efficiency of natural gas compression ignition engines (Lounici et al. 2014), the feasibility and appeal of conversion will grow. In addition, biogas from organic waste materials is being explored as a carbon-neutral fuel option (Kramer and Anderson 2012; Cummins Westport; Fortis BC). It has been suggested that as CNG vehicles and natural gas distribution are fully compatible with post-processed bio- methane (Kramer and Anderson 2012). Economic Analysis ‘Feasibility’ Investment economics are dependent on fleet size and type, distances travelled by a vehicle, upfront costs, vehicle maintenance costs and incremental costs, as well as price differentials between natural gas and conventional fuels (Johnson 2010). For the purposes of this investigation, assumptions for these factors have been made based on external literature (Appendix B). The purpose of this estimate is to show the general trend and approximate values of paybacks for a singular vehicle of varying types, rather than exact estimates of payback periods of fleets, as this will depend on a number of factors specific to the fleet being converted, which can vary significantly according to each individual operator’s needs. Such factors include Henry 13 !  the availability of subsidies and funding, potential tax exemptions, whether refueling infrastructure costs were being funded by fuel supplier or not, amongst other factors. Assumptions: Maintenance costs have been assumed to be on average the same for both conventional and natural has vehicles given evidence for both instances of cost decrease as well as cost increase when switching fuels (Johnson 2010; Krupnick 2011). The estimate is based on recent price differentials, rather than future projections of price. While some assessments incorporate a long run increase in the differential between natural gas and diesel pricing (Johnson 2010), this paper uses a constant differential in order to mitigate the risk inherent in forecasting the future, and in order to attempt to see the economic through the eye of the investor, who is likely to be more willing to rely on historical differentials than a future widening in differentials. It should be noted, that NG has been consistently cheaper than diesel or gasoline since the 2000s in Canada, and future prices suggest a long-term movement toward natural gas from conventional fuels (NR Can 2015). The cost of an investor needing to install refueling infrastructure has not been considered in the economic analysis. Rather, the CNG price assumed is an at-pump price, which includes an implicit capital and operating cost associated with refueling infrastructure. It is deemed appropriate to assume that the operator can access publicly available natural gas infrastructure, and therefore to split the fleet and refueling infrastructure investment decision given the existence of 12 CNG and 2 LNG public refueling stations currently (NR Can 2015), with more planned. This paper is also focused on long-run feasibility of wider deployment, which would suggest an increase in publicly accessible infrastructure. It is also noted we have seen fuel suppliers subsidizing or funding refueling stations, which would defray the cost to the investor converting their fleet, and in some cases, refueling stations (even return-to-base) may not be owned by one fleet. Like all predictive models, there are limitations to the accuracy of the results as simplifications and assumptions have to be made. Future new vehicle cost differentials may very likely be lower, as NGVs have not benefitted from economies of scale as gasoline and diesel vehicles have (Krupnick 2011). Factors such as vehicle image and functionality, which can affect consumers’ decisions to purchase vehicles (Yeh 2007), have not been included. Additionally, complications such as fuel efficiency based on terrain have not been considered. Fuel economy Henry 14 !  of a vehicle changes depending on the terrain it is travelling (Davis et al. 2014). In B.C., mountainous terrain could very much result in an even more compelling economic case for trucks given lower than estimated fuel economy (Anonymous 2015b). Simple analysis results    Figure 2: Relationship between payback periods and annual distance travelled per transport type.  It is estimated that a number of vehicle types will see payback periods that fall within the <4 year window, including tractor trailers (<1 year), delivery vans (1-2 years), refuse trucks (1 year), transit busses (1-2 years), taxis (1-2 years), and locomotives (3 years). Personal LDV use (10 years), ferries (9 years) and school busses (7 years) have longer payback periods, but in the case of the latter it is noted that the investor (possibly government) may take a longer- term view of economic attractiveness. The analysis supports the trend in the focus in conversion thus far on vehicles that see long distances travelled, with the exception of marine. The marine case is slightly different, as it has been largely driven by recent change in emissions rules governed by MARPOL Annex VI (Morse et al. 2013). The long payback periods for personal Henry 15 !  use of LDVs is consistent with findings indicating that at this point, personal use NGVs without any intervention does not return reasonable paybacks (NR Can 2015; Anonymous 2015a). Many other economic analyses have been done in calculating payback periods for a variety of vehicle types, with the results differing based on assumptions made for the respective models. Other models have integrated considerations of fleet size, and costs of building up infrastructure. Nevertheless, similar to the results above, LNG tractors were found to be economically attractive; specifically, LNG highway heavy tractors based on return-to-base calculations were determined to have a payback period of 1.77 years (Roundtable 2010). Marbek (2010) found a HDV line haul with a capital investment of $90,000 to have a payback of 3.3 years. TIAX also found that heavy-duty applications for NGVs were competitive with diesel counterparts (TIAX 2005). A local study on CNG powered RCVs in the city of Surrey found that cost savings of $100,000 CDN per vehicle could be achieved by switching to CNG (Rose et al. 2013). However, the Marbek (2010) study found an estimated 6.5 payback projection. An IMW investigation found that for a Hamilton Street Railway conversion, there would be a 3.2 year payback period, and the same payback was found for a 50 vehicle waste management fleet in Ottawa and Coquitlam (Milner 2014). For the conversion of a Cold Star highway tractor fleet, a 1.4 payback period was found (Ibid.). For transit buses Marbek (2010) found paybacks of 4.2 years, and for marine, assumed a 4.6 year payback. While forklifts or any other form of indoor equipment were not considered in this analysis, Marbek (2010) estimated a payback of 1.9 years; indicating payback periods within which investors would look. Anonymous also suggested that while economics present a barrier in some instances, they have been the main driver of conversion in others (2015a). The LNG Income Tax Through interviews and literature, it is clear that the LNG income tax is unlikely to have a significant impact on the pace of transport conversion. It does not present a material disincentive to suppliers (Antweiler 2015; Bains 2015; Stout 2015), and from an exports stand point, B.C.’s fiscal framework including the LNG tax has been determined to be competitive with jurisdictions such as Australia and the U.S. (Ernst & Young 2014). The tax applies to any person who owns or operates all or part of an LNG facility, or is carrying on liquefaction activities (Government of B.C. 2015). In other words, this tax could apply directly to those who operate refueling stations with small-scale liquefaction capabilities. The LNG income tax is a Henry 16 !  two-tier system, with Tier 1 (1.5%) applying to an operator’s net income after commercial production begins, and with Tier 2 (3.5%) only being applied once costs associated with developing facilities (capital investment account) is depleted (Lee 2014; Government of BC 2015). Generally, this 1.5% can be accumulated in a tax pool balance that can be used to reduce taxes at the higher tax rate (Government of B.C. 2015). In addition to this, tax rate on net income will be 3.5% for taxation years beginning on or after January 1st 2017, and increase to 5% on January 1st 2037 (Ibid.). Looking at the layout of the tax, it is evident why it should not be expected to be a material disincentive to supply or conversion. Firstly, the full tax rate is not applied until after all capital investment accounts are depleted, meaning that the average annual incremental tax burden over time can be expected to be substantially less than the headline 3.5%. Even if the 3.5% were to apply for the full period, it will not be expected to significantly impact the price of LNG. If we considered a hypothetical case of a generous 10-20% profit margin generated on liquefaction activities and applied this to a gas price of 80 cents per liter, profit margin would be 8-16 cents per liter. In such a scenario, the taxpayer would pay an incremental .28-0.56 cents per liter. In other words, to fully recoup incremental taxes paid, price would need to rise by less than 1 cent per liter; the tax impact on LNG transport economics is at most marginal. Barriers to Conversion Despite the proven economic and technical feasibility of converting fleets to natural gas, NGVs are still not widely deployed, considering there were over 30 million registered vehicles in Canada in 2013 (Statistics Canada 2013). There have been several broad areas of barriers to conversion that have been mentioned in the literature and in interviews, including the “chicken and egg” barrier, high upfront costs, tangential costs, perceived risk and future uncertainty. While these barriers will be discussed separately, there are clear overlaps and interactions between them. The “chicken or egg” barrier addresses the limited infrastructure as a result of limited demand, and limited fuel demand as a result of limited infrastructure (Marbek 2010; National Petroleum Council 2012; Morse et al. 2013). This is of a particular concern when it comes to re- fuelling vehicles, particularly for long-haul trailer tractors, which are not operating on a return- to-base basis. Henry 17 !  Costs can also act as a barrier to conversion. Here we will discuss costs in two different categories: direct, and indirect costs. In terms of direct costs, the ultimate barrier is the high upfront costs associated with conversion (Morse et al. 2013). The cost of conversion can be high, ranging from anywhere from $8000 to millions of dollars depending on the type of vehicle you are converting, and not considering infrastructure costs, which can involve further capital outlay. The relatively high upfront costs, coupled with uncertainty in respect of future price differentials and therefore payback periods can be a barrier to investment for some, notwithstanding that modeling consistently indicating that there is economic merit in conversion for some owners and types of vehicles. Indirect costs include costs that come as a result of conversion. Such costs include things such as some insurance companies being unwilling to insure, or having higher rates for drivers with LNG technology (Ibid.), lengthy delivery times and potential for increased maintenance costs as a result of constrained tangential services such as parts suppliers and trained mechanics (Marbek 2010). A further concern can be the loss of vehicle space as CNG and LNG tanks are larger and heavier than their conventional counterparts (Ibid.). While the loss of space and greater weight can be of concern for busses or vehicles that transport cargo, given the implied potential loss of reduction in fee-generating cargo that can be generated, economic analysis has consistently shown that for some vehicles, particularly those such as tractor-trailers, the anticipated paybacks are still sufficiently short to incentivize conversion. Finally, there is a barrier relating to a knowledge gap, perceived risks, and future uncertainty (Morse et al. 2013; NR Can 2010; Antweiler 2015). Firstly, there is a perceived risk associated with early adoption (NR Can 2010), and early adopters will in some way pay a premium, as they will have to deal with working out the kinks in conversions (Antweiler 2015). Additionally, as payback periods will vary based on future fuel prices, and price differentials have been historically volatile, particularly due to diesel and petroleum fuels (Johnson 2010), there is a level of uncertainty that has acted as a disincentive to investment (Antweiler 2015; Marbek 2010). However, any fluctuations are unlikely to have a huge impact on CNG/ LNG pump prices as current underlying price of NG represents only 20-25% of total costs at pump, versus 60% for diesel (Morse et al. 2013). Rest of at pump costs result from transportation, liquefaction, compression, taxes, etc. (Ibid.), this suggests that as NG technologies continue to be Henry 18 !  improved and benefit from economies of scale, these factors will decrease in cost, and ultimately decrease NG at pump prices. Recommendations Natural gas as a transition fuel for the transport sector is technically feasible and economically feasible, at least for some vehicle types and operating circumstances. The recommendation on whether the BCGP should support a transition will be dependent on further investigation on the associated environmental impacts, including GHG reductions. However, in looking at countries where NGV market penetration has been high, it is clear that government policy has played a strong hand in overcoming barriers to conversion and shifting the market towards NGVs (Yeh 2007). Recommendations have been organized into addressing the major barriers outlined previously. 1. To address the “chicken or egg” barrier, a degree of government-led coordination between fleet owners and fuel suppliers would be valuable, as suggested by the National Petroleum Council (2012). Such coordination would help to lower the risk factor of conversion, as fuel suppliers will have the security of a baseline demand, and fleet owners will have the security of a place to refuel (Roundtable 2010). In addition to this, government could consider the direct development or subsidization of development of supply infrastructure along routes such as key trucking corridors (Ibid.), where there is more likely to be greater demand. This could be provided through private onsite refueling stations or close multi-fleet card-lock arrangements (Ibid.). It has also been suggested by Kramer and Anderson (2012) and others that vehicle capability for two fuels is important to the success of any alternative fuel that is not supported by a sufficiently secure supply infrastructure. As a result, the possibilities of bi- and dual- fuel options have been noted in the technical feasibility portion of the investigation. In addition to this, for locomotives, the infrastructural challenges lie in the cross-jurisdictional nature of locomotives (Anonymous 2015c). In this case, coordination across jurisdictions may be important. 2. In order to address the impediment of high upfront costs, beyond funding or subsidizing refueling facilities, subsidization of the incremental cost to purchase or convert NGVs could also be considered. Furthermore, costs could be decreased through continued improvement in technologies and performance (National Petroleum Council 2012; NR Henry 19 !  Can 2015). This could be stimulated through government funding of further research and development. Areas for research might include lowering fuel systems costs through creating a systematic approach to fuel system design (NR Can 2015), and using the monitoring of results from tank valve failures and vehicle safe refueling to determine opportunities for improvements to the Canadian standards (Ibid.). 3. Indirect costs are a result of a lack of knowledge in transportation supporting services. A way to reduce this barrier could be to fund the development of training materials and programs for NGV vehicle repairs (Roundtable 2010). This, coupled with building and maintaining an up-to-date codes, standards and regulatory regime in collaboration with the Canadian Standards Association as suggested by NR Can (2015), this would provide a clearer structure for secondary service companies such as insurers, and would build capacity for sustaining markets (Roundtable 2010). 4. Perceived risks come partially from information gaps, which can be addressed through education and outreach strategies aimed to reach key stakeholders, including market influencers, and end-users (Ibid.). 5. In addition to these measures, to promote the environmental argument for conversion, market instruments could help to ‘sweeten the deal’ in conversions, or to force the market to convert. For example, the government could ensure that the carbon tax is set at a level that widens the price differential between NG and petroleum-based fuels, making the former more attractive.2 Secondly, stricter standards on vehicle emissions could be put in place to create space for NGVs or other AFVs by constraining conventional GHG intensive alternatives (Antweiler 2015).            2 B.C., being one of the more progressive Provinces in supporting conversion to NGVs, has both an Incentives Program, and a carbon tax in place. The Incentives program was authorized in 2012, and allowed public utilities to develop NG for the transport market with up to $62 million and $42 in vehicle and station incentives (NR Can 2015). The carbon tax was implemented in 2008, with rates being increased until 2012, where the tax reached a $30 per tonne CO2 equivalent (B.C. Ministry of Finance 2014). Henry 20 ! Future research options There are many further research opportunities following on from this project. While this brief has focused on an assessment of the economic and technical feasibility of conversion, it may be warranted for BCGP to conduct an in-depth investigation into the relative environmental impacts of NGVs and other alternative fuels. This brief has focused on the viability of NGVs, but has not considered other alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) including plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV), ethanol (E85) fuel blends, battery electric vehicles (BEV), propane fueled vehicles, and hydrogen-powered vehicles. While this investigation has been focused on application of NGVs in B.C., research into the feasibility of conversion in surrounding provinces would help in guiding decisions for some long-haul applications due to the issue of connectivity. To find the best transition or long-term alternative fuel, a more comprehensive analysis, or a series of analyses would have to be done to determine the feasibility of a range of options. Further, it has been noted by Yeh (2007) that a comprehensive comparison of the effectiveness of different policies in promoting natural gas vehicle technologies could help narrow down the best policy approach to encourage better market penetration. Conclusion As only the first part to a two-part investigation, with the second part being focused on the net environmental benefit and the market supply and demand effects (Collins 2015), this report does not conclude whether the BCGP should support conversion of the transport industry to natural gas. However, this report finds that conversion to natural gas vehicles is a technically and economically feasible option, and outlines barriers that would have to be acted on for higher market penetration. Government intervention could be justified to internalize some market failures resulting from network externalities associated with a lack of refueling infrastructure, and air pollution (Krupnick 2011). Additionally, with transport being such a large contributor to emissions, this should be an important area of focus for the BCGP. The policy recommendations not only include suggestions in helping to overcome the barriers outlined for the NGV market, but also include suggestions to help move the transport sector to cleaner options regardless of the type of alternative vehicle fuel. Henry 21 ! Bibliography  Antweiler, Werner. UBC Sauder School of Business. Interview by Kiyomi Henry and Madeline Collins. In-person interview. Vancouver, Canada, 6 Mar. 2015.  Anonymous. Interview by Kiyomi Henry. Phone interview. Vancouver, Canada, 6 Mar. 2015a.  Anonymous. Interview by Kiyomi Henry. Conference call interview. Vancouver, Canada, 31 Mar. 2015b.  Anonymous. Interview by Kiyomi Henry and Madeline Collins. Phone interview. Vancouver, Canada, 25 Mar. 2015c.  Bains, Mike. Fortis BC. Interview by Kiyomi Henry. In-person interview. Vancouver, Canada, 1 Apr. 2015.  British Columbia (2015). British Columbia’s LNG income tax- an overview. Accessed 4 Apr. 2015.  British Columbia. (n.d.) Climate action legislation. The Government of British Columbia. Accessed 20 Jan 2015. Retrieved from [http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/topic.page?id=60E1E7810BC145C6B6FC00EE31F41EC5].  British Columbia (n.d.) (b). Explore B.C.’s LNG Projects. LNG in BC. Accessed 1 Apr. 2015. Retrieved from [http://engage.gov.bc.ca/lnginbc/lng-projects/]  BC Ferries. (2015). BC Ferries signs 10-year contract with Fortis BC to supply liquefied natural gas for new intermediate class ferries. News Release 15-006. Accessed 5 Mar. 2015. Retrieved from [https://www.bcferries.com/bcferries/faces/attachments;jsessionid=4bbb9d9f1141af9ff75 ffe17df78cb66272db37eea70c455ba625e9a9c310db0.e34Na3mLahaRe34Pbh4SaN4Pah5 0?id=883569]  BC Ministry of Environment (2014). British Columbia greenhouse gas inventory report 2012. BC Ministry of Environment.  BC Ministry of Finance (2014). Carbon Tax Review. Ministry of Finance. Accessed 17 Mar. 2015. Retrieved from [http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/tbs/tp/climate/Carbon_Tax_Review_Topic_Box.pdf].  Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. (2008). Upstream dialogue: the facts on natural gas. Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.  CNGVA. (2012). British Columbia Public Access CNG Stations. Canadian Natural Gas Vehicle Alliance. Retrieved from [http://www.cngva.org/media/27870/british_columbia_cng_refueling_stations dec_201 2.pdf]. Henry 22 !  Collins, M. (2015). The environmental impacts of British Columbia’s transportation conversion to natural gas. Report written for GEOG 419, the University of British Columbia, Canada.  Cummins Westport. (n.d.). Learn about natural gas. Cummins Westport. Accessed 31 Mar. 2015. Retrieved from [http://www.cumminswestport.com/learn-about-natural-gas]  Davis, S. C., Diegel, S. W., Boundy, R. G. (2014). Transportation Energy Data Book: edition 33. Oak Ridge National Laboratory: Oak Ridge.  Ernst & Young. (2014). Analysis of the competitiveness of BC’s proposed fiscal framework for LNG projects. Ernst & Young.  Fortis BC. (2015). Liquified natural gas. Fortis BC. Accessed 27 Feb. 2015. Retrieved from [http://www.fortisbc.com/NaturalGas/Business/Pages/Liquefied-Natural-Gas.aspx].  Hrastar, J. (2014). Liquid natural gas in the United States: a history. Kindle Edition. Jefferson: McFarland & Company Inc. Publishers  Johnson, C. (2010). Business case for compressed natural gas in municipal fleets. NREL/TP- 7A2-47919. Golden: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.  Koltun, P., Tharumarajah, A. (2012). Evaluating sustainability of using natural gas as a major transport fuel in Australia: a life cycle assessment approach. Sustainable Technologies, Systems and Policies, 2012(1) doi: 10.5339/stsp.2012.1  Kramer, U., Anderson, J. E. (2012). Prospects for flexible- and bi-fuel light duty vehicles: consumer choice and public attitudes. 2012 MIT Energy Initiative Symposium White Paper.  Krupnick, A. (2011). Will natural gas vehicles be in our future? Issue Brief 11-06. Washington: Resources for the Future.  Lee, M. (2014). Path to prosperity? A closer look at British Columbia’s natural gas royalties and proposed LNG income tax. Vancouver: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Climate Justice Project.  Lounici, M. S., Loubar, K., Tarabet, L., Balistrou, M., Niculescu, D., Tazerout, M. (2014). Towards improvement of natural gas-diesel dual fuel mode: an experimental investigation on performance and exhaust emissions. Energy, 64: 200-211. Henry 23 !  Marbek. (2010). Study for opportunities for natural gas in the transportation sector- final report. 20964. Ontario: Marbek.  Milner, A. (2014). Why go with natural gas? Business case for natural gas vehicles in Canada. GoWithNaturalGas.ca Retrieved from [http://dev1.imw.ca/webinars/webinar2014-09-17- Why-Go-Natural-Gas.pdf].  MIT. (2012). The MIT Energy Initiative’s symposium on prospects for bi-fuel and flex-fuel light- duty vehicles. Symposium Report.  Morse, E., Yuen, A., Kleinman, S., Wetherbee, C., Thein, T., Michaeli, I., Cunningham, G., Smith, R. (2013). Energy 2020: Trucks, trains and automobiles: Start your natural gas engines! Citi GPS: Global Perspectives and Solutions.  National Petroleum Council. (2012). Advancing Technology for America’s Transportation Future. Draft summary report.  Rose, L., Hussain, M., Ahmed, S., Malek, K., Costanzo, R., Kjeang, E. (2013). A comparative life cycle assessment of diesel and compressed natural gas powered refuse collection vehicles in a Canadian city. Energy Policy, 52: 53-461.  Roundtable. (2010). Natural Gas Use in the Canadian Transportation Sector. Natural Gas Use in Transportation Roundtable: Natural Resources Canada.  NR Can (2015). Study on natural gas research and development priority setting for transportation in Canada. Natural Resources Canada.  NGV Global. (2015). About the Natural Gas Vehicle Base Knowledge. NGV Global. Accessed 2 Apr. 2015. Retrieved from [http://www.iangv.org].  Ott, T., Onder, C., Guzzella, L. (2013). Hybrid-electric vehicle with natural gas-diesel engine. Energies, 6: 3571-3592. doi: 10.3390/en6073571.  Rooijers, F., Wilders, L., Schepers, B., Croezen, H., de Bruyn, S. (2009). Natural gas as a transitional fuel. Groningen: GasTerra, Castel International Publishers.  S&T Consultants Inc. (2006). History. GHGenius, a model for lifecycle assessment of transportation fuels. Accessed 2 Apr. 2015. Retrieved from [http://www.ghgenius.ca/about.php]  Statistics Canada. (2013). Motor vehicle registrations, by province and territory. Statistics Canada. Accessed 2 Apr. 2015. Retrieved from [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables- tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/trade14a-eng.htm]  Stephenson, E., Doukas, A., Shaw, K. (2012). Greenwashing gas: might a ‘transition fuel’ label legitimize carbon-intensive natural gas development? Energy Policy, 46: 452-459. Henry 24 !   Stout, Doug. Fortis BC. Interview by Kiyomi Henry and Madeline Collins. In-person interview. Vancouver, Canada, 17 Mar. 2015.  TIAX. (2012). U.S. and Canadian natural gas vehicle market analysis: Liquefied natural gas infrastructure. TIAX.  US Department of Energy. (2015). Methanol. Alternative Fuels Data Center. Accessed 19 Feb. 2015. Retrieved from [http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/emerging_methanol.html].  US Department of Energy. (n.d.) Natural gas reforming. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Accessed 19 Feb. 2015. Retrieved from [http://energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-production-natural-gas-reforming].  Westport. (2013). CNG and LNG: what’s best for your fleet? Westport. Retrieved from [http://www.westport.com/file_library/files/webinar/2013-06-19_CNGandLNG.pdf]  Westport. (2015). Westport HPDI 2.0. Westport Power Inc. Accessed 27 Feb. 2015. Retrieved from [http://www.westport.com/is/core-technologies/hpdi-2].  Yeh, S. (2007). An empirical analysis on the adoption of alternative fuel vehicles: the case of natural gas vehicles. Energy Policy, 35: 5865-5875. Henry   25 !   Appendix A: Vehicle equipment option matrix  Table A1: Vehicle equipment option matrix Transport Vehicle type Switching (OEM) Retrofit Bi-fuel/ dual-fuel option Light-duty vehicles (Class 1 and 2) e.g. automobiles, pickups, small vans, SUVs · No oem bi-fuel passenger car ngvs in the US. (Chevrolet (GM) will begin selling a bi-fuel car later this year in the US and Canada) · Oem bi-fuel pick-up trucks available in the US and Canada from Chevrolet/GMC · 1 oem passenger car ngv in the US (Honda) · Multiple oem bi-fuel models in Europe (eg. Fiat Punto van, Fiat Multipla) · Others (Fiat Siena in Argentina and Brazil, Maruti Suzuki Celerio Green in India) Hitec Fuel Systems (e&c), CNG United (e), IMPCO (e&c), SkyCNG (e&c) · Most ldv ngvs are bi-fuel conversions · Canadian conversions are largely bi-fuel · No oem bi-fuel passenger car ngvs in the US. (Chevrolet (GM) will begin selling a bi-fuel car later this year) · Oem bi-fuel pick-up trucks available from Chevrolet/GMC · Multiple oem bi-fuel models in Europe (eg. Fiat Punto van, Fiat Multipla) · Others (Fiat Siena in Argentina and Brazil, Maruti Suzuki Celerio Green in India) · Hitec provides bi-fuel conversion systems for light vehicles · CNG United provides bi-fuel conversion systems · IMPCO provides bi-fuel conversion systems · SkyCNG provides bi-fuel conversion systems Medium-duty vehicles (Class 3-6) School buses Cummins Westport ISL G: Blue Bird, Thomas Built, El Dorado, Power Solutions Inc., Ford, General Motors Westport (e), Ecodual (e&c) Westport provides bi-fuel system, Ecodual provides dual-fuel system Urban delivery/ parcel van Greenkraft, Transtar, Ford IMPCO (e), Westport (e) IMPCO provides bi-fuel system, Westport provides bi-fuel system Heavy-duty vehicles (Class 7 and 8) Refuse trucks Cummins Westport ISX 12 G: Autocar, Freightliner, Peterbilt Cummins Westport ISL G: Crane Carrier, Mack Truck, Omnitek (e), Fyda Energy Solutions (e), American Power Group (APG) (e), Fyda Energy Solutions (dual and bi), APG (dual) Transit buses Cummins Westport ISL G: Gillig, NABI, New Flyer, Nova Bus. Omnitek (e), Chelsea, Hansen CNG, Alternative Fuel Systems !Tractor trailer Cummins Westport ISX 12 G and ISL G: Peterbilt, Navistar, Mack Trucks, Kenworth, Volvo Trucks, Hitec Fuel Systems (e), Monteagle (e), Stoops (e&c), Peake (e), Omnitek Peake (dual fuel), Monteagle (dual fuel), CNG United (CNG only or dual fuel) Hitec Fuel Systems (duel fuel conversions) Henry   26 !   !!Freightliner (e), Peterbilt, Worthington, Agility Fuel Systems (e), American Power Group (APG) (e), Agility Fuel Systems (dual fuel systems) APG (dual) Marine Ferries Wartsila (e&b), Rolls Royce (e), Mitsubishi (e), Caterpillar (e)   Austal (b), Incat (b), Remontowa (b), Seaspan (b), Davie (b), Meyer Turku Oy (b), Sedef (b), Fincantieri (b), STX France (c), Wartsila (e&c), Remontowa (c) Wartsila provides dual fuel system, Caterpillar provides dual fuel system Locomotives !* Caterpillar & GE (joint engine prototype currently being deployed) * EMD * Energy Conversions (e), Westport (e), EMD (c), Caterpillar (e) * Energy Conversions provides bi-fuel and dual fuel systems, Westport & Caterpillar and EMD provide a dual fuel system * Caterpillar & GE (joint prototype engine currently being deployed) Indoor machines Forklifts Toyota, Yale, Linde IMPCO (e), Alternative Fuel Systems (e) !(e)- equipment; (c)- conversion services; (b)- builders Sourced from company websites and reports. Henry   27 !   Appendix B: Economic analysis Table B1: Cost of conversion, fuel efficiency, base fuel cost, and alternative fuel (NG) cost assumptions !  Light vehicle Medium vehicle (Delivery Van) Medium vehicle (School bus) Medium vehicle (Refuse truck) Medium vehicle (Transit bus)   Heavy vehicle   Marine (Ferry)    Locomotive !!!!!!!!!Cost of conversion  8000  12000  39000  38000  60000  63000  50000000  1300000 Fuel efficiency 12 3 2 1 1 1 0.008 180 Base fuel cost 1.35 1.45 1.45 1.45 1.45 1.45 1.45 1.45 Alternative fuel cost  0.8  0.88  0.88  0.88  0.88  0.88  0.8  0.8 Fuel price difference  0.55  0.57  0.57  0.57  0.57  0.57  0.65  0.65 Numbers calculated based on various sources: AccuVal-LiquiTec. (2013, Oct). Natural gas fuel: the cheaper, cleaner trucking solution? Gordon Brothers Accuval. Retrieved from [http://www.accuval.net/insights/industryinsights/detail.php?ID=200]; Austin, M. (2012, Mar). 2012 Honda Civic natural gas. Car and Driver. Retrieved from [http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2012-honda-civic-natural-gas-test-review]; BC Gas Prices. (2015). Historical Price Charts. BCGasPrices.com. Retrieved from [http://www.bcgasprices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx]; Bouabdellaoui, L., Davis, K., Ejiofor, C., Gould, K., Grodsinsky, S., Johnson, A., Johnson, M., Kuvelker, J., Larkin, S., Levinson, S., Medeiros, Z., Murby, D., Muzi, B., Rajaram, B., Shang, K., Sung, A., Urena, E., Wang, S., Watson, F., Winslow, S. (2012). What are the prospects for natural gas vehicles in the Pittsburgh region? EPP/ SDS Project Report.; Center for Transportation Analysis Research Areas. (n.d.). Data collection for Class-8 long-haul operations and fuel economy analysis. Center for Transportation Analysis, Oak Ridge National Laboratory.; Clarke, S., DeBruyn, J. (2012). Vehicle conversion to natural gas or biogas. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Ontario.; CNG Prices. (n.d.). The CNGPrices Map. Retrieved from [http://www.cngprices.com/station_map.php]; CSX. (n.d.). Fuel efficiency. About CSX. [http://www.csx.com/index.cfm/about-csx/projects-and-partnerships/fuel-efficiency/]; Harris, J. (2009, Aug 6). Taking the high road with the fuel-friendly Prius. National Post. Retrieved from [http://www.nationalpost.com/Taking+high+road+with+fuel+friendly+Prius/1866056/story.html#   federated=1]; Jackson, T. (2013, Apr 1). Does it pay for contractors to run a truck or fleet on natural gas? Equipment World. Retrieved from [http://www.equipmentworld.com/does-it-pay- for-contractors-to-run-a-truck-or-fleet-on-natural-gas/]; Macleod, A. (2008, Nov 25). BC Ferries’ fuel records show how much new vessels guzzle. The Tyee. Retrieved from [http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/Transportation/2008/11/25/GuzzleFerry/]; Menzies, J. (200, Jul 1). New Purolator fully-electric delivery truck to hit the streets. Trucknews.com. Retrieved from [http://www.trucknews.com/features/new-purolator-fully-electric-delivery-truck-to-hit-the-streets/]; NR Can. (2015). Fuel consumption ratings search tool. Natural Resources Canada. Retrieved from [http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/fcr-rcf/public/index- e.cfm?submitted=true&sort=overall_rank&searchbox=&year=2015&class=all&make=FORD&model=all&trans=all&FT=all&cylinders=all&unit=0&onSearchL ink=#1&pageSize=10&btnSearch=Search%23aSearch]; Railway Association of Canada. (2011). 2011 Rail Trends. The Railway Association of Canada.; Ship & Bunker. (2014, Jul. 18). LNG retrofits planned for Canadian ferries. Ship & Bunker. Retrieved from [http://shipandbunker.com/news/am/605288-lng- retrofits-planned-for-canadian-ferries]; Tita, B. (2014, Aug. 25). Slow going for natural-gas powered trucks. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from [http://www.wsj.com/articles/natural-gas-trucks-struggle-to-gain-traction-1408995745]; Voelcker, J. (2013, May 17). Another convert to natural-gas refueling: railroad locomotives? Green Car Reports. Retrieved from [http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1084235_another-convert-to-natural-gas-fueling-railroad- locomotives]. (DLE is assumed to be approximately 10% more expensive than GLE. Henry   28 !   Table B2: Distance travelled assumptions Average distance travelled !!Personal automobile 18000 km Taxi 120000 km Delivery vehicle 40000 km School bus 20000 km Refuse truck 65000 km Transit bus 70000 km Class 8 truck 150000 km Ferry 70000 nautical miles Locomotive 116000 thousand tonne kilometres Numbers calculated based on various sources: Cato, J. (2010, Sep. 2). The real cost of car ownership. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from [http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/news/the-real-cost-of-car-ownership/article1378882/]; Harris, J. (2009, Aug 6). Taking the high road with the fuel-friendly Prius. National Post. Retrieved from [http://www.nationalpost.com/Taking+high+road+with+fuel+friendly+Prius/1866056/story.html# federated=1]; Macleod, A. (2008, Nov. 25). BC Ferries’ fuel records show how much new vessels guzzle. The Tyee. Retrieved from [http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/Transportation/2008/11/25/GuzzleFerry/]; NR Can. (2015). Fuel efficiency benchmarking in Canada’s trucking industry. Natural Resources Canada. Retrieved from [http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/efficiency/transportation/commercial-vehicles/reports/7607]; Railway Association of Canada. (2011). 2011 Rail Trends. The Railway Association of Canada.; Sondhi, K. (2011, Aug 24). The wheels on the truck. FedEx Blog. Retrieved from [http://about.van.fedex.com/blog/the-wheels- on-the-trucks/]; U.S. Department of Transportation. (n.d.). Highway Statistics 2011. Federal Highway Administration. Retrieved from [http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2011/]. Total savings were calculated for each vehicle type given these assumptions. Payback occurs where (discounted) cash saved equals up front investment, and were found based on total savings. Henry   29 !   Table B3: Total savings outputs Distance travelled Total savings !!!!!!!!  Light vehicle Medium vehicle (Delivery Van)  Medium vehicle (School bus)  Medium vehicle (Refuse truck)  Medium vehicle (Transit bus)   Heavy vehicle   Marine (Ferry)    Locomotive !!!!!!!!!1,000 46 190 285 570 570 570 81,250 3,611 2,000 92 380 570 1,140 1,140 1,140 162,500 7,222 3,000 138 570 855 1,710 1,710 1,710 243,750 10,833 4,000 183 760 1,140 2,280 2,280 2,280 325,000 14,444 5,000 229 950 1,425 2,850 2,850 2,850 406,250 18,056 6,000 275 1,140 1,710 3,420 3,420 3,420 487,500 21,667 7,000 321 1,330 1,995 3,990 3,990 3,990 568,750 25,278 8,000 367 1,520 2,280 4,560 4,560 4,560 650,000 28,889 9,000 413 1,710 2,565 5,130 5,130 5,130 731,250 32,500 10,000 458 1,900 2,850 5,700 5,700 5,700 812,500 36,111 11,000 504 2,090 3,135 6,270 6,270 6,270 893,750 39,722 12,000 550 2,280 3,420 6,840 6,840 6,840 975,000 43,333 13,000 596 2,470 3,705 7,410 7,410 7,410 1,056,250 46,944 14,000 642 2,660 3,990 7,980 7,980 7,980 1,137,500 50,556 15,000 688 2,850 4,275 8,550 8,550 8,550 1,218,750 54,167 16,000 733 3,040 4,560 9,120 9,120 9,120 1,300,000 57,778 17,000 779 3,230 4,845 9,690 9,690 9,690 1,381,250 61,389 18,000 825 3,420 5,130 10,260 10,260 10,260 1,462,500 65,000 19,000 871 3,610 5,415 10,830 10,830 10,830 1,543,750 68,611 20,000 917 3,800 5,700 11,400 11,400 11,400 1,625,000 72,222 21,000 963 3,990 5,985 11,970 11,970 11,970 1,706,250 75,833 22,000 1,008 4,180 6,270 12,540 12,540 12,540 1,787,500 79,444 23,000 1,054 4,370 6,555 13,110 13,110 13,110 1,868,750 83,056 Henry   30 !   24,000 1,100 4,560 6,840 13,680 13,680 13,680 1,950,000 86,667 25,000 1,146 4,750 7,125 14,250 14,250 14,250 2,031,250 90,278 26,000 1,192 4,940 7,410 14,820 14,820 14,820 2,112,500 93,889 27,000 1,238 5,130 7,695 15,390 15,390 15,390 2,193,750 97,500 28,000 1,283 5,320 7,980 15,960 15,960 15,960 2,275,000 101,111 29,000 1,329 5,510 8,265 16,530 16,530 16,530 2,356,250 104,722 30,000 1,375 5,700 8,550 17,100 17,100 17,100 2,437,500 108,333 31,000 1,421 5,890 8,835 17,670 17,670 17,670 2,518,750 111,944 32,000 1,467 6,080 9,120 18,240 18,240 18,240 2,600,000 115,556 33,000 1,513 6,270 9,405 18,810 18,810 18,810 2,681,250 119,167 34,000 1,558 6,460 9,690 19,380 19,380 19,380 2,762,500 122,778 35,000 1,604 6,650 9,975 19,950 19,950 19,950 2,843,750 126,389 36,000 1,650 6,840 10,260 20,520 20,520 20,520 2,925,000 130,000 37,000 1,696 7,030 10,545 21,090 21,090 21,090 3,006,250 133,611 38,000 1,742 7,220 10,830 21,660 21,660 21,660 3,087,500 137,222 39,000 1,788 7,410 11,115 22,230 22,230 22,230 3,168,750 140,833 40,000 1,833 7,600 11,400 22,800 22,800 22,800 3,250,000 144,444 41,000 1,879 7,790 11,685 23,370 23,370 23,370 3,331,250 148,056 42,000 1,925 7,980 11,970 23,940 23,940 23,940 3,412,500 151,667 43,000 1,971 8,170 12,255 24,510 24,510 24,510 3,493,750 155,278 44,000 2,017 8,360 12,540 25,080 25,080 25,080 3,575,000 158,889 45,000 2,063 8,550 12,825 25,650 25,650 25,650 3,656,250 162,500 46,000 2,108 8,740 13,110 26,220 26,220 26,220 3,737,500 166,111 47,000 2,154 8,930 13,395 26,790 26,790 26,790 3,818,750 169,722 48,000 2,200 9,120 13,680 27,360 27,360 27,360 3,900,000 173,333 49,000 2,246 9,310 13,965 27,930 27,930 27,930 3,981,250 176,944 50,000 2,292 9,500 14,250 28,500 28,500 28,500 4,062,500 180,556 51,000 2,338 9,690 14,535 29,070 29,070 29,070 4,143,750 184,167 52,000 2,383 9,880 14,820 29,640 29,640 29,640 4,225,000 187,778 53,000 2,429 10,070 15,105 30,210 30,210 30,210 4,306,250 191,389 Henry   31 !   54,000 2,475 10,260 15,390 30,780 30,780 30,780 4,387,500 195,000 55,000 2,521 10,450 15,675 31,350 31,350 31,350 4,468,750 198,611 56,000 2,567 10,640 15,960 31,920 31,920 31,920 4,550,000 202,222 57,000 2,613 10,830 16,245 32,490 32,490 32,490 4,631,250 205,833 58,000 2,658 11,020 16,530 33,060 33,060 33,060 4,712,500 209,444 59,000 2,704 11,210 16,815 33,630 33,630 33,630 4,793,750 213,056 60,000 2,750 11,400 17,100 34,200 34,200 34,200 4,875,000 216,667 61,000 2,796 11,590 17,385 34,770 34,770 34,770 4,956,250 220,278 62,000 2,842 11,780 17,670 35,340 35,340 35,340 5,037,500 223,889 63,000 2,888 11,970 17,955 35,910 35,910 35,910 5,118,750 227,500 64,000 2,933 12,160 18,240 36,480 36,480 36,480 5,200,000 231,111 65,000 2,979 12,350 18,525 37,050 37,050 37,050 5,281,250 234,722 66,000 3,025 12,540 18,810 37,620 37,620 37,620 5,362,500 238,333 67,000 3,071 12,730 19,095 38,190 38,190 38,190 5,443,750 241,944 68,000 3,117 12,920 19,380 38,760 38,760 38,760 5,525,000 245,556 69,000 3,163 13,110 19,665 39,330 39,330 39,330 5,606,250 249,167 70,000 3,208 13,300 19,950 39,900 39,900 39,900 5,687,500 252,778 71,000 3,254 13,490 20,235 40,470 40,470 40,470 5,768,750 256,389 72,000 3,300 13,680 20,520 41,040 41,040 41,040 5,850,000 260,000 73,000 3,346 13,870 20,805 41,610 41,610 41,610 5,931,250 263,611 74,000 3,392 14,060 21,090 42,180 42,180 42,180 6,012,500 267,222 75,000 3,438 14,250 21,375 42,750 42,750 42,750 6,093,750 270,833 76,000 3,483 14,440 21,660 43,320 43,320 43,320 6,175,000 274,444 77,000 3,529 14,630 21,945 43,890 43,890 43,890 6,256,250 278,056 78,000 3,575 14,820 22,230 44,460 44,460 44,460 6,337,500 281,667 79,000 3,621 15,010 22,515 45,030 45,030 45,030 6,418,750 285,278 80,000 3,667 15,200 22,800 45,600 45,600 45,600 6,500,000 288,889 81,000 3,713 15,390 23,085 46,170 46,170 46,170 6,581,250 292,500 82,000 3,758 15,580 23,370 46,740 46,740 46,740 6,662,500 296,111 83,000 3,804 15,770 23,655 47,310 47,310 47,310 6,743,750 299,722 Henry   32 !   84,000 3,850 15,960 23,940 47,880 47,880 47,880 6,825,000 303,333 85,000 3,896 16,150 24,225 48,450 48,450 48,450 6,906,250 306,944 86,000 3,942 16,340 24,510 49,020 49,020 49,020 6,987,500 310,556 87,000 3,988 16,530 24,795 49,590 49,590 49,590 7,068,750 314,167 88,000 4,033 16,720 25,080 50,160 50,160 50,160 7,150,000 317,778 89,000 4,079 16,910 25,365 50,730 50,730 50,730 7,231,250 321,389 90,000 4,125 17,100 25,650 51,300 51,300 51,300 7,312,500 325,000 91,000 4,171 17,290 25,935 51,870 51,870 51,870 7,393,750 328,611 92,000 4,217 17,480 26,220 52,440 52,440 52,440 7,475,000 332,222 93,000 4,263 17,670 26,505 53,010 53,010 53,010 7,556,250 335,833 94,000 4,308 17,860 26,790 53,580 53,580 53,580 7,637,500 339,444 95,000 4,354 18,050 27,075 54,150 54,150 54,150 7,718,750 343,056 96,000 4,400 18,240 27,360 54,720 54,720 54,720 7,800,000 346,667 97,000 4,446 18,430 27,645 55,290 55,290 55,290 7,881,250 350,278 98,000 4,492 18,620 27,930 55,860 55,860 55,860 7,962,500 353,889 99,000 4,538 18,810 28,215 56,430 56,430 56,430 8,043,750 357,500 100,000 4,583 19,000 28,500 57,000 57,000 57,000 8,125,000 361,111 101,000 4,629 19,190 28,785 57,570 57,570 57,570 8,206,250 364,722 102,000 4,675 19,380 29,070 58,140 58,140 58,140 8,287,500 368,333 103,000 4,721 19,570 29,355 58,710 58,710 58,710 8,368,750 371,944 104,000 4,767 19,760 29,640 59,280 59,280 59,280 8,450,000 375,556 105,000 4,813 19,950 29,925 59,850 59,850 59,850 8,531,250 379,167 106,000 4,858 20,140 30,210 60,420 60,420 60,420 8,612,500 382,778 107,000 4,904 20,330 30,495 60,990 60,990 60,990 8,693,750 386,389 108,000 4,950 20,520 30,780 61,560 61,560 61,560 8,775,000 390,000 109,000 4,996 20,710 31,065 62,130 62,130 62,130 8,856,250 393,611 110,000 5,042 20,900 31,350 62,700 62,700 62,700 8,937,500 397,222 111,000 5,088 21,090 31,635 63,270 63,270 63,270 9,018,750 400,833 112,000 5,133 21,280 31,920 63,840 63,840 63,840 9,100,000 404,444 113,000 5,179 21,470 32,205 64,410 64,410 64,410 9,181,250 408,056 Henry   33 !   114,000 5,225 21,660 32,490 64,980 64,980 64,980 9,262,500 411,667 115,000 5,271 21,850 32,775 65,550 65,550 65,550 9,343,750 415,278 116,000 5,317 22,040 33,060 66,120 66,120 66,120 9,425,000 418,889 117,000 5,363 22,230 33,345 66,690 66,690 66,690 9,506,250 422,500 118,000 5,408 22,420 33,630 67,260 67,260 67,260 9,587,500 426,111 119,000 5,454 22,610 33,915 67,830 67,830 67,830 9,668,750 429,722 120,000 5,500 22,800 34,200 68,400 68,400 68,400 9,750,000 433,333 121,000 5,546 22,990 34,485 68,970 68,970 68,970 9,831,250 436,944 122,000 5,592 23,180 34,770 69,540 69,540 69,540 9,912,500 440,556 123,000 5,638 23,370 35,055 70,110 70,110 70,110 9,993,750 444,167 124,000 5,683 23,560 35,340 70,680 70,680 70,680 10,075,000 447,778 125,000 5,729 23,750 35,625 71,250 71,250 71,250 10,156,250 451,389 126,000 5,775 23,940 35,910 71,820 71,820 71,820 10,237,500 455,000 127,000 5,821 24,130 36,195 72,390 72,390 72,390 10,318,750 458,611 128,000 5,867 24,320 36,480 72,960 72,960 72,960 10,400,000 462,222 129,000 5,913 24,510 36,765 73,530 73,530 73,530 10,481,250 465,833 130,000 5,958 24,700 37,050 74,100 74,100 74,100 10,562,500 469,444 131,000 6,004 24,890 37,335 74,670 74,670 74,670 10,643,750 473,056 132,000 6,050 25,080 37,620 75,240 75,240 75,240 10,725,000 476,667 133,000 6,096 25,270 37,905 75,810 75,810 75,810 10,806,250 480,278 134,000 6,142 25,460 38,190 76,380 76,380 76,380 10,887,500 483,889 135,000 6,188 25,650 38,475 76,950 76,950 76,950 10,968,750 487,500 136,000 6,233 25,840 38,760 77,520 77,520 77,520 11,050,000 491,111 137,000 6,279 26,030 39,045 78,090 78,090 78,090 11,131,250 494,722 138,000 6,325 26,220 39,330 78,660 78,660 78,660 11,212,500 498,333 139,000 6,371 26,410 39,615 79,230 79,230 79,230 11,293,750 501,944 140,000 6,417 26,600 39,900 79,800 79,800 79,800 11,375,000 505,556 141,000 6,463 26,790 40,185 80,370 80,370 80,370 11,456,250 509,167 142,000 6,508 26,980 40,470 80,940 80,940 80,940 11,537,500 512,778 143,000 6,554 27,170 40,755 81,510 81,510 81,510 11,618,750 516,389 Henry   34 !   144,000 6,600 27,360 41,040 82,080 82,080 82,080 11,700,000 520,000 145,000 6,646 27,550 41,325 82,650 82,650 82,650 11,781,250 523,611 146,000 6,692 27,740 41,610 83,220 83,220 83,220 11,862,500 527,222 147,000 6,738 27,930 41,895 83,790 83,790 83,790 11,943,750 530,833 148,000 6,783 28,120 42,180 84,360 84,360 84,360 12,025,000 534,444 149,000 6,829 28,310 42,465 84,930 84,930 84,930 12,106,250 538,056 150,000 6,875 28,500 42,750 85,500 85,500 85,500 12,187,500 541,667 151,000 6,921 28,690 43,035 86,070 86,070 86,070 12,268,750 545,278 152,000 6,967 28,880 43,320 86,640 86,640 86,640 12,350,000 548,889 153,000 7,013 29,070 43,605 87,210 87,210 87,210 12,431,250 552,500 154,000 7,058 29,260 43,890 87,780 87,780 87,780 12,512,500 556,111 155,000 7,104 29,450 44,175 88,350 88,350 88,350 12,593,750 559,722 156,000 7,150 29,640 44,460 88,920 88,920 88,920 12,675,000 563,333 157,000 7,196 29,830 44,745 89,490 89,490 89,490 12,756,250 566,944 158,000 7,242 30,020 45,030 90,060 90,060 90,060 12,837,500 570,556 159,000 7,288 30,210 45,315 90,630 90,630 90,630 12,918,750 574,167 160,000 7,333 30,400 45,600 91,200 91,200 91,200 13,000,000 577,778 161,000 7,379 30,590 45,885 91,770 91,770 91,770 13,081,250 581,389 162,000 7,425 30,780 46,170 92,340 92,340 92,340 13,162,500 585,000 163,000 7,471 30,970 46,455 92,910 92,910 92,910 13,243,750 588,611 164,000 7,517 31,160 46,740 93,480 93,480 93,480 13,325,000 592,222 165,000 7,563 31,350 47,025 94,050 94,050 94,050 13,406,250 595,833 166,000 7,608 31,540 47,310 94,620 94,620 94,620 13,487,500 599,444 167,000 7,654 31,730 47,595 95,190 95,190 95,190 13,568,750 603,056 168,000 7,700 31,920 47,880 95,760 95,760 95,760 13,650,000 606,667 169,000 7,746 32,110 48,165 96,330 96,330 96,330 13,731,250 610,278 170,000 7,792 32,300 48,450 96,900 96,900 96,900 13,812,500 613,889 171,000 7,838 32,490 48,735 97,470 97,470 97,470 13,893,750 617,500 172,000 7,883 32,680 49,020 98,040 98,040 98,040 13,975,000 621,111 173,000 7,929 32,870 49,305 98,610 98,610 98,610 14,056,250 624,722 Henry   35 !   174,000 7,975 33,060 49,590 99,180 99,180 99,180 14,137,500 628,333 175,000 8,021 33,250 49,875 99,750 99,750 99,750 14,218,750 631,944 176,000 8,067 33,440 50,160 100,320 100,320 100,320 14,300,000 635,556 177,000 8,113 33,630 50,445 100,890 100,890 100,890 14,381,250 639,167 Highlighted- Cash saved= upfront investment.  Table B4: Paybacks calculated Distance travelled  Payback !!!!!!!! Light vehicle Medium vehicle (Delivery Van) Medium vehicle (School bus) Medium vehicle (Refuse truck) Medium vehicle (Transit bus)  Heavy vehicle  Marine (Ferry)   Locomotive !!!!!!!!!1000 174.55 63.16 136.84 66.67 105.26 110.53 615.38 360.00 2000 87.27 31.58 68.42 33.33 52.63 55.26 307.69 180.00 3000 58.18 21.05 45.61 22.22 35.09 36.84 205.13 120.00 4000 43.64 15.79 34.21 16.67 26.32 27.63 153.85 90.00 5000 34.91 12.63 27.37 13.33 21.05 22.11 123.08 72.00 6000 29.09 10.53 22.81 11.11 17.54 18.42 102.56 60.00 7000 24.94 9.02 19.55 9.52 15.04 15.79 87.91 51.43 8000 21.82 7.89 17.11 8.33 13.16 13.82 76.92 45.00 9000 19.39 7.02 15.20 7.41 11.70 12.28 68.38 40.00 10000 17.45 6.32 13.68 6.67 10.53 11.05 61.54 36.00 11000 15.87 5.74 12.44 6.06 9.57 10.05 55.94 32.73 12000 14.55 5.26 11.40 5.56 8.77 9.21 51.28 30.00 13000 13.43 4.86 10.53 5.13 8.10 8.50 47.34 27.69 14000 12.47 4.51 9.77 4.76 7.52 7.89 43.96 25.71 15000 11.64 4.21 9.12 4.44 7.02 7.37 41.03 24.00 16000 10.91 3.95 8.55 4.17 6.58 6.91 38.46 22.50 17000 10.27 3.72 8.05 3.92 6.19 6.50 36.20 21.18 18000 9.70 3.51 7.60 3.70 5.85 6.14 34.19 20.00 19000 9.19 3.32 7.20 3.51 5.54 5.82 32.39 18.95 Henry   36 !   20000 8.73 3.16 6.84 3.33 5.26 5.53 30.77 18.00 21000 8.31 3.01 6.52 3.17 5.01 5.26 29.30 17.14 22000 7.93 2.87 6.22 3.03 4.78 5.02 27.97 16.36 23000 7.59 2.75 5.95 2.90 4.58 4.81 26.76 15.65 24000 7.27 2.63 5.70 2.78 4.39 4.61 25.64 15.00 25000 6.98 2.53 5.47 2.67 4.21 4.42 24.62 14.40 26000 6.71 2.43 5.26 2.56 4.05 4.25 23.67 13.85 27000 6.46 2.34 5.07 2.47 3.90 4.09 22.79 13.33 28000 6.23 2.26 4.89 2.38 3.76 3.95 21.98 12.86 29000 6.02 2.18 4.72 2.30 3.63 3.81 21.22 12.41 30000 5.82 2.11 4.56 2.22 3.51 3.68 20.51 12.00 31000 5.63 2.04 4.41 2.15 3.40 3.57 19.85 11.61 32000 5.45 1.97 4.28 2.08 3.29 3.45 19.23 11.25 33000 5.29 1.91 4.15 2.02 3.19 3.35 18.65 10.91 34000 5.13 1.86 4.02 1.96 3.10 3.25 18.10 10.59 35000 4.99 1.80 3.91 1.90 3.01 3.16 17.58 10.29 36000 4.85 1.75 3.80 1.85 2.92 3.07 17.09 10.00 37000 4.72 1.71 3.70 1.80 2.84 2.99 16.63 9.73 38000 4.59 1.66 3.60 1.75 2.77 2.91 16.19 9.47 39000 4.48 1.62 3.51 1.71 2.70 2.83 15.78 9.23 40000 4.36 1.58 3.42 1.67 2.63 2.76 15.38 9.00 41000 4.26 1.54 3.34 1.63 2.57 2.70 15.01 8.78 42000 4.16 1.50 3.26 1.59 2.51 2.63 14.65 8.57 43000 4.06 1.47 3.18 1.55 2.45 2.57 14.31 8.37 44000 3.97 1.44 3.11 1.52 2.39 2.51 13.99 8.18 45000 3.88 1.40 3.04 1.48 2.34 2.46 13.68 8.00 46000 3.79 1.37 2.97 1.45 2.29 2.40 13.38 7.83 47000 3.71 1.34 2.91 1.42 2.24 2.35 13.09 7.66 48000 3.64 1.32 2.85 1.39 2.19 2.30 12.82 7.50 49000 3.56 1.29 2.79 1.36 2.15 2.26 12.56 7.35 Henry   37 !   50000 3.49 1.26 2.74 1.33 2.11 2.21 12.31 7.20 51000 3.42 1.24 2.68 1.31 2.06 2.17 12.07 7.06 52000 3.36 1.21 2.63 1.28 2.02 2.13 11.83 6.92 53000 3.29 1.19 2.58 1.26 1.99 2.09 11.61 6.79 54000 3.23 1.17 2.53 1.23 1.95 2.05 11.40 6.67 55000 3.17 1.15 2.49 1.21 1.91 2.01 11.19 6.55 56000 3.12 1.13 2.44 1.19 1.88 1.97 10.99 6.43 57000 3.06 1.11 2.40 1.17 1.85 1.94 10.80 6.32 58000 3.01 1.09 2.36 1.15 1.81 1.91 10.61 6.21 59000 2.96 1.07 2.32 1.13 1.78 1.87 10.43 6.10 60000 2.91 1.05 2.28 1.11 1.75 1.84 10.26 6.00 61000 2.86 1.04 2.24 1.09 1.73 1.81 10.09 5.90 62000 2.82 1.02 2.21 1.08 1.70 1.78 9.93 5.81 63000 2.77 1.00 2.17 1.06 1.67 1.75 9.77 5.71 64000 2.73 0.99 2.14 1.04 1.64 1.73 9.62 5.63 65000 2.69 0.97 2.11 1.03 1.62 1.70 9.47 5.54 66000 2.64 0.96 2.07 1.01 1.59 1.67 9.32 5.45 67000 2.61 0.94 2.04 1.00 1.57 1.65 9.18 5.37 68000 2.57 0.93 2.01 0.98 1.55 1.63 9.05 5.29 69000 2.53 0.92 1.98 0.97 1.53 1.60 8.92 5.22 70000 2.49 0.90 1.95 0.95 1.50 1.58 8.79 5.14 71000 2.46 0.89 1.93 0.94 1.48 1.56 8.67 5.07 72000 2.42 0.88 1.90 0.93 1.46 1.54 8.55 5.00 73000 2.39 0.87 1.87 0.91 1.44 1.51 8.43 4.93 74000 2.36 0.85 1.85 0.90 1.42 1.49 8.32 4.86 75000 2.33 0.84 1.82 0.89 1.40 1.47 8.21 4.80 76000 2.30 0.83 1.80 0.88 1.39 1.45 8.10 4.74 77000 2.27 0.82 1.78 0.87 1.37 1.44 7.99 4.68 78000 2.24 0.81 1.75 0.85 1.35 1.42 7.89 4.62 79000 2.21 0.80 1.73 0.84 1.33 1.40 7.79 4.56 Henry   38 !   80000 2.18 0.79 1.71 0.83 1.32 1.38 7.69 4.50 81000 2.15 0.78 1.69 0.82 1.30 1.36 7.60 4.44 82000 2.13 0.77 1.67 0.81 1.28 1.35 7.50 4.39 83000 2.10 0.76 1.65 0.80 1.27 1.33 7.41 4.34 84000 2.08 0.75 1.63 0.79 1.25 1.32 7.33 4.29 85000 2.05 0.74 1.61 0.78 1.24 1.30 7.24 4.24 86000 2.03 0.73 1.59 0.78 1.22 1.29 7.16 4.19 87000 2.01 0.73 1.57 0.77 1.21 1.27 7.07 4.14 88000 1.98 0.72 1.56 0.76 1.20 1.26 6.99 4.09 89000 1.96 0.71 1.54 0.75 1.18 1.24 6.91 4.04 90000 1.94 0.70 1.52 0.74 1.17 1.23 6.84 4.00 91000 1.92 0.69 1.50 0.73 1.16 1.21 6.76 3.96 92000 1.90 0.69 1.49 0.72 1.14 1.20 6.69 3.91 93000 1.88 0.68 1.47 0.72 1.13 1.19 6.62 3.87 94000 1.86 0.67 1.46 0.71 1.12 1.18 6.55 3.83 95000 1.84 0.66 1.44 0.70 1.11 1.16 6.48 3.79 96000 1.82 0.66 1.43 0.69 1.10 1.15 6.41 3.75 97000 1.80 0.65 1.41 0.69 1.09 1.14 6.34 3.71 98000 1.78 0.64 1.40 0.68 1.07 1.13 6.28 3.67 99000 1.76 0.64 1.38 0.67 1.06 1.12 6.22 3.64 100000 1.75 0.63 1.37 0.67 1.05 1.11 6.15 3.60 101000 1.73 0.63 1.35 0.66 1.04 1.09 6.09 3.56 102000 1.71 0.62 1.34 0.65 1.03 1.08 6.03 3.53 103000 1.69 0.61 1.33 0.65 1.02 1.07 5.97 3.50 104000 1.68 0.61 1.32 0.64 1.01 1.06 5.92 3.46 105000 1.66 0.60 1.30 0.63 1.00 1.05 5.86 3.43 106000 1.65 0.60 1.29 0.63 0.99 1.04 5.81 3.40 107000 1.63 0.59 1.28 0.62 0.98 1.03 5.75 3.36 108000 1.62 0.58 1.27 0.62 0.97 1.02 5.70 3.33 109000 1.60 0.58 1.26 0.61 0.97 1.01 5.65 3.30 Henry   39 !   110000 1.59 0.57 1.24 0.61 0.96 1.00 5.59 3.27 111000 1.57 0.57 1.23 0.60 0.95 1.00 5.54 3.24 112000 1.56 0.56 1.22 0.60 0.94 0.99 5.49 3.21 113000 1.54 0.56 1.21 0.59 0.93 0.98 5.45 3.19 114000 1.53 0.55 1.20 0.58 0.92 0.97 5.40 3.16 115000 1.52 0.55 1.19 0.58 0.92 0.96 5.35 3.13 116000 1.50 0.54 1.18 0.57 0.91 0.95 5.31 3.10 117000 1.49 0.54 1.17 0.57 0.90 0.94 5.26 3.08 118000 1.48 0.54 1.16 0.56 0.89 0.94 5.22 3.05 119000 1.47 0.53 1.15 0.56 0.88 0.93 5.17 3.03 120000 1.45 0.53 1.14 0.56 0.88 0.92 5.13 3.00 121000 1.44 0.52 1.13 0.55 0.87 0.91 5.09 2.98 122000 1.43 0.52 1.12 0.55 0.86 0.91 5.04 2.95 123000 1.42 0.51 1.11 0.54 0.86 0.90 5.00 2.93 124000 1.41 0.51 1.10 0.54 0.85 0.89 4.96 2.90 125000 1.40 0.51 1.09 0.53 0.84 0.88 4.92 2.88 126000 1.39 0.50 1.09 0.53 0.84 0.88 4.88 2.86 127000 1.37 0.50 1.08 0.52 0.83 0.87 4.85 2.83 128000 1.36 0.49 1.07 0.52 0.82 0.86 4.81 2.81 129000 1.35 0.49 1.06 0.52 0.82 0.86 4.77 2.79 130000 1.34 0.49 1.05 0.51 0.81 0.85 4.73 2.77 131000 1.33 0.48 1.04 0.51 0.80 0.84 4.70 2.75 132000 1.32 0.48 1.04 0.51 0.80 0.84 4.66 2.73 133000 1.31 0.47 1.03 0.50 0.79 0.83 4.63 2.71 134000 1.30 0.47 1.02 0.50 0.79 0.82 4.59 2.69 135000 1.29 0.47 1.01 0.49 0.78 0.82 4.56 2.67 136000 1.28 0.46 1.01 0.49 0.77 0.81 4.52 2.65 137000 1.27 0.46 1.00 0.49 0.77 0.81 4.49 2.63 138000 1.26 0.46 0.99 0.48 0.76 0.80 4.46 2.61 139000 1.26 0.45 0.98 0.48 0.76 0.80 4.43 2.59 Henry   40 !   140000 1.25 0.45 0.98 0.48 0.75 0.79 4.40 2.57 141000 1.24 0.45 0.97 0.47 0.75 0.78 4.36 2.55 142000 1.23 0.44 0.96 0.47 0.74 0.78 4.33 2.54 143000 1.22 0.44 0.96 0.47 0.74 0.77 4.30 2.52 144000 1.21 0.44 0.95 0.46 0.73 0.77 4.27 2.50 145000 1.20 0.44 0.94 0.46 0.73 0.76 4.24 2.48 146000 1.20 0.43 0.94 0.46 0.72 0.76 4.21 2.47 147000 1.19 0.43 0.93 0.45 0.72 0.75 4.19 2.45 148000 1.18 0.43 0.92 0.45 0.71 0.75 4.16 2.43 149000 1.17 0.42 0.92 0.45 0.71 0.74 4.13 2.42 150000 1.16 0.42 0.91 0.44 0.70 0.74 4.10 2.40 151000 1.16 0.42 0.91 0.44 0.70 0.73 4.08 2.38 152000 1.15 0.42 0.90 0.44 0.69 0.73 4.05 2.37 153000 1.14 0.41 0.89 0.44 0.69 0.72 4.02 2.35 154000 1.13 0.41 0.89 0.43 0.68 0.72 4.00 2.34 155000 1.13 0.41 0.88 0.43 0.68 0.71 3.97 2.32 156000 1.12 0.40 0.88 0.43 0.67 0.71 3.94 2.31 157000 1.11 0.40 0.87 0.42 0.67 0.70 3.92 2.29 158000 1.10 0.40 0.87 0.42 0.67 0.70 3.89 2.28 159000 1.10 0.40 0.86 0.42 0.66 0.70 3.87 2.26 160000 1.09 0.39 0.86 0.42 0.66 0.69 3.85 2.25 161000 1.08 0.39 0.85 0.41 0.65 0.69 3.82 2.24 162000 1.08 0.39 0.84 0.41 0.65 0.68 3.80 2.22 163000 1.07 0.39 0.84 0.41 0.65 0.68 3.78 2.21 164000 1.06 0.39 0.83 0.41 0.64 0.67 3.75 2.20 165000 1.06 0.38 0.83 0.40 0.64 0.67 3.73 2.18 166000 1.05 0.38 0.82 0.40 0.63 0.67 3.71 2.17 167000 1.05 0.38 0.82 0.40 0.63 0.66 3.68 2.16 168000 1.04 0.38 0.81 0.40 0.63 0.66 3.66 2.14 169000 1.03 0.37 0.81 0.39 0.62 0.65 3.64 2.13 Henry   41 !   170000 1.03 0.37 0.80 0.39 0.62 0.65 3.62 2.12 171000 1.02 0.37 0.80 0.39 0.62 0.65 3.60 2.11 172000 1.01 0.37 0.80 0.39 0.61 0.64 3.58 2.09 173000 1.01 0.37 0.79 0.39 0.61 0.64 3.56 2.08 174000 1.00 0.36 0.79 0.38 0.60 0.64 3.54 2.07 175000 1.00 0.36 0.78 0.38 0.60 0.63 3.52 2.06 176000 0.99 0.36 0.78 0.38 0.60 0.63 3.50 2.05 177000 0.99 0.36 0.77 0.38 0.59 0.62 3.48 2.03 Highlighted- Payback based on distance travelled assumption. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

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"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.52966.1-0103563/manifest

Comment

Related Items