February Question of the Month: What are Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs), and how are they generated, transferred, and traded?
Answer: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses the RIN as a unit for tracking compliance under the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS2) program. RFS2 requires obligated parties (refiners, blenders, and importers) to ensure that the conventional fuel (gasoline or diesel) sold or introduced into commerce contains a certain percentage of renewable fuels. As such, each obligated party has a renewable volume obligation (RVO) based on the amount of conventional fuels it handles on an annual basis.
Generating RINs
RINs are 38-character numeric codes generated for all renewable fuel produced in or imported to the United States by the producer or importer, according to a formula set by EPA. The RIN code provides information about the year that the fuel was produced or imported, the producing or importing entity, and the type of renewable fuel.
RINs can be generated as gallon-RINs or batch-RINs (multiple gallon-RINs combined under one numeric code). The number of gallon-RINs generated may not be equal to the number of gallons of fuel. Instead, gallon-RINs are assigned based on equivalence values determined according to the volumetric energy content of the fuel in comparison with corn ethanol and adjusted for the renewable content. One gallon of corn ethanol is equal to 1 gallon-RIN while one gallon of biodiesel, for example, is actually equal to 1.5 gallon-RINs.
Transferring RINs
RINs “travel” with the renewable fuel as it is transferred from one entity to another. When renewable fuel changes hands, it is accompanied by the associated paper RIN credit and the transfer is recorded using product transfer documents (PTDs), which serve as the basis for the recordkeeping and reporting requirements under the RFS2 program.
If a batch of renewable fuel is split into smaller volumes and transferred, the RIN number will change accordingly. Tracking these 38-digit codes and the associated fuel producers, importers, blenders, marketers, refiners, and exporters is a complex process. Therefore, EPA developed and introduced a new EPA Moderated Transaction System (EMTS) in 2010. All regulated parties were required to start using the EMTS to track their RIN generation and transferring starting on July 1, 2010.
There are several actions that separate the RIN from the fuel, including when the renewable fuel enters the retail market. Once a RIN is separated, it can be traded.
Trading RINs
At the end of each year, each obligated party must demonstrate that it has sufficient RINs to cover its RVO for that year. RINs can be used within the calendar year in which they were generated or the following calendar year (plus two months), with some restrictions. If an obligated party has access to RINs, it can sell those RINs on the open market. Conversely, if an obligated party cannot or does not wish to blend renewable fuels into conventional fuel and, therefore, does not have enough RINs to meet its RVO, it can purchase RINs from other entities. The price of RINs is set by the market and is largely based on supply, demand, commodity prices, and speculation.
Please also refer to the recent Clean Cities Webinar presentation by Larry Schafer, National Biodiesel Board, for additional information on RINs:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/cleancities/toolbox/pdfs/renewable_identification_number.pdf.
The summary above provides an overview of RINs, but there are many more details and complexities associated RFS2 compliance and RIN generation, transfer, and trading. For more information about RFS2 and RINs, please visit the EPA’s RFS (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/renewablefuels/index.htm) and RFS1 & RFS2 Compliance Help (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/renewablefuels/compliancehelp/index.htm) websites. Specific questions can also be sent to the EPA Fuels Programs Support Line at EPAFuelsPrograms@epa.gov or 202-343-9755.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Green Racing Developments
Read about green racing developments by UCCC Stakeholder ARES Transportation Technologies.
Published by Road & Track, January 14, 2011
Published by Road & Track, January 14, 2011
Written by Pete Lyons
http://www.roadandtrack.com/racing/motorsports/racing-green-good
Last summer’s Gusher in the Gulf may seem like old news now, but what of 40, 50 years from now? In some quarters, it will never be forgotten that human ineptitude (to say no worse) resulted in fatalities aboard an oil drilling platform, shores littered with gruesome wildlife carcasses and an ocean stinking of poison. Let alone lingering economic and emotional pain.
That catastrophe, plus similar ones likely to come, may well be remembered as crises that helped tip motoring—and therefore motor racing—over the great Green divide.
We racing enthusiasts, as insular and self-important as any other political tribe, would like to imagine our sport is safely cocooned within the walls of its raceways, immune to external forces. It’s not. We’ve always been under stress, sometimes outright attack, by strident groups protesting one thing or another about our sport.
Fifty-some years ago, racing was widely seen as so dangerous that it was at real risk of being outlawed. In Switzerland it was. A ban imposed there after the 1955 Le Mans disaster took more than a half-century to rescind.
Racers have greatly improved their image on the issue of safety, but now another potentially greater threat looms. Many people today are aware of petro-pollution, carbon footprints and the planetary climate. Another massive oil spill might make petroleum-fueled transportation as distasteful to the general public as it is to environmentalists.
Responding to the anxiety, automakers are already moving toward cleaner, more self-sustaining energy technologies. Downsized engines, alternative fuels and electric power systems along with smaller, lighter vehicles made of recyclable materials are rapidly becoming the new norms. Of course, racing authorities are exploring the same measures.
While such changes have appeal, they will be massive, expensive and disruptive. Inevitably, some things we cherish will be sacrificed. The same problems arose during the safety revolution, so no wonder a lot of fans cringe at calls to make motorsport more environmentally responsible. They fear that’s code for “ruining it.”
I admit I was a skeptic on the shining morning last spring when I filed into a conference called “The Race has Gone Green,” held at the Toyota Grand Prix of Long Beach. Maybe it’s just that my coffee and decadent sugary muffin hadn’t kicked in, but my mood was darkly defiant. “What are these people trying to do to my racing?” I was thinking sourly.
Will they expect us to cheer wimpy little turbodiesels? Buzzing and clicking electrics? Whizmobiles emitting nothing at all, not even sound? Is all this carbon footprint prattle just a prelude to carbon jackboots coming down to stomp out my sport entirely?
I’ve seen a lot of petroleum being combusted on racetracks of the world and I feel protective of an experience I have always hailed as glorious.
Warily, then, I listened as one important speaker after another reiterated the basic premise of the “Gone Green” conference: that motorsport isn’t going to become more environmentally responsible; they claim the revolution has already occurred and, you know, it ain’t so bad.
“We’ve entered a time of enormous change,” one declared, “with new players and new rules.”
A college rep proclaimed, “We’re accelerating development of what we call ‘relevant research.’” Expanding on that, another speaker remarked, “We’re working very closely with universities and listening to these young guys and gals who are pushing the boundaries and making us think.”
Said another, “Let’s stop calling it ‘Green.’ It’s ‘Next Generation Performance.’” Two areas are especially hot, he added: aero and “lightweighting.”
Those indeed were topics of the first panel of the day, which included men from race-car manufacturers Lola and Swift. They spoke of how each company is parlaying its expertise in aerodynamics and featherweight structures to develop new, super-efficient wind energy systems.
I felt approval stir within me. Racing still can better the breed, damn it, albeit a breed I hadn’t thought of.
That mini-epiphany came again when the head of Corsa Motorsport, which was running an ALMS prototype he called “the world’s baddest hybrid,” detailed a project to commercialize his race-car work. “Brainstorming, we took a look at the trucking industry. There are 11 million semi-trailers in the U.S., and they all have a common rear axle Bingo! Adapting the P-car’s KERS electric motor to previously inert trailer axles “fools the tractor into thinking it’s hauling less weight and results in 10 percent better fuel efficiency,” Corsa’s Steve Pruitt explained. Presumably, relying on battery regeneration to slow the truck will reduce the annoying use of the raucous “Jake brake” too.
A further encouraging thought was contributed by a panelist from the U.K.’s Motorsport Industry Association: He pointed out that nimble, efficient constructors of racing components can offer valuable rapid prototyping skills to a mainstream auto industry in hectic transition.
So it’s gratifying that racing can benefit everyday life, but does it work the other way as well?
Or does racing lose by deferring to interests of the public at large? A drive to appear socially responsible is one reason we’ve seen F1 engines drop from 12 to 10 to 8 cylinders, each step-down resulting in a loss of sound quality (in my opinion). In endurance racing, the diesels don’t make much of any sound. Whining transaxles and, at Sebring, slap-slapping of tires over the concrete are louder. Not sexy.
Sound; that’s a huge factor in my enjoyment of motorsports. I cannot forget cupping my ears in the Sebring night to hear Pete Lovely’s Ferrari moaning away through the gears. Stopping my van a mile outside the gate at Watkins Glen to drink the liquid scream as Chris Amon tested the V-12 Matra. Standing rooted in my boots outside my billet at Le Mans one midnight, listening to open-pipe Porsches 10 miles away—I measured the distance on a map.
These things are magic to me, and at the Green conference I was relieved to hear I’m not alone. “Everybody speaks of the V-12 Matra, and today the V-12 Aston Martin sings the same song,” remarked Scott Atherton of the ALMS. “We can’t pretend that emotive connection isn’t important. It stirs people. That attraction has brought so many people into the sport, and we can’t lose it.”
Les Mactaggart from IndyCar concurred. “We need to keep the excitement, so people keep coming.”
Thus it was good to hear John Waraniak from SEMA put in a good word for the good old piston engine. “It’s going to be around for at least two more decades,” he predicted, thanks to efficiencies still to be realized from direct injection, turbocharging and others of what he said were “15 technologies out there. I call it the Wild West.”
One of those technologies would involve non-petro fuels, such as the biobutanol being pioneered in the ALMS by Mazda in conjunction with—this is a big irony, but let’s look past it—British Petroleum.
But pursuing many of the “efficiencies” mentioned above presents a pretty puzzle. If you’re lopping off cylinders, cutting displacements, restricting revs, muffling exhausts with turbos, perhaps one day abandoning internal combustion altogether…how do you keep an exciting sound?
Maybe artificially. I’d been pondering this myself, and now I heard Atherton of the ALMS speak of Clemson University research into “a very high-end sound system that, potentially, lets you decide what [engine] noise you want to hear. ‘Sound by wire.’ Digital, not combustion… You heard it here first.”
Later, I sat in the Pacific sunshine and scribbled a flurry of thoughts. Imagine watching a race, either in the stands or at home, while wearing headphones that let you choose any exhaust tone you please: one of the immortal V-12s, say, or a big-block Can-Am V-8, or perhaps some novel note you devise yourself. As in cooking or bartending, you could trade sonic recipes with your headphone buddies; hey, dude, check this out.
Or maybe the sounds in your ear needn’t be artificial at all. And maybe they can go beyond exhaust sounds. How about embedding pickups elsewhere in the engine, so we can hear the cam gears meshing, and the pistons slapping, the fuel squirting in—the entire symphonic crescendo of the magnificent IC machine (providing we can retain it in racing), not just the mere, monodimensional exhaust events?
But how to link these transmitted sounds to individual cars as they pass you? How to contrive the Doppler shift? And that intoxicating, ever-shifting aural interaction of different engines in endurance racing? I suppose each race vehicle of the future will have to transmit a discrete code to your individual receiver as it whisks by—silently, of course, unless you’re wearing your ’phones.
I tried to throttle down my racing imagination and consider soberly: Apart from the engine music that has captivated enthusiasts since the Gay ’90s, does it really matter what turns the wheels?
Sure, we love our IC firebreathers with their finely crafted cranks and rods and valves, the more intricate the better. But really, isn’t that so 19th century? We have to think about our sport surviving the 21st.
We may love fossil-fueled flames and fumes and noise, but does the wider public? Even though auto racing represents a tiny percentage of the fossil fuels burned each year, hysteria over noise or fuel wastage or petro-pollution may eventually lead to calls for shutting us down. Show of hands: Who remembers what happened to racing in 1974, during the “Energy Crisis”?
As for those exhaust notes we hold so dear, because even today’s most ardent race fans do most of their spectating via TV, where the true sound doesn’t come through anyway, maybe ear candy is becoming less and less of a factor except for us grizzled (and deaf) old geezers.
Maybe future fans won’t even know about exhaust notes. Schooled to be Green and enthusiasts of electro-cool, they might be perfectly satisfied with battery-powered race vehicles whose loudest native noises would be tire howl and the hiss of aerodynamic turbulence. Heck, maybe racing would become quiet enough to hear drivers shouting at each other.
The die-hard exhaust fans among us might remain unsold on such a future, but the Long Beach conference did make me remember an earlier time of anxiety. In 1970, at the Italian Grand Prix in Monza, Jackie Stewart suffered the loss of one of his closest friends. The way Jochen Rindt died, slaughtered when his flimsy aluminum car impacted a frail steel guardrail, reinforced Stewart’s determination to strong-arm racing into becoming safer.
He met bitter resistance. Many feared the stubborn Scot’s crusade would destroy their sport. How can you make a car crash-safe without emasculating it? And anyway, danger is integral to racing, was the attitude. Makes it matter. Enhances the romance.
One day at the height of the controversy, I found myself in confrontation with my boyhood guru in racing journalism. I had written something endorsing Stewart’s point that racing must be seen to police itself, lest policing be imposed upon it.
Denis Jenkinson squared up to me at the next GP. His eyes were snapping-angry and the little man put a big roar in his voice. “If we follow what you say to its end, we’ll have to give up motor racing!”
Jenks and I remained friendly, to my great relief, and I am even more relieved to see, all these decades later, that even though Jackie’s views did prevail, we kept on racing. Indeed, we have vastly more racing now than then, and I dare say it’s generally of higher intensity and quality.
Yes, drivers feel freer to “rub” each other now, which I for one do not find sporting. But no longer do I step away from a car-side chat with a friend and watch him accelerate away with the disquieting thought, “I wonder if that’s the last time we’ll ever talk…”
F1 alone killed one or two drivers a year when I started reporting. We hardened ourselves to it, calling it inevitable. Today, fatalities are so infrequent, they shock us. Thank you Sir Jackie and everyone else who made that happy change happen.
I wonder if racing enthusiasts of 40, 50 years hence will look back on our time and wonder how we were ever so carefree with our use of petroleum.
Those of us wary of change need to be upbeat about Going Green. When Jenkinson and others protested Jackie Stewart, they were seeing the safety issue in terms of old, familiar know-how. They couldn’t foresee new technologies that would, eventually, stop killing racers without killing racing. I suggest the present controversy will have the same outcome.
Anyway, isn’t a Greener (and perhaps quieter) future better than no future?
http://www.roadandtrack.com/racing/motorsports/racing-green-good
Last summer’s Gusher in the Gulf may seem like old news now, but what of 40, 50 years from now? In some quarters, it will never be forgotten that human ineptitude (to say no worse) resulted in fatalities aboard an oil drilling platform, shores littered with gruesome wildlife carcasses and an ocean stinking of poison. Let alone lingering economic and emotional pain.
That catastrophe, plus similar ones likely to come, may well be remembered as crises that helped tip motoring—and therefore motor racing—over the great Green divide.
We racing enthusiasts, as insular and self-important as any other political tribe, would like to imagine our sport is safely cocooned within the walls of its raceways, immune to external forces. It’s not. We’ve always been under stress, sometimes outright attack, by strident groups protesting one thing or another about our sport.
Fifty-some years ago, racing was widely seen as so dangerous that it was at real risk of being outlawed. In Switzerland it was. A ban imposed there after the 1955 Le Mans disaster took more than a half-century to rescind.
Racers have greatly improved their image on the issue of safety, but now another potentially greater threat looms. Many people today are aware of petro-pollution, carbon footprints and the planetary climate. Another massive oil spill might make petroleum-fueled transportation as distasteful to the general public as it is to environmentalists.
Responding to the anxiety, automakers are already moving toward cleaner, more self-sustaining energy technologies. Downsized engines, alternative fuels and electric power systems along with smaller, lighter vehicles made of recyclable materials are rapidly becoming the new norms. Of course, racing authorities are exploring the same measures.
While such changes have appeal, they will be massive, expensive and disruptive. Inevitably, some things we cherish will be sacrificed. The same problems arose during the safety revolution, so no wonder a lot of fans cringe at calls to make motorsport more environmentally responsible. They fear that’s code for “ruining it.”
I admit I was a skeptic on the shining morning last spring when I filed into a conference called “The Race has Gone Green,” held at the Toyota Grand Prix of Long Beach. Maybe it’s just that my coffee and decadent sugary muffin hadn’t kicked in, but my mood was darkly defiant. “What are these people trying to do to my racing?” I was thinking sourly.
Will they expect us to cheer wimpy little turbodiesels? Buzzing and clicking electrics? Whizmobiles emitting nothing at all, not even sound? Is all this carbon footprint prattle just a prelude to carbon jackboots coming down to stomp out my sport entirely?
I’ve seen a lot of petroleum being combusted on racetracks of the world and I feel protective of an experience I have always hailed as glorious.
Warily, then, I listened as one important speaker after another reiterated the basic premise of the “Gone Green” conference: that motorsport isn’t going to become more environmentally responsible; they claim the revolution has already occurred and, you know, it ain’t so bad.
“We’ve entered a time of enormous change,” one declared, “with new players and new rules.”
A college rep proclaimed, “We’re accelerating development of what we call ‘relevant research.’” Expanding on that, another speaker remarked, “We’re working very closely with universities and listening to these young guys and gals who are pushing the boundaries and making us think.”
Said another, “Let’s stop calling it ‘Green.’ It’s ‘Next Generation Performance.’” Two areas are especially hot, he added: aero and “lightweighting.”
Those indeed were topics of the first panel of the day, which included men from race-car manufacturers Lola and Swift. They spoke of how each company is parlaying its expertise in aerodynamics and featherweight structures to develop new, super-efficient wind energy systems.
I felt approval stir within me. Racing still can better the breed, damn it, albeit a breed I hadn’t thought of.
That mini-epiphany came again when the head of Corsa Motorsport, which was running an ALMS prototype he called “the world’s baddest hybrid,” detailed a project to commercialize his race-car work. “Brainstorming, we took a look at the trucking industry. There are 11 million semi-trailers in the U.S., and they all have a common rear axle Bingo! Adapting the P-car’s KERS electric motor to previously inert trailer axles “fools the tractor into thinking it’s hauling less weight and results in 10 percent better fuel efficiency,” Corsa’s Steve Pruitt explained. Presumably, relying on battery regeneration to slow the truck will reduce the annoying use of the raucous “Jake brake” too.
A further encouraging thought was contributed by a panelist from the U.K.’s Motorsport Industry Association: He pointed out that nimble, efficient constructors of racing components can offer valuable rapid prototyping skills to a mainstream auto industry in hectic transition.
So it’s gratifying that racing can benefit everyday life, but does it work the other way as well?
Or does racing lose by deferring to interests of the public at large? A drive to appear socially responsible is one reason we’ve seen F1 engines drop from 12 to 10 to 8 cylinders, each step-down resulting in a loss of sound quality (in my opinion). In endurance racing, the diesels don’t make much of any sound. Whining transaxles and, at Sebring, slap-slapping of tires over the concrete are louder. Not sexy.
Sound; that’s a huge factor in my enjoyment of motorsports. I cannot forget cupping my ears in the Sebring night to hear Pete Lovely’s Ferrari moaning away through the gears. Stopping my van a mile outside the gate at Watkins Glen to drink the liquid scream as Chris Amon tested the V-12 Matra. Standing rooted in my boots outside my billet at Le Mans one midnight, listening to open-pipe Porsches 10 miles away—I measured the distance on a map.
These things are magic to me, and at the Green conference I was relieved to hear I’m not alone. “Everybody speaks of the V-12 Matra, and today the V-12 Aston Martin sings the same song,” remarked Scott Atherton of the ALMS. “We can’t pretend that emotive connection isn’t important. It stirs people. That attraction has brought so many people into the sport, and we can’t lose it.”
Les Mactaggart from IndyCar concurred. “We need to keep the excitement, so people keep coming.”
Thus it was good to hear John Waraniak from SEMA put in a good word for the good old piston engine. “It’s going to be around for at least two more decades,” he predicted, thanks to efficiencies still to be realized from direct injection, turbocharging and others of what he said were “15 technologies out there. I call it the Wild West.”
One of those technologies would involve non-petro fuels, such as the biobutanol being pioneered in the ALMS by Mazda in conjunction with—this is a big irony, but let’s look past it—British Petroleum.
But pursuing many of the “efficiencies” mentioned above presents a pretty puzzle. If you’re lopping off cylinders, cutting displacements, restricting revs, muffling exhausts with turbos, perhaps one day abandoning internal combustion altogether…how do you keep an exciting sound?
Maybe artificially. I’d been pondering this myself, and now I heard Atherton of the ALMS speak of Clemson University research into “a very high-end sound system that, potentially, lets you decide what [engine] noise you want to hear. ‘Sound by wire.’ Digital, not combustion… You heard it here first.”
Later, I sat in the Pacific sunshine and scribbled a flurry of thoughts. Imagine watching a race, either in the stands or at home, while wearing headphones that let you choose any exhaust tone you please: one of the immortal V-12s, say, or a big-block Can-Am V-8, or perhaps some novel note you devise yourself. As in cooking or bartending, you could trade sonic recipes with your headphone buddies; hey, dude, check this out.
Or maybe the sounds in your ear needn’t be artificial at all. And maybe they can go beyond exhaust sounds. How about embedding pickups elsewhere in the engine, so we can hear the cam gears meshing, and the pistons slapping, the fuel squirting in—the entire symphonic crescendo of the magnificent IC machine (providing we can retain it in racing), not just the mere, monodimensional exhaust events?
But how to link these transmitted sounds to individual cars as they pass you? How to contrive the Doppler shift? And that intoxicating, ever-shifting aural interaction of different engines in endurance racing? I suppose each race vehicle of the future will have to transmit a discrete code to your individual receiver as it whisks by—silently, of course, unless you’re wearing your ’phones.
I tried to throttle down my racing imagination and consider soberly: Apart from the engine music that has captivated enthusiasts since the Gay ’90s, does it really matter what turns the wheels?
Sure, we love our IC firebreathers with their finely crafted cranks and rods and valves, the more intricate the better. But really, isn’t that so 19th century? We have to think about our sport surviving the 21st.
We may love fossil-fueled flames and fumes and noise, but does the wider public? Even though auto racing represents a tiny percentage of the fossil fuels burned each year, hysteria over noise or fuel wastage or petro-pollution may eventually lead to calls for shutting us down. Show of hands: Who remembers what happened to racing in 1974, during the “Energy Crisis”?
As for those exhaust notes we hold so dear, because even today’s most ardent race fans do most of their spectating via TV, where the true sound doesn’t come through anyway, maybe ear candy is becoming less and less of a factor except for us grizzled (and deaf) old geezers.
Maybe future fans won’t even know about exhaust notes. Schooled to be Green and enthusiasts of electro-cool, they might be perfectly satisfied with battery-powered race vehicles whose loudest native noises would be tire howl and the hiss of aerodynamic turbulence. Heck, maybe racing would become quiet enough to hear drivers shouting at each other.
The die-hard exhaust fans among us might remain unsold on such a future, but the Long Beach conference did make me remember an earlier time of anxiety. In 1970, at the Italian Grand Prix in Monza, Jackie Stewart suffered the loss of one of his closest friends. The way Jochen Rindt died, slaughtered when his flimsy aluminum car impacted a frail steel guardrail, reinforced Stewart’s determination to strong-arm racing into becoming safer.
He met bitter resistance. Many feared the stubborn Scot’s crusade would destroy their sport. How can you make a car crash-safe without emasculating it? And anyway, danger is integral to racing, was the attitude. Makes it matter. Enhances the romance.
One day at the height of the controversy, I found myself in confrontation with my boyhood guru in racing journalism. I had written something endorsing Stewart’s point that racing must be seen to police itself, lest policing be imposed upon it.
Denis Jenkinson squared up to me at the next GP. His eyes were snapping-angry and the little man put a big roar in his voice. “If we follow what you say to its end, we’ll have to give up motor racing!”
Jenks and I remained friendly, to my great relief, and I am even more relieved to see, all these decades later, that even though Jackie’s views did prevail, we kept on racing. Indeed, we have vastly more racing now than then, and I dare say it’s generally of higher intensity and quality.
Yes, drivers feel freer to “rub” each other now, which I for one do not find sporting. But no longer do I step away from a car-side chat with a friend and watch him accelerate away with the disquieting thought, “I wonder if that’s the last time we’ll ever talk…”
F1 alone killed one or two drivers a year when I started reporting. We hardened ourselves to it, calling it inevitable. Today, fatalities are so infrequent, they shock us. Thank you Sir Jackie and everyone else who made that happy change happen.
I wonder if racing enthusiasts of 40, 50 years hence will look back on our time and wonder how we were ever so carefree with our use of petroleum.
Those of us wary of change need to be upbeat about Going Green. When Jenkinson and others protested Jackie Stewart, they were seeing the safety issue in terms of old, familiar know-how. They couldn’t foresee new technologies that would, eventually, stop killing racers without killing racing. I suggest the present controversy will have the same outcome.
Anyway, isn’t a Greener (and perhaps quieter) future better than no future?
Utah Limousine offers 'green' transportation
Marketplace: Utah Limousine offers 'green' transportation
Source: Park Record
Date: 2/15/2011 9:35 PM
Sam Levin drives between Park City and the Salt Lake City International Airport for a living and he's saved 10,000 to 15,000 gallons of gasoline doing it.
Levin is the owner of Utah Limousine, a Park City shuttle service powered with Compressed Natural Gas. He made the switch about three years ago.
"I wanted to be green," he said. "We have an environment here worth protecting."
The clean-burning fuel powers a suburban and an Escalade. Levin's fleet is small because he intentionally runs a lean operation in order to offer lower rates.
"For the service we provide, we're very competitive with other outfits in town," he said.
Besides being eco-friendly and offering good rates, Levin is proud to own a local business. He also supplies his company with the support of local vendors as much as possible.
Given the choice between a corporate entity in Salt Lake City or a local family business, Levin believes most people prefer to keep their money local. Utah Limousine also supports local charities, he added.
He chose to make Park City his home after working as a taxi driver. Coming from a diverse background, Levin said he picked up taxi driving six years ago during a major transition in his life.
"I'm at ease driving," he said. "It still fits me. I like doing it."
Looking for more money, he bought a vehicle and went into business for himself. Soon he noticed that the best money was in just taking people back and forth from Park City to the airport.
He made it his specialty and Park City his home, Levin explained. That was six years ago. Three years ago he converted his vehicles to natural gas and is now established in his field.
Levin said his success comes from Utah Limousine's "Total Satisfaction Guarantee." Unless the client is 100-percent satisfied, the ride is free. That includes an on-time guarantee.
"I get away with it because I'm never late," he said.
A benefit of being a local is knowing the area and all alternative routes, he said. He's where he's supposed to be when he's supposed to be, he said.
"We don't' book it if we can't be there on time," he added.
He uses a suburban and an Escalade and sometimes an additional suburban at peak times because they're the most reliable vehicles, he said. They can handle Emigration Canyon in any kind of weather. They also each sit six comfortably, he added.
Another benefit of being local is knowing the area so that he can answer any questions visitors have, and making available discounts at local rental shops, he said.
Levin also has a perfect safety record. One of his prior careers involved working in oil fields with an employer that was a notorious stickler about safety. It has served him well and he's trained his drivers in the same techniques, he said.
Reservations are most easily made through the website, www.utahlimo.net .
This article was first published by http://www.parkrecord.com/ on February 15, 2011.
Source: Park Record
Date: 2/15/2011 9:35 PM
Sam Levin drives between Park City and the Salt Lake City International Airport for a living and he's saved 10,000 to 15,000 gallons of gasoline doing it.
Levin is the owner of Utah Limousine, a Park City shuttle service powered with Compressed Natural Gas. He made the switch about three years ago.
"I wanted to be green," he said. "We have an environment here worth protecting."
The clean-burning fuel powers a suburban and an Escalade. Levin's fleet is small because he intentionally runs a lean operation in order to offer lower rates.
"For the service we provide, we're very competitive with other outfits in town," he said.
Besides being eco-friendly and offering good rates, Levin is proud to own a local business. He also supplies his company with the support of local vendors as much as possible.
Given the choice between a corporate entity in Salt Lake City or a local family business, Levin believes most people prefer to keep their money local. Utah Limousine also supports local charities, he added.
He chose to make Park City his home after working as a taxi driver. Coming from a diverse background, Levin said he picked up taxi driving six years ago during a major transition in his life.
"I'm at ease driving," he said. "It still fits me. I like doing it."
Looking for more money, he bought a vehicle and went into business for himself. Soon he noticed that the best money was in just taking people back and forth from Park City to the airport.
He made it his specialty and Park City his home, Levin explained. That was six years ago. Three years ago he converted his vehicles to natural gas and is now established in his field.
Levin said his success comes from Utah Limousine's "Total Satisfaction Guarantee." Unless the client is 100-percent satisfied, the ride is free. That includes an on-time guarantee.
"I get away with it because I'm never late," he said.
A benefit of being a local is knowing the area and all alternative routes, he said. He's where he's supposed to be when he's supposed to be, he said.
"We don't' book it if we can't be there on time," he added.
He uses a suburban and an Escalade and sometimes an additional suburban at peak times because they're the most reliable vehicles, he said. They can handle Emigration Canyon in any kind of weather. They also each sit six comfortably, he added.
Another benefit of being local is knowing the area so that he can answer any questions visitors have, and making available discounts at local rental shops, he said.
Levin also has a perfect safety record. One of his prior careers involved working in oil fields with an employer that was a notorious stickler about safety. It has served him well and he's trained his drivers in the same techniques, he said.
Reservations are most easily made through the website, www.utahlimo.net .
This article was first published by http://www.parkrecord.com/ on February 15, 2011.
Monday, February 14, 2011
VMT Reduction Webinar
Date/Time: February 24, 1:00pm (Mountain)
Reducing vehicle miles travelled (VMT) is one of the least utilized options for coalitions to reduce petroleum consumption. This is a largely missed opportunity because these projects offer many co-benefits and can be some of the most cost effective. Speakers will include:
• Caley Johnson (National Renewable Energy Laboratory) will talk about the multiple co-benefits of VMT reduction and its potential role in achieving Clean Cities goals.
• Dolores Rebolledo (Granite State Clean Cities) will talk about her coalition’s VMT projects, their role in a tough economy, and reporting them to the survey.
• Dan Kaempff (Oregon Metro) will talk about the ambitious projects that Portland, OR has implemented that enabled Portland to actually reduce its overall VMT.
To subscribe to this e-mail list or submit ideas for future webinars, contact Sandra Loi, sandra.loi@nrel.gov.
Reducing vehicle miles travelled (VMT) is one of the least utilized options for coalitions to reduce petroleum consumption. This is a largely missed opportunity because these projects offer many co-benefits and can be some of the most cost effective. Speakers will include:
• Caley Johnson (National Renewable Energy Laboratory) will talk about the multiple co-benefits of VMT reduction and its potential role in achieving Clean Cities goals.
• Dolores Rebolledo (Granite State Clean Cities) will talk about her coalition’s VMT projects, their role in a tough economy, and reporting them to the survey.
• Dan Kaempff (Oregon Metro) will talk about the ambitious projects that Portland, OR has implemented that enabled Portland to actually reduce its overall VMT.
To subscribe to this e-mail list or submit ideas for future webinars, contact Sandra Loi, sandra.loi@nrel.gov.
E15 Approved for Use in 2001 and Newer Vehicles
U.S. Department of Energy Technology Bulletin
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/technology_bulletin_1210.html
The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2) requires refineries and fuel blenders to sell specific volumes of biofuels set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) each year. In anticipation of increased ethanol consumption, DOE started an engine test program in 2007 to determine the impacts of mid-level ethanol blends. In March 2009, EPA received a formal Air Act waiver request from the ethanol industry to raise the allowable ethanol content in regular gasoline from E10 to E15. (Note that EPA is only allowed to consider the impact on vehicle emissions and emission control systems.) EPA approved the E15 waiver request for model year (MY) 2001 and newer vehicles (see the EPA website). E10 remains the limit for vehicles older than model year (MY) 2001.
How many vehicles are 2001 and newer?
There are approximately 131 million light-duty vehicles and trucks dated MY 2001 and newer registered in the United States that would be covered by this waiver (60% of U.S. vehicle population). These are the only vehicles approved to use E15. There are more than 100 million vehicles in the United States that are estimated to be older than MY 2001. These vehicles would not be covered by the waiver.
When will E15 be available for sale?
Many federal and state laws and regulations must be updated to before E15 can be sold. The federal government needs to amend the Clean Air Act, revise the reformulated gasoline program, register E15 and meet health effects testing requirements, provide labels, and several other related steps.
There are 90 state laws and regulations currently limiting sales of E15 in 36 states. Some state restrictions that are in conflict include 10% ethanol blend cap, state biofuels mandates, technical fuel specification standards, and waivers. The map in this document highlights states with E15 restrictions.
It will take time to update laws and regulations to allow E15 sales. An exact timeframe is not known.
Can any vehicle use E15?
No. E15 is only approved for MY 2001 and newer light-duty vehicles. EPA is not considering E15 use in vehicles older than MY 2001.
What about motorcycles, small engines, and boats?
E15 is not approved for use in motorcycles, heavy-duty vehicles, off-road vehicles (boats, snowmobiles, etc.), and off-road equipment (lawnmowers, chainsaws, etc.).
How will a consumer know if they are buying E15?
Labels will be affixed to any dispenser dispensing E15. The label will state what model years are allowed to use E15.
Where will older vehicles buy fuel?
Stations will continue to offer E10 and lower blends. E15 is not a mandate; some stations may offer E15 as an additional product. It is important to read labels to ensure you are using the correct fuel for your vehicle.
Will I get better fuel economy with mid-level ethanol blends?
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the American Coalition for Ethanol cofunded a study about fuel economy and tailpipe emissions impacts for mid-level ethanol blends on four conventional vehicles. This study, called the Optimal Ethanol Blend-Level Investigation, was conducted by the Energy and Environmental Research Center at the University of North Dakota and the Minnesota Center for Automotive Research. Some media reports have referred to this study indicating that mid-level ethanol blends provide superior fuel economy. However, the results of this study are inconclusive and showed varied vehicle fuel economy results for the four vehicles tested. Ethanol has a lower energy density than gasoline, and as more ethanol is blended the resulting fuel has less usable energy. That translates into a reduction in fuel economy compared to gasoline. Flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs) typically get 20% to 30% fewer miles per gallon when fueled with E85. This fuel economy penalty is smaller for lower ethanol blends (like E20 and E30 that might be available from ethanol blender pump dispensers). The impact of different ethanol blends on different vehicles may vary. No matter what type of fuel is used, however, fuel mileage is affected by driving habits, weather, engine efficiency, weight, vehicle maintenance, and other factors.
EPA fuel economy ratings of FFVs and their gasoline counterparts can be compared side-by-side on the FuelEconomy.gov website.
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/technology_bulletin_1210.html
The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2) requires refineries and fuel blenders to sell specific volumes of biofuels set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) each year. In anticipation of increased ethanol consumption, DOE started an engine test program in 2007 to determine the impacts of mid-level ethanol blends. In March 2009, EPA received a formal Air Act waiver request from the ethanol industry to raise the allowable ethanol content in regular gasoline from E10 to E15. (Note that EPA is only allowed to consider the impact on vehicle emissions and emission control systems.) EPA approved the E15 waiver request for model year (MY) 2001 and newer vehicles (see the EPA website). E10 remains the limit for vehicles older than model year (MY) 2001.
How many vehicles are 2001 and newer?
There are approximately 131 million light-duty vehicles and trucks dated MY 2001 and newer registered in the United States that would be covered by this waiver (60% of U.S. vehicle population). These are the only vehicles approved to use E15. There are more than 100 million vehicles in the United States that are estimated to be older than MY 2001. These vehicles would not be covered by the waiver.
When will E15 be available for sale?
Many federal and state laws and regulations must be updated to before E15 can be sold. The federal government needs to amend the Clean Air Act, revise the reformulated gasoline program, register E15 and meet health effects testing requirements, provide labels, and several other related steps.
There are 90 state laws and regulations currently limiting sales of E15 in 36 states. Some state restrictions that are in conflict include 10% ethanol blend cap, state biofuels mandates, technical fuel specification standards, and waivers. The map in this document highlights states with E15 restrictions.
It will take time to update laws and regulations to allow E15 sales. An exact timeframe is not known.
Can any vehicle use E15?
No. E15 is only approved for MY 2001 and newer light-duty vehicles. EPA is not considering E15 use in vehicles older than MY 2001.
What about motorcycles, small engines, and boats?
E15 is not approved for use in motorcycles, heavy-duty vehicles, off-road vehicles (boats, snowmobiles, etc.), and off-road equipment (lawnmowers, chainsaws, etc.).
How will a consumer know if they are buying E15?
Labels will be affixed to any dispenser dispensing E15. The label will state what model years are allowed to use E15.
Where will older vehicles buy fuel?
Stations will continue to offer E10 and lower blends. E15 is not a mandate; some stations may offer E15 as an additional product. It is important to read labels to ensure you are using the correct fuel for your vehicle.
Will I get better fuel economy with mid-level ethanol blends?
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the American Coalition for Ethanol cofunded a study about fuel economy and tailpipe emissions impacts for mid-level ethanol blends on four conventional vehicles. This study, called the Optimal Ethanol Blend-Level Investigation, was conducted by the Energy and Environmental Research Center at the University of North Dakota and the Minnesota Center for Automotive Research. Some media reports have referred to this study indicating that mid-level ethanol blends provide superior fuel economy. However, the results of this study are inconclusive and showed varied vehicle fuel economy results for the four vehicles tested. Ethanol has a lower energy density than gasoline, and as more ethanol is blended the resulting fuel has less usable energy. That translates into a reduction in fuel economy compared to gasoline. Flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs) typically get 20% to 30% fewer miles per gallon when fueled with E85. This fuel economy penalty is smaller for lower ethanol blends (like E20 and E30 that might be available from ethanol blender pump dispensers). The impact of different ethanol blends on different vehicles may vary. No matter what type of fuel is used, however, fuel mileage is affected by driving habits, weather, engine efficiency, weight, vehicle maintenance, and other factors.
EPA fuel economy ratings of FFVs and their gasoline counterparts can be compared side-by-side on the FuelEconomy.gov website.
Friday, February 11, 2011
2011 Clean Cities Stakeholder Presentation
To view the entire PowerPoint presentation, please see the link below.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B4Y-gL7cF8XVYWNjNGEwNDktNTJiNC00NThjLWIwMGUtOWU2NGViZDJlOWNh&hl=en&authkey=CI_1w7QE
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
2011 Fight for Air Climb
Join the American Lung Association as participants climb 598 steps of the Wells Fargo Center in the 2011 Fight for Air Climb. Participants work together to fundraise and raise awareness for the 35 million Americans who suffer from asthma.
You can get involved in the effort by: signing up as a team captain, joining an existing team, signing up as an individual registrant, sponsoring the event, joining a committee and making a contribution to support a registrant.
The event will take place Saturday, February 26th, Wells Fargo Center, Salt Lake City.
8:00 am-9:00 am: 10+ Multiple Climbers
9:00 am-12:00 pm: Individuals and Teams Begin / Food, Music, Massages & Fun on 23rd Floor
10:45 am-11:15 am: Raffle Drawing
For more details please visit the event website.
http://www.lungusa.org/pledge-events/ut/salt-lake-city-climb/
You can get involved in the effort by: signing up as a team captain, joining an existing team, signing up as an individual registrant, sponsoring the event, joining a committee and making a contribution to support a registrant.
The event will take place Saturday, February 26th, Wells Fargo Center, Salt Lake City.
8:00 am-9:00 am: 10+ Multiple Climbers
9:00 am-12:00 pm: Individuals and Teams Begin / Food, Music, Massages & Fun on 23rd Floor
10:45 am-11:15 am: Raffle Drawing
For more details please visit the event website.
http://www.lungusa.org/pledge-events/ut/salt-lake-city-climb/
Monday, February 7, 2011
United States market to show the strongest growth in natural gas vehicle sales
Article taken from usgasvehicles.com
Official story here...http://www.usgasvehicles.com/news_detalle.php?id=1135
January 25, 2011. According to a new report from Pike Research, United States market will show the strongest growth in natural gas vehicle (NGV) sales, 25.4% compound annual growth rate (CAGR) between 2010 and 2016, resulting in 32.619 vehicles sold in 2016. The potential for new emissions regulations on both light duty and medium and heavy duty vehicles and the passage of some form of the NAT GAS Act early in 2011 are expected to contribute to the U.S. growth.
Pike expects the worldwide NGV sales will increase at a healthy pace over the next several years, rising from 1.9 million vehicles per year in 2010 to more than 3.2 million units annually by 2016.
Overall, Pike projects the current 12.6 million unit global NGV market which they forecast will expand at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 7.9% to reach 19.9 million vehicles by 2016. Natural gas refueling station development is not expected to achieve the same growth rate, but will reach nearly 26.000 stations worldwide by 2016.
The growth in vehicles will lead to growth in usage of natural gas for transportation fuel, which Pike expects to reach 19.123 million cubic meters of gas globally (6.7% CAGR between 2010 and 2016).
Pike expects India to overtake Iran for the lean in NGV sales in 2014, and targets that market at 612.389 NGVs in 2016 (12.0% CAGR). Iran and Pakistan are expected to rank second and third, respectively.
China will see strong growth (20.8% CAGR) as NGVs spread in the fleet and consumer markets; overall, however, NGVs will remain a small percentage of the market as China’s government is expected to continue to focus on electrification.
Official story here...http://www.usgasvehicles.com/news_detalle.php?id=1135
January 25, 2011. According to a new report from Pike Research, United States market will show the strongest growth in natural gas vehicle (NGV) sales, 25.4% compound annual growth rate (CAGR) between 2010 and 2016, resulting in 32.619 vehicles sold in 2016. The potential for new emissions regulations on both light duty and medium and heavy duty vehicles and the passage of some form of the NAT GAS Act early in 2011 are expected to contribute to the U.S. growth.
Pike expects the worldwide NGV sales will increase at a healthy pace over the next several years, rising from 1.9 million vehicles per year in 2010 to more than 3.2 million units annually by 2016.
Overall, Pike projects the current 12.6 million unit global NGV market which they forecast will expand at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 7.9% to reach 19.9 million vehicles by 2016. Natural gas refueling station development is not expected to achieve the same growth rate, but will reach nearly 26.000 stations worldwide by 2016.
The growth in vehicles will lead to growth in usage of natural gas for transportation fuel, which Pike expects to reach 19.123 million cubic meters of gas globally (6.7% CAGR between 2010 and 2016).
Pike expects India to overtake Iran for the lean in NGV sales in 2014, and targets that market at 612.389 NGVs in 2016 (12.0% CAGR). Iran and Pakistan are expected to rank second and third, respectively.
China will see strong growth (20.8% CAGR) as NGVs spread in the fleet and consumer markets; overall, however, NGVs will remain a small percentage of the market as China’s government is expected to continue to focus on electrification.
Friday, February 4, 2011
Smith's Opens Fuel Center With Electric Car Station
Official press release submitted by Smith's Food & Drug.
(SALT LAKE CITY, UT – February 3, 2011) – Smith’s Food & Drug Stores has opened its 37TH Smith’s Express fuel station in Utah, located in the parking lot of the Smith’s store at 876 South 800 East in Salt Lake City.
The fuel center is the first to incorporate a courtesy charging station for customers driving electric cars to “top off” their battery levels while shopping. In addition, Smith’s also installed equipment to allow for the future possibility of solar panels to power the fuel station and the sale of natural gas at the pumps.
Smith’s uses state-of-the–art technology for the safety and efficiency of its fuel centers. Added measures include double-walled fiberglass reinforced plastic tanks with 24 hour alarm monitoring systems; a vapor recovery system that captures fumes from fuel trucks at delivery; and canopy lights that direct light downward so not escape beyond the service area.
The station is also comprised of 10 filling nozzles, courtesy air hose, a convenience-item case for snacks, and a 10’ X 20’ kiosk for the fuel attendant. Additional perimeter shrubbery and large planters were added to the parking lot.
To thank the community and celebrate the opening, Smith’s is donating $5,000 to the neighbor councils comprising the East Side Community Council for the purchase of additional trees to enhance the neighborhood around the store.
Smith’s is a division of the Kroger Co, the nation’s largest traditional grocery retailer. In addition to operating 2,469 supermarkets and multi-department stores in 31 states, the company also operates 773 convenience stores under the names of Loaf ‘N Jug, Turkey Hill, Kwik Stop, Tom Thumb, and Quick Stop. Smith’s Food & Drug currently operates a total of 132 stores and 71 fuel centers in seven western states, including 47 stores and 37 fuel centers in Utah. For more information visit www.smithsfoodanddrug.com.
(SALT LAKE CITY, UT – February 3, 2011) – Smith’s Food & Drug Stores has opened its 37TH Smith’s Express fuel station in Utah, located in the parking lot of the Smith’s store at 876 South 800 East in Salt Lake City.
The fuel center is the first to incorporate a courtesy charging station for customers driving electric cars to “top off” their battery levels while shopping. In addition, Smith’s also installed equipment to allow for the future possibility of solar panels to power the fuel station and the sale of natural gas at the pumps.
Smith’s uses state-of-the–art technology for the safety and efficiency of its fuel centers. Added measures include double-walled fiberglass reinforced plastic tanks with 24 hour alarm monitoring systems; a vapor recovery system that captures fumes from fuel trucks at delivery; and canopy lights that direct light downward so not escape beyond the service area.
The station is also comprised of 10 filling nozzles, courtesy air hose, a convenience-item case for snacks, and a 10’ X 20’ kiosk for the fuel attendant. Additional perimeter shrubbery and large planters were added to the parking lot.
To thank the community and celebrate the opening, Smith’s is donating $5,000 to the neighbor councils comprising the East Side Community Council for the purchase of additional trees to enhance the neighborhood around the store.
Smith’s is a division of the Kroger Co, the nation’s largest traditional grocery retailer. In addition to operating 2,469 supermarkets and multi-department stores in 31 states, the company also operates 773 convenience stores under the names of Loaf ‘N Jug, Turkey Hill, Kwik Stop, Tom Thumb, and Quick Stop. Smith’s Food & Drug currently operates a total of 132 stores and 71 fuel centers in seven western states, including 47 stores and 37 fuel centers in Utah. For more information visit www.smithsfoodanddrug.com.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
2011 Stakeholder Meeting
On Tuesday morning, Utah Clean Cities Coalition hosted their annual stakeholder meeting. The event took place in the State Office Building Auditorium at the Capitol. Stakeholders heard from Ted Wilson, the Senior Advisor on Environmental Affairs for Governor Herbert, while enjoying breakfast. Northern Director Carrie Giles and Southern Director Robin Erickson addressed what UCCC accomplished in 2010 and plans for 2011.
A big thanks to the stakeholders who were in attendance! We're looking forward to an exciting and successful 2011!
A big thanks to the stakeholders who were in attendance! We're looking forward to an exciting and successful 2011!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)