INVESTIGATION OF THE FEASIBILITY OF INCORPORATING HYBRID ... · following definition so that our...

INVESTIGATION OF THE FEASIBILITY OF

INCORPORATING HYBRID AND ELECTRIC VEHICLES

INTO THE COLGATE VEHICLE FLEET

Tara James, Brendan Lahr, Andrew Pettit, Amanda Pothin, Kaitlyn Soule, & Sam Walker

Spring 2011

Colgate Vehicle Fleet 2

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary 3

II. Introduction 3

III. Background Information 4

ACUPCC 4 Electric and Hybrid Vehicles 4 Advantages and Disadvantages of Electric and Hybrid Vehicles 5

Economic Impacts 5 Environmental Impacts 5 Social Impacts 6

IV. Data-driven investigation of situation at Colgate 7

Methods 7

Results 7

Interviews 7 Case Studies 9 Surveys 10

V. Options 11

VI. Cost Benefit Analysis 12

VII. Recommendations 14

VIII. Reflection 15

IX. Acknowledgements 16

X. References 17

XI. Appended information 19

Appendix 1- Colgate University Carbon Emissions by Scope 19 Appendix 2- Colgate University Vehicle Fleet List 20 Appendix 3- Number of Electric and Hybrid Vehicles at Other Institutions 23 Appendix 4- Buildings & Grounds Survey 25 Appendix 5- Buildings & Grounds Survey Results 26 Appendix 6- Cost Benefit Analysis 27


I. Executive Summary

As a part of a Colgate University Environmental Studies seminar, Community-

based Study of Environmental Issues, this project’s main goal is to determine if incorporating hybrid and/or electric vehicles into the existing gasoline vehicle fleet is a feasible option for the university. In order to appropriately examine this option, we generated a definition of sustainability to clearly identify metrics to measure the sustainability of Colgate’s current fleet and the sustainability of hybrid and electric vehicles. Through interviews, institutional case studies, surveys, a cost benefit analysis, and general research we measured the economic, environmental, and social sustainability of electric, hybrid, and standard internal combustion engine vehicles. Through our analyses, we determined that hybrid and/or electric vehicles could be used to replace a total of four current fleet vehicles and one vehicle to be newly purchased. We recommend that the Colgate University Administration carry out a full cost benefit analysis to assess the total costs of the recommended or other suitable electric, hybrid, and standard internal combustion engine vehicles over their lifetime in Colgate’s fleet. We also suggest that the Administration invite manufacturers and dealers to campus to demonstrate the use of electric and hybrid vehicles in adverse weather conditions. This process should involve current employees whose work would be directly affected by electric and/or hybrid vehicle replacements.

II. Introduction

As part of a Colgate University Environmental Studies seminar, Community-based

Study of Environmental Issues, this project’s main goal is to determine if incorporating hybrid and/or electric vehicles into the existing gasoline vehicle fleet is a feasible option for the university. In order to appropriately examine this option we generated the following definition so that our project would have a clear starting point: Sustainability is the capacity to utilize and recycle resources and services ensuring economic, environmental, and social equity, both locally and globally and with equal consideration of present and future generations.

Through interviews, institutional case studies, surveys, a cost benefit analysis, and general research we measured the economic, environmental, and social sustainability of electric, hybrid, and standard internal combustion engine vehicles. We interviewed members of the Colgate Administration to gain an oversight of the current vehicle fleet and purchasing operations. A survey was given to employees to gauge their opinions on the incorporation of electric and hybrid vehicles. The case studies of Cornell University and Union College were used to analyze the incorporation of electric and hybrid vehicles into comparable institutions. In order to evaluate the options of vehicle choice, we created a cost benefit analysis.

We determined that hybrid and/or electric vehicles could replace a total of four current fleet vehicles and one vehicle to be newly purchased. We recommend that the Colgate University Administration assess the total costs of suitable electric, hybrid, and standard internal combustion engine vehicles and that the Administration invites


manufacturers and dealers to campus to perform demonstrations of electric and hybrid vehicles in adverse weather conditions.

This report will present our findings and recommendations beginning with background information on hybrid and electric vehicles as they pertain to our research question. Secondly, we will convey the methods, results, and an overall summary of the quantitative and qualitative study to determine the current composition and impacts of the vehicle fleet. Next, we will outline the possible options for improving the vehicle fleet’s sustainability. Finally, we will present our recommendation for improving the Colgate vehicle fleet’s sustainability.

III. Background Information

ACUPCC

Colgate University has taken various steps to implement green initiatives around campus. The university signed the American College and University President’s Climate Commitment (ACUPCC) in January 2009 with the goal of achieving a carbon neutral campus. By signing the pledge, Colgate vowed to carry out an emissions inventory, take immediate action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and incorporate sustainable practices into the curriculum though research and education with carbon-specific goals. The plan was to carry out a two-year strategy with quantifiable goals including setting a specific date to reach carbon neutrality.1 Electric and Hybrid Vehicles

In the past few decades, there has been a considerable increase in the production and popularity of electric (EVs) and hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs or hybrids). Since 1992, electric vehicles in use have increased from 1,607 to 56,901 and since 1999, hybrid vehicles in use have increased from 17 to 274,210 in the United States2. This spike in interest is due to amplified public concern over environmental and climate change issues, stricter fuel efficiency standards, and an increased dependence on foreign oil.3 This demand has been met by EVs and HEVs that have been improving their technologies to provide the consumer with higher fuel efficiency and longer ranges and lifetimes.3

An EV is powered by an electric motor as opposed to a standard internal combustion engine (ICE or internal combustion). Externally, an electric vehicle looks almost identical to its ICE counterpart as many standard ICEs are converted into EVs. All EVs are powered by an electrical motor that receives energy from a rechargeable AC or DC battery. HEVs, on the other hand, include the main components of a standard ICE

1 Taylor, B. (2010). Colgate University’s 2008-09 comprehensive greenhouse gas

inventory. Retrieved from http://www.colgate.edu/portaldata//imagegallerywww/

4352/ImageGallery/Greenhouse%20Gas%20Inventory%20-%20Final%20Report%20-

%20Published%20Report.pdf 2 Johnson, C. (2011). Alternative fuels and advanced vehicles data center: vehicles. U.S.

Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Retrieved from http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/data/vehicles.html#afv_hev 3 Deal III, W. F. (2010). Going green with electric vehicles. Technology and Engineering

Teacher. 5-11.


and an EV, coupling them into an integrated system.4 Advantages and Disadvantages of Electric and Hybrid Vehicles

Electric and hybrid vehicles can superficially seem more sustainable than ICE vehicles. Within our definition of sustainability, however, we set the boundaries of our analysis of hybrid and electric vehicles to include economic, environmental, and social realms. Using these three metrics we determined EV and HEV advantages and disadvantages and compared them to standard internal combustion engine vehicles to assess the feasibility of their incorporation into the Colgate vehicle fleet. Economic Impacts

For a vehicle to be economically sustainable compared to the alternative, it must have a lower long-term total cost. Hybrid and electric vehicles typically have different initial costs and maintenance fees compared to standard ICE vehicles. Hybrid vehicles, due to their dual engine system, have higher initial costs and need more specialized maintenance than ICE vehicles.3 However, this high initial cost can potentially be offset due to fuel savings depending on the make and model, yearly mileage, and depreciation.4 Electric vehicle batteries can be heavy, expensive, and may need to be replaced more frequently than ICE batteries, although total maintenance costs are typically 80% less than those for ICE vehicles5. Because standard ICE vehicles have been on the market for over a century, they often have lower initial and maintenance costs due to a well developed infrastructure.6

EVs and HEVs have higher fuel efficiencies than ICE vehicles, which can lead to savings on fuel.6 This fact is also important considering that half of all the oil that the United States imports from foreign countries is incorporated in gasoline consumption, and in 2008 America consumed approximately 137.8 billion gallons of gasoline.6 If everyone switched to electric cars, the U.S. would eliminate about half of its current oil consumption and thereby lower dependency on foreign oil.6 Such a change would encourage both domestic energy production and the development of an alternative energy economy. 7

4 Horn, M. (2010). Roadmap to the electric car economy. The Futurist. 41-45. 5 Cuenca, R. M., Gaines, L. L., & Vyas, A. D. (1999). Evaluation of electric vehicle production and operating costs. Retrieved from http://www.transportation.anl.gov/ pdfs/HV/14.pdf 6 Fontaras, G., Pistickopoulos, P., & Samaras, Z. (2008). Experimental evaluation of

hybrid vehicle fuel economy and pollutant emissions over real-world simulation driving

cycles. Atmospheric Environment. 48(18): 4023-4035. 3 ibid 4 ibid 6 ibid 7 Friedman, T. L. (2008, September 27). Green the bailout. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/opinion/28friedman.html


Environmental Impacts For a vehicle to be environmentally sustainable compared to the alternative, it

must impose less negative externalities such as pollution and make more efficient use of natural resources such as fossil fuels. A primary benefit associated with electric and hybrid vehicles is increased fuel efficiency and reduced emissions; a battery allows an EV to avoid gasoline consumption and allows an HEV to travel further than an ICE on a single tank of gas. This increased efficiency means that some HEVs produce 40-60% less emissions than ICE vehicles.6 Reducing fossil fuel consumption through the use of EVs and HEVs has the potential to aid in transitioning to cleaner alternative energy sources by lessening dependence on the current infrastructure.7

The use of EVs is not without potential negative environmental effects: energy companies that sell electricity often use coal to power their plants rather than clean energy alternatives such as hydro, solar, or wind technologies.6 In addition, both EVs and HEVs utilize batteries to store energy, requiring the use of heavy metal ions such as lithium and nickel.4 With increased battery use, mining for such heavy metals will become more extensive and cause environmental damage. Although batteries from EVs and HEVs do not require replacement as frequently as those in ICE vehicles, the improper disposal of these batteries can lead to heavy metals polluting groundwater and aquifers.3 Social Impacts

For a vehicle to be considered socially sustainable, its implementation must create an improved social environment for its consumers compared to its alternative. Because EVs run on electricity, a domestically produced energy source, it is possible that jobs associated with energy production could increase.2 Additionally, electric vehicles do not contain internal combustion engines and are virtually silent, reducing noise pollution.3 This lack of noise, however, may pose as a safety hazard to pedestrians and other drivers because they may not hear an approaching car. Most electric vehicles can only go about 100-200 miles on a single charge, however many ICE and HEV vehicles can go over 300 miles before running out of fuel.3 The shorter range of EVs could inconvenience drivers, especially when coupled with potentially long battery charge times.

Another obstacle impeding the adoption of electric vehicles is the lack of available charging stations and current infrastructure to support a large quantity of these automobiles. This impediment is coupled with a strong negative public perception of EVs and HEVs; many consumers have expressed concerns that electric and hybrid vehicles are too expensive, inefficient, and small.3 Many also believe that HEVs and EVs cannot provide the same safety, power, or stability of ICEs, especially in adverse weather conditions.68

6 ibid 7 ibid 4 ibid 3 ibid 2 ibid


IV. Data-driven Investigation of Situation at Colgate

Methods

Table 1. Methodology of Colgate University’s vehicle fleet investigation

Results

Interviews As a continuation of the ACUPCC, Colgate University compiled its first carbon

inventory in 2009 and as of 2011 the Colgate Climate Action Plan has been completed. Colgate followed the Clean Air-Cool Planet (CA-CP) “Carbon Calculator” as a guideline for its own carbon inventory. The CA-CP calculator is the most widely used carbon calculator in higher education and is recommended by the ACUPCC.1 In the 2009-2010 fiscal year Colgate University emitted 14,415 metric tons of carbon equivalent (MT eCO2).

9 The carbon inventory is divided into three “Scopes”. Each “Scope” is

1 ibid 9 J. Pumilio, personal communication, February 4, 2011

Method Details Desired Information

Interviews

Amy Davidson, Facilities Department Office Manager Mike Jasper, Associate Director of Facilities &

Manager of Lands and Grounds Bill Ferguson, Director and Chief of Campus Safety

John Nelson, Assistant Director of Purchasing and Senior Buyer

Gert Neubauer, Deputy Chief of Campus Safety Beth Parks, Associate Professor of

Physics and Astronomy, Chair of ACUPCC Transportation Committee

John Pumilio, Sustainability Coordinator Art Punsoni, Director of Purchasing

Gain an oversight of Colgate's

current vehicle fleet and

purchasing operations as each

department either operates

vehicles within the fleet or has

researched the feasibility of

incorporating hybrid and electric

vehicles on campus

Case

Studies Cornell University, Union College

Research comparable institutions

to Colgate to understand how

other schools have incorporated

EVs and HEVs into their

respective vehicle fleets

Surveys Administered to Buildings & Grounds (B&G)

Employees

Gauge employee knowledge and

interest of EVs and HEVs to

accurately assess the social

impact of incorporating these

vehicles into Colgate's vehicle

fleet

Cost

Benefit

Analysis

Completed by our group as the final step before

forming our recommendations

Evaluate options to determine

which vehicle choice is most cost

effective for its function


numerically ordered to represent Colgate’s responsibility for the various sources of emissions on campus. The vehicle fleet’s emissions are categorized as “Scope 1” emissions because they are directly funded by the university and are created on Colgate’s campus. “Scope 2” emissions are indirect CO2 emissions from the use of electricity and “Scope 3” are other emissions attributed to Colgate.1 In the 2009-2010 fiscal year the Colgate University non-diesel vehicle fleet emitted 330 MT eCO2 (see Appendix 1). This is 2.3% of Colgate’s total carbon emissions.10 The individual vehicles that this project identifies as viable replacements were responsible for emitting a total of 16.8 MT eCO2 yearly. This is 5.0% of the vehicle fleet’s carbon emissions and approximately 0.1% of Colgate’s total carbon emissions.10

Based on the results of the carbon inventory and in an effort to reduce Colgate’s carbon footprint, sustainable initiatives are being considered. With the research that has been conducted at Colgate, electric and hybrid vehicles have been looked at as possible replacements for new vehicles purchased. B&G regularly updates a list of the vehicle inventory that includes each vehicle’s Colgate identification number, model year, make, and its respective Colgate department (Appendix 2).

To address the goals associated with the Colgate Climate Action Plan, different committees were formed, one of which was the Transportation Committee. The Colgate Transportation Committee has looked into no idling rules, downsizing the vehicle fleet, incorporating hybrid and/or electric vehicles, and switching to alternative fueled vehicles as ways to improve Colgate’s sustainability. One suggestion of the Transportation Committee was to include either hybrid or electric vehicle replacements based on the function of each vehicle, how old each vehicle is, and through the department fuel reports.11

Vehicles at Colgate are generally purchased and replaced every six to seven years.12 Colgate purchases new vehicles through the New York State Office of General Services (OGS) and receives a discount based on the price stipulations and the available options at the time. Colgate Purchasing works with the departments of the university to define specifications of new or replacement vehicles and creates a Purchase Order that includes these specifications. If a replacement vehicle cannot be found under the New York State OGS state contract, Purchasing will request a list of specifications needed for each department, gather quotes from vendors, and make a decision based on the discounts and pricing that may apply.12

Because of Colgate’s unique topography and climate, electric vehicles are not always suitable for the university. The hilly terrain and extreme seasonal fluctuations may be an obstacle for electric vehicles on campus. However, Sodexo purchased an electric vehicle for Colgate’s Dining Services for catering events and it has been proven to be a suitable vehicle on Colgate’s campus.9

There are various factors for Colgate in particular that must be considered before purchasing an HEV or EV replacement vehicle. If the replacement vehicle will be used for long trips requiring a considerable amount of gas, then a hybrid replacement may save

10 J. Pumilio, personal communication, February 6, 2011 11 B. Parks, personal communication, March 2, 2011 12 A. Punsoni & J. Nelson, personal communication, February 24, 2011 9 ibid


gas and cut back on greenhouse gas emissions. These savings could make the vehicle economically feasible for Colgate. Additional information that Colgate departments emphasized was that the vehicles must provide enough benefits over the vehicle’s lifetime to outweigh the initial costs and increasing fuel prices. Other issues that have hindered Colgate from purchasing electric or hybrid vehicles in the past are the need for adequate heating, specialized equipment, and space for transporting people and work tools. Case Studies

The incorporation of hybrid and electric vehicles into campus fleets has become very popular among colleges and universities around the country (see Appendix 3). Not only does the use of these alternatively fueled vehicles benefit the environment by lowering greenhouse gas emissions, they also provide economic savings for the institutions. Below are two case studies of schools that have incorporated alternatively fueled vehicles into their campus fleets. Cornell University:

Located in Ithaca, New York, Cornell University began to incorporate alternatively fueled vehicles into their campus fleet as a means of reducing their air pollution levels. Cornell University was chosen as a case study because it has a similar climate and terrain to that of Colgate. In 2002, Cornell purchased seven two passenger Global Electric Motor (GEM e2) vehicles for the Transportation and Mail Services Department and since 2005 there are ten GEM vehicles in use.13 The GEM e2 vehicles were not only chosen for their ability to reduce air pollution but also because they offer features similar to standard vehicles. The GEM vehicles can legally operate on any road with a speed limit of 35 mph or less and can travel 30 miles between charges.13 GEMs also have the ability to recharge their battery through regenerative braking when decelerating. 13 The vehicles are charged at a base station overnight with an extension cord that connects their onboard charger to any 110-volt outlet. 13

The Environmental Health and Safety, Commuter and Parking Services, and Planning, Design, and Construction departments use the vehicles around campus for parking enforcement, transportation of employees, and fieldwork.14 In order to extend the use of the vehicles into the winter months, several of Cornell’s GEMs were fitted with optional doors and heater and defroster units.13 However, Cornell has noticed that the vehicles’ tires spin in the snow occasionally.14 With a base price of $6,995 and a requirement of only 7.2 kWh to fully recharge, the GEM e2 electric vehicles have already covered initial costs.13 Cornell’s electric vehicles are able to withstand a similar climate to Colgate’s demonstrating that the use of electric vehicles is a possibility for Colgate’s vehicle fleet.

13 Cornell University. (2010). Transportation: Alternative Fuel Vehicles. Retrieved from http://www.sustainablecampus.cornell.edu/transportation/alternative.cfm 14 B. Parks, personal communication, March 2, 2011


Union College:

Union College, located in Schenectady, New York, was chosen as a case study for this project because the institution is a comparable size, is situated in a similar climate to Colgate, and likely has a similar operating budget. Union College has been dedicated to improving campus sustainability since the early 1990’s when they joined the US EPA “Green Lights” Program.15 They continued to improve sustainability through the implementation of many initiatives including an update of their vehicle fleet. Union purchased a total of 12 electric vehicles and is currently considering the purchase of a hybrid vehicle.15

The college incorporated two Vantage electric vehicles into its fleet to be used by the cleaning and electrical staff.14 The cost of each vehicle over its lifetime is approximately $20,000.14 The Vantage electric vehicles have been proven to operate very well throughout the winter because they are heated, high off the ground, and powerful enough to use in the snow.14 Union also purchased ten Club Car electric vehicles for the grounds crew, which have custom-built beds for tools and hauling capacity.14 The cost over the lifetime of each vehicle is around $8,000.14 These vehicles also work well in the winter months except during severe winter weather. Union is currently building a charging station for the electric vehicles that includes solar panels on the roof. Union is also considering purchasing a hybrid vehicle for its Campus Security Department.16 A hybrid vehicle was determined to be the best option for Campus Security at Union College because of the department’s need for constant driving and frequent idling.

Surveys

A total of 16 surveys from fleet vehicle drivers were returned from B&G (see Appendix 4 and 5 for survey and results). Of the 16 surveys, 15 reported that the vehicles they drive were specialized in some way with plows, shelving, or other equipment. A total of 8 of the responses indicated that their vehicles need a large amount of power in order to move heavy equipment. When asked if their vehicles required extra space to store equipment, 13 of the 16 surveys responded yes. There were 7 respondents that indicated they drive to service calls with their partner when they work together. When the employees were asked if they were open to updating the Colgate fleet with hybrid or electric vehicles, 7 and 5 respondents indicated that they had no opinion or agreed with the statement, respectively. The final question on the survey asked if replacing the employee’s current vehicle with an electric or hybrid vehicle would allow him/her to carry out his/her job properly. Of the responses, 5 and 6 strongly disagreed and disagreed, respectively. A total of 3 responses indicated that they agreed, believing they could still carry out their job properly with a hybrid or electric vehicle.

The bottom of the survey left a space for additional comments. There were 2 surveys that noted they were unsure if hybrid or electric replacements for their vehicles

15 Union College. (2010). Facilities: Sustainability. Retrieved from http://www.union.edu/resources/campus/facilities/sustainability.php 15 ibid 16 Union College (2010). Transportation: Green Movement. Retrieved from http://www.union.edu/Resources/Campus/sustainability/initiatives/transportation.php


were available but were open to updating the fleet if the replacements would be adequate.17 Another respondent commented that if the space capacity for the vehicle was smaller, it “may require more trips back and forth to the shop to pick up materials and tools [but] the tradeoff may be worth the fuel savings; the van I drive now uses a considerable amount and is probably more than I need”.17

V. Options

Based on our interviews with members of the Colgate faculty and staff, we identified four vehicles currently in use that can potentially be replaced by electric or hybrid vehicles. Diesel vehicles were not considered in this report because we assumed that electric or hybrid vehicles would not prove to be efficient replacements. Previous work completed by the Transport Committee of Colgate’s Climate Action Plan, as well as information provided by B&G, were used to identify potential replacements and ultimately select the four vehicles. These vehicles were identified based on two main criteria: first, their everyday function within the fleet must be easily replaced by a comparable hybrid or electric vehicle; and second, the age and mileage of the current vehicle must be high enough so that they are scheduled to be replaced in the near future. Applying these criteria to the current fleet yielded the following four possible replacements:

Table 2. Vehicles in the Colgate University fleet suitable for replacement by electric or hybrid vehicles

Colgate ID # Model Year Make Department Mileage Yearly Mileage Replacement

CU5 2003 Chevrolet Astro Custodial 44414 5552 Electric

LO1 2004 Chevrolet Astro Locksmith 12151 1736 Electric

PA4 2005 Dodge Caravan Painters 19307 3218 Electric

T2 2008 Chevrolet Impala Transport 51335 17112 Hybrid

In addition to these vehicles, a fifth potential hybrid vehicle purchase was

identified through our conversation with Campus Safety. Their department plans on purchasing a four-door sedan for administrative travel around the central New York area. This vehicle would be an addition to the current fleet.

T2 and the new Campus Safety administrative sedan have higher yearly mileages because they are used for more long distance travel away from Hamilton. T2 is part of Colgate’s Transport fleet, which is used by student groups and faculty to travel away from campus. Due to their use to transport small numbers of people relatively long distances, these vehicles are ideally suited to be replaced by hybrids.

The group of vehicles identified for replacement by electric vehicles all shared low yearly mileage due to their use solely around Colgate’s campus. CU5 is used by the

17 Buildings & Grounds Survey 3/21/2011-4/1/2011


custodians to transport two or three employees up the hill from B&G’s main building to academic and residential buildings requiring cleaning and back down at the end of the day. Cargo space is not an issue for this vehicle because custodial supplies and equipment are stored in buildings up the hill. LO1 and PA4 are used sporadically by B&G’s locksmiths and painters to transport personnel and equipment around campus for their jobs. These vehicles require cargo space to store equipment but do not need to be extremely powerful as these tools are not particularly heavy. The short ranges and easily satisfied cargo requirements of these vehicles indicated their functions could be replaced with electric vehicles.

Once these vehicles were chosen as potential replacements, we determined which hybrid, electric, or conventional ICE vehicles would best replace them. These replacements were chosen based on their availability at a discounted state contract price through New York State OGS and their relative equivalence to the current vehicle in horsepower and passenger and cargo space. The hybrid vehicles selected to potentially replace T2 or serve as Campus Safety’s administrative sedan were the Ford Fusion, Nissan Altima, and the Toyota Prius Two. The conventional ICE vehicles selected were the Ford Fusion SE FWD and the Ford Fusion SEL AWD. The electric vehicles chosen to potentially replace CU5, LO1, and PA4 were the ZAPVAN Shuttle and the ZAPTRUCK XL and the conventional vehicles selected were the Chevrolet Express 1500 2WD Passenger Van and the Dodge Grand Caravan Cargo Van.

VI. Cost Benefit Analysis

We completed a cost benefit analysis (CBA) in order to evaluate which vehicle choice is most cost effective for its function. The CBA consisted of calculating the total cost for each vehicle by using the following general formula for hybrid and ICE vehicles:

�� ! "��#�#��$ �

0.008924124��,��-�./0$31�,��

This formula was used for electric vehicles:

�� .34/�� 56��,��-�7��,�� ,�� 8

Total cost was calculated over six years, the average length of time Colgate keeps vehicles are in the fleet. Additionally, all vehicles were evaluated according to the specifications of their 2011 model. The coefficient used to convert the use of a gallon of gasoline to its emissions in metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MT eCO2) is 0.008924124.10 The approximate cost of a ton of carbon, according to the proposed United States Emissions Trading System, is $31.18 The cost of carbon was not calculated

10 ibid 18 Point Carbon. (2010, April 15). Senate bill likely to result in carbon price of $31 per ton 2013-2020. Marketwire. Received from http://www.marketwire.com/press-


for electric vehicles because Colgate gets 80% of its electricity from renewable sources making this cost virtually negligible over six years.9 Gas prices were assumed to increase 1.06% per year because this was the annual average increase in the past six years.19 The results of this analysis are displayed in Appendix 6 and in Figures 1 and 2 below:

Figure 1. Six Year Projection of the Total Cost of Hybrid Vehicles and ICE Vehicles

Figure 2. Six Year Projection of the Total Cost of Electric Vehicles and ICE Vehicles

release/Senate-Bill-Likely-to-Result-in-Carbon-Price-of-31-per-Ton-2013-2020-1168759.htm 9 ibid 19 Energy Information Administration. (2011). U.S. retail gasoline historical prices. Retrieved from http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications /wrgp/mogas_history.html

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

$40,000

$45,000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

To

tal

Co

st (

US

D)

Year

Ford Fusion Hybrid

Nissan Altima Hybrid

Toyota Prius Hybrid Two

Ford Fusion SEL AWD

Ford Fusion SE FWD

$12,500

$14,500

$16,500

$18,500

$20,500

$22,500

$24,500

$26,500

$28,500

$30,500

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

To

tal

Co

st (

US

D)

Year

ZAPVAN Shuttle

ZAPTRUCK XL

Chevrolet Express 1500 2WD Passenger Van

Dodge Grand Caravan Cargo Van


The results of this CBA suggest both hybrids and electrics are more cost-effective than ICE vehicles for Colgate’s vehicle fleet over a six year timeframe. Among the vehicles evaluated to replace either T2 or Campus Safety’s administrative sedan, the Ford Fusion SE FWD had the lowest total cost at the end of the six year period but was less than $100 cheaper than the Prius. The Ford Fusion SEL AWD, the sedan currently used by Campus Safety, was found to be the most expensive vehicle over the six year period. Although the basic Fusion SE model was slightly cheaper than the hybrids, the cost differences between ICE and hybrid vehicles over six years show that hybrids can actually be less expensive in the long run due to fuel savings. This calculation also assumes only a 1.06% increase in gas prices per year, which may be conservative due to the recent volatility in gas prices across the U.S., meaning that this difference could be even greater assuming gas becomes more expensive.

The results for electric vehicles also indicate alternative methods of transportation could be more cost effective than current ICE vehicles. For instance, the vehicles currently in use by custodians, locksmiths, and painters are mini-vans with extra cargo space. The electric vehicles chosen as potential replacements can fit either four passengers (ZAPVAN shuttle) for the custodians or two passengers with ample space for equipment and supplies (ZAPTRUCK XL). Although the potential replacements are not as powerful as their ICE counterparts and can only achieve a top speed of 25 mph, they seem capable of fulfilling the current roles of CU5, LO1, or PA4 at a greatly reduced cost. It is important to note that the total cost of the electric vehicles does not include extra costs for optional add-ons that could allow them to function more like their mini-van counterparts; these include increased power and speed, as well as a box truck topper to store tools and equipment. Nevertheless, these extra costs would not increase the price enough (nearly $10,000) to make the electric vehicles outweigh the costs of comparable ICE vehicles.

VII. Recommendations

Based on our research, interviews, surveys, case studies, and cost benefit analysis, we recommend to the Colgate University administration that:

1. A full cost benefit analysis be carried out to assess the total costs of the recommended or other suitable hybrid, electric, and ICE vehicles over their lifetime in Colgate’s fleet.

2. Invite manufacturers and dealers to campus to demonstrate the use of electric and hybrid vehicles in adverse weather conditions. This demonstration should involve employees whose work would be affected should such vehicles be implemented into the fleet. Additionally, the vehicles used should be based on the results of the official CBA so that concrete purchasing decisions can be based on the results.

These recommendations are based on our work with the Colgate community and our research over a semester. From interviewing faculty and staff and surveying the opinions of B&G employees, it is clear that employees must be actively involved in the process of determining if hybrid or electric vehicles would be suitable replacements for


their current vehicles. Many of Colgate’s employees depend on the reliable operation of their vehicles in their everyday work experience and any replacements offered must adequately serve their job requirements. We also learned from faculty and staff that the weather and terrain of Colgate’s campus are key factors in the decision making process because of their potential to hinder the operation of hybrid or electric vehicles. Careful consideration must be given to ensure safe and consistent operation in heavy snow and ice conditions. Our recommendation reflects this concern and suggests potential electric or hybrid vehicle replacements be test-driven in normal and adverse weather conditions. Our case studies of peer institutions in similar climates suggest that the successful implementation of hybrid and electric vehicles is possible in central New York, but requires thoughtful selection of vehicle models. Finally, our CBA demonstrates that purchasing hybrid or electric vehicles for specific jobs could result in significant savings. For example, the cost of operating a Toyota Prius Two over six years is almost $10,000 less than operating a Ford Fusion SEL AWD. Our results suggest that hybrid and electric vehicles can be immediately incorporated into the fleet as current vehicles reach the end of their lifespan at Colgate. Although hybrid or electric prices may decrease in the future, savings appear possible now. However, this result should be verified through an official CBA by the university to reinforce our findings.

VIII. Reflection

Sustainability initiatives at Colgate University have visibly improved since the 2008 Senior Class Gift to the Sustainability Fund and the hiring of a Sustainability Coordinator on campus in 2009. The Colgate University Environmental Studies Seminar: Community

Based-study of Environmental Issues is an excellent opportunity for students to contribute toward Colgate’s sustainability initiatives, learn practical life skills, and have hands-on, one-on-one interactions with faculty, staff, and administration. This class is also a benefit for the university because students are eager to apply their knowledge by working on sustainability projects at their own institution.

With respect to our individual project, incorporating electric and/or hybrid vehicles into the university’s gasoline powered vehicle fleet could have both positive and negative implications for sustainability at Colgate. From one perspective, efforts to cut carbon emissions on campus may be more effective if focused on other initiatives because the vehicle fleet is not a significant contributor to Colgate’s carbon emissions. The cost per unit of carbon mitigated could be used as a metric to prioritize the implementation of different sustainability projects. Alternatively, the Colgate vehicle fleet is a visible part of the daily operations of the university. Using hybrid or electric vehicles could both improve Colgate’s image as a sustainable institution and encourage other green initiatives by setting a positive example. The incorporation of hybrid and electric vehicles may improve Colgate’s Sustainability Report Card’s score. However, this initiative may stress the university’s relationship with employees as it may be perceived as the university is interfering with their day-to-day jobs. One of the most striking observations our group made is that the implementation of sustainability initiatives is a task best undertaken by a community rather than an individual. Aided by the efforts of the Sustainability Coordinator, Colgate’s sustainability


has improved over a short period of time. However, in order for Colgate to meet the terms of the ACUPCC and attempt carbon neutrality, the entire community needs to be involved. An important step in involving the Colgate community is continuing to offer this seminar so that students have an option to learn more about sustainability, be taught valuable life skills, and use this capstone experience to make a significant difference and contribution to campus.

IX. Acknowledgements

The following people made substantial contributions to our research. Without them, we would not have been able to complete our report. We would like to thank each individual for his or her help. Amy Davidson, Facilities Department Office Manager

Mike Jasper, Associate Director of Facilities and Manager of Lands and Ground

Bill Ferguson, Director and Chief of Campus Safety

Frank Frey, Associate Professor of Biology and Environmental Studies

John Nelson, Assistant Director of Purchasing and Senior Buyer

Gert Neubauer, Deputy Chief of Campus Safety

Beth Parks, Associate Professor of Physics and Astronomy

John Pumillio, Sustainability Coordinator

Art Punsoni, Director of Purchasing

Gary Ross, Vice President and Dean of Admissions


X. References

Bitsche, O., & Gutmann, G. (2003). Systems for hybrid cars. Journal of Power Sources.

127(2): 8-15. Chan, C. C. (2002). The state of the art of electric and hybrid vehicles. Proceedings of the

IEEE. 90(2): 247-275. Costhelper.com. (2011). Adding an electrical outlet. Retrieved from

http://www.costhelper.com/cost/home-garden/electrical-adding-outlet.html Cuenca, R. M., Gaines, L. L., & Vyas, A. D. (1999). Evaluation of electric vehicle

production and operating costs. Retrieved from http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/HV/14.pdf

Deal III, W. F. (2010). Going green with electric vehicles. Technology and Engineering

Teacher. 5-11. Edmunds.com. (2010). Car maintenance. Retrieved from http://www.edmunds.com/car-

maintenance/ Energy Information Administration. (2011). U.S. retail gasoline historical prices.

Retrieved from http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/wrgp/mogas_history.html

Environmental Protection Agency, & U.S. Department of Energy: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. (2011). Hybrid vehicles. Retrieved from http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/hybridAnimation/swfs/hybridframe.html

FillMeUp.com. (2008). Gas prices. Retrieved from http://www.fuelmeup.com/admin/ Fontaras, G., Pistickopoulos, P., & Samaras, Z. (2008). Experimental evaluation of

hybrid vehicle fuel economy and pollutant emissions over real-world simulation driving cycles. Atmospheric Environment. 48(18): 4023-4035.

Friedman, T. L. (2008, September 27). Green the bailout. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/opinion/28friedman.html

Horn, M. (2010). Roadmap to the electric car economy. The Futurist. 41-45. Johnson, C. (2011). Alternative fuels and advanced vehicles data center: vehicles. U.S.

Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Retrieved from http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/data/vehicles.html#afv_hev

New York State Offices Of Governmental Services. (2011). Group 40450 – vehicles –

award 21910. Retrieved from http://www.ogs.state.ny.us/purchase/spg/pdfdocs/4045021910PL_BuildOut.pdf

Point Carbon. (2010, April 15). Senate bill likely to result in carbon price of $31 per ton 2013-2020. Marketwire. Received from http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Senate-Bill-Likely-to-Result-in-Carbon-Price-of-31-per-Ton-2013-2020-1168759.htm

Taylor, B. (2010). Colgate university’s 2008-09 comprehensive greenhouse gas

inventory. Retrieved from http://www.colgate.edu/portaldata//imagegallerywww/4352/ImageGallery/Greenhouse%20Gas%20Inventory%20-%20Final%20Report%20-%20Published%20Report.pdf


Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (2011). How hybrid vehicles work: gas and electric

combine for incredible mileage. Retrieved from pressroom.toyota.com/article_download.cfm?article_id=2602

U.S. Department of Energy: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. (2011). Alternative fuels and advanced vehicles data center: new york incentives and laws

for EVs. Retrieved from http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/laws/laws/NY/tech/3270

Colg

ate

Veh

icle

Fle

et

XI.

A

pp

end

ed I

nfo

rmati

on

Appen

dix

1 –

Colg

ate

Univ

ersi

ty C

arbon E

mis

sio

ns

by S

cope

Colg

ate

Univ

ersi

ty C

arbon E

mis

sio

ns

by S

cope

19


Appendix 2 – Colgate University Vehicle Fleet List

Colgate # Model Year Make Dept Mileage

Miles per year

2002 Bombardier Ski-Doo Trainer Hill

35 Fork Lift Warehouse

55 2010 Zamboni Athletics/Grounds

A2 2007 J Deere Gator 4X6 Athletics/Grounds

A3 2004 Chevy Van Athletics/Trainers

A30 2003 New Holland TN70 Tractor Athletics/Grounds

A4 2004 Chevy 4X4 w/Rubber Plow Athletics/Grounds

A5 2007 Kubota Tractor Athletics/Grounds

A6 1997 Tenant Sweeper Athletics/Grounds

A7 2006 Frontier 15' Finish Mower Athletics/Grounds

A8 2004 J Deere Gator 4X6 Athletics/Grounds

A9 2009 Kubota Mower Zero Turn Athletics/Grounds

Ath Dir 2010 Ford Taurus Athletic Director

BG Dir 2003 Chevy Impala Transport

CA2 2007 Chevy Van Carpenters


CA4 2009 Ford Van Carpenters




CA8 2009 Ford Van Carpenters


CARGO 2003 Dodge Van Transport/Cargo

Case2 2005 Polaris Ranger 4x4 Grounds

CS3 2007 Chevy Van Central Stores

CU1 2005 Ford Freestar Custodial 42909 7151.5

CU2 2006 Ford Freestar Custodial 16584 3316.8

CU5 2003 Chevy Astro Custodial 44414 5551.75

EHS 2000 Dodge Van EH&S

EL1 2009 Ford F150 Pick Up Electricians

EL2 2010 Ford Van Electricians



EL5 2004 Chevy Van Electricians

EL7 1997 Chevy Arial Electricians


G10 2006 Bobcat S220 K Series Grounds

G11 2009 Ford F250 w/Plow Grounds

G12 2006 Ford F350 4x4 w/Plow Grounds

G13 2006 Ford F550 Dump w/Plow Grounds

G14 2007 Ford F350 Grounds

G15 2001 New Holland 545D Tractor Grounds



Miles per year

G2 2006 Chevy Pickup w/Plow Grounds

G3 2003 Freightliner Grounds/Garbage

G31 2008 Bobcat 5600 Turbo Toolcat Grounds

G4 2004 Freightliner Grounds/Recycling

G5 2004 Ford Stake/Dump Truck w/Plow 7 Oaks

G6 2005 Chevy Pick Up w/Plow Grounds

G7 1995 GMC Sierra w/Tailgate Lift Grounds

G8 2004 Ford Stake w/Plow Grounds

G9 2009 Chevy Pick Up w/Plow Grounds

Grunt (T43) 2005

Ford Excursion Eddie Bauer 4x4 Colgate Thirteen

GSE1 2007 Jacobsen Rotary Mower Grounds

GSE10 2007 X-treme Vacuum Leaf Collector Grounds

GSE11 2005 John Deere ExMark Mower Grounds

GSE2 2009 Toolcat Grounds

GSE3 2005 8400 National Triplex Mower Grounds

GSE4 2005 8400 National Triplex Mower Grounds

GSE5 2004 J Deere Gator 4X6 Grounds

GSE6 2003 J Deere Gator 4X6 Grounds

GSE7 2008 Toro Workman Utility Grounds

GSE8 2010 Jacobsen 600 Turfcat Grounds

GSE9 2010 Jacobsen 600 Turfcat Grounds

H2 2010 Toyota Highlander Hockey

HP1 2010 Bob Cat S220 Heating Plant

ITS1 2001 Dodge Van ITS

ITS2 2000 Dodge Van ITS

Lift JLG Lift 600 AJ Carpenters

LO1 2004 Chev Astro Locksmith 12151 1735.857143

LO2 2009 Ford Van Locksmith 3033 1516.5

M2 2010 Chevy Van Mail Services

M3 2006 Chevy Van Mail Services

PA2 2008 Chevy Uplander Painters 6096 2032

PA3 2005 Dodge Caravan Painters 19073 3178.833333

PA4 2005 Dodge Caravan Painters 19307 3217.833333

PL1 2009 Ford F150 Pick Up Plumbers

PL2 2007 Chevy Van Plumbers

PL3 2009 Ford Van Plumbers




PL7 2000 US Cargo Trailer Plumbers

PM1 2006 Dodge Caravan PM

PM10 2009 Chevy Van PM



Miles per year


PM3 2009 Ford F150 Pick Up PM

PM4 2004 Dodge Van PM




PM8 2006 Dodge Caravan PM

PM9 2008 Chevy Uplander PM

Row Cl 2009 Chevy Silverado Rowing

S57 2002 Chevy Impala Campus Safety

S58 2009 Ford Escape Campus Safety

S59 2003 Dodge Caravan Campus Safety

S60 2009 Ford Fusion Campus Safety

S61 2009 Ford Fusion Campus Safety

T1 2008 Chevy Impala Transport/Admissions 47471 15823.66667

T2 2008 Chevy Impala Transport 51335 17111.66667

T3A 2009 Chevy Van Transport 27243 13621.5

T3B 2009 Chevy Van Transport 23417 11708.5

T3D 2004 Chevy Van Transport 92854 13264.85714

T3E 2004 Chevy Van Transport 96417 13773.85714

T3F 2005 Chevy Van Transport 85203 14200.5

T4A 2009 Chevy Van Transport/Geology 18713 9356.5

T4B 2005 Chevy Van Transport/Geology 67433 11238.83333

T4C 2006 Chevy Van Transport/Geology 26159 5231.8

T5 2006 Chevy Van Transport/Athletics 61072 12214.4

T6A 2009 Chevy Van Transport/Outdoor Ed 16130 8065

T6B 2010 Chevy Van Transport 8786 8786

T7A 2009 Chevy Van Transport/Rec Sports 25429 12714.5

T8A 2007 Chevy Van Transport/Stu Act 47682 11920.5

T8B 2006 Chevy Van Transport/Stu Act 50749 10149.8


Appendix 3 – Number of Electric and Hybrid Vehicles at Other Institutions

Institution

Electric

Vehicles

Hybrid

Vehicles

Adelphi University - >1

Amherst College - 2

Ball State University 1 25

Bates College 3 -

Boise State University 2 1

Boston College - 1

Bowdoin College 1 6

Bowling Green State

University - 1

Brown University - >1

California Institute of Tech - 3

Cal State, Chico 43 -

Cal State, Long Beach 100 -

Carnegie Melon University 2 -

Carleton College - 4

Castleton College - 5

Chatham University - 2

Colby College - >1

Colorado State University - 2

Columbia University - 3

Cornell University 7 -

Dartmouth College - 2

Drexel University - 6

Earlham College - 3

Eastern Illinois University 6 1

Elon University 22 19

Fairfield University - 1

Furman University - 2

Hamilton College - 1

Harvard University - 3

Hendrix College 2 -

Iowa State University 4 -

Kansas State University - 2

Kettering University - 5

Luther College 7 4

Michigan State University - 30

Michigan Tech University - 5

Middlebury College - 1

Monmouth College - 4

Morehead State University 5 -

Mount Holyoke College - 2

Murray State University 4 -

Northern Illinois University - 40

Oberlin College 1 2

Ohio State University - 1


Institution

Electric

Vehicles

Hybrid

Vehicles

Oregon State University - 15

Pennsylvania State - 2

Purdue University - 30

Radford University 7 -

San Antonio College 10 -

Santa Clara University 30 -

Seattle University 14 2

Smith College - 1

St. Lawrence University - 3

Stanford University - 12

SUNY Albany 10 -

SUNY New Paltz 6 -

Syracuse University 3 >1

Tufts University 2 1

UC Davis - 75

UC San Diego 225 -

UC Santa Barbara 46 -

UNC Charlotte 65 -

University of Arizona 11 -

University of Buffalo 10 -

University of Idaho 5 -

University of Minnesota 1 37

University of New Hampshire 6 -

University of Washington - 27

Virginia Tech University - 4


Appendix 4 – Buildings & Grounds Survey

Colgate Vehicle Fleet Survey for ENST 390: Community-based Study of Environmental Issues

This survey is designed to gather information on Colgate University employees’ use and opinions of the vehicle fleet. We are a part of an Environmental Studies seminar led by Frank Frey and John Pumilio. Your feedback will help inform our class project assessing

the feasibility of incorporating hybrid/electric vehicles into the fleet.

Yes No

Do you drive a Colgate owned vehicle while at work? If you answered no for this question, you do not need to complete the rest of the survey.

Is your Colgate vehicle specialized in any way? (Plows, shelving in the back of van etc.)

Does your Colgate vehicle require a lot of power to move heavy equipment?

Do you need extra room to store equipment?

If you work with a partner, do you drive together to service calls more than half the time?

Strongly Disagree

Disagree No Opinion

Agree Strongly Agree

I am open to updating the Colgate vehicle fleet with hybrid/electric vehicles.

Replacing my Colgate vehicle with a hybrid or electric vehicle would let me carry out my job properly.

Comments:


Appendix 5 – Buildings & Grounds Survey Results

Question Yes No

Do you drive a Colgate owned

vehicle while at work? If you

answered no for this question,

you do not need to complete the

rest of the survey.

16

(100%)

0

(0%)

Is your Colgate vehicle

specialized in any way? (Plows,

shelving in the back of van etc.)

15

(93.75%)

1

(6.25%)

Does your Colgate vehicle require

a lot of power to move heavy

equipment?

8

(50%)

8

(50%)

Do you need extra room to store

equipment?

13

(81.25%)

3

(18.75)

If you work with a partner, do

you drive together to service calls

more than half the time?

7

(43.75%)

9

(56.25%)

Question Strongly

Disagree Disagree

No

opinion Agree

Strongly

Agree

I am open to updating the Colgate

vehicle fleet with hybrid/electric

vehicles.

1

(6.25%)

2

(12.5%)

7

(43.75%)

5

(32.75%)

1

(6.25%)

Replacing my Colgate vehicle with a

hybrid or electric vehicle would let

me carry out my job properly.

5

(32.75%)

6

(37.5%)

1

(6.25%)

3

(18.75%)

1

(6.25%)

Colg

ate

Veh

icle

Fle

et

27

Appen

dix

6 –

Cost

Ben

efit

Anal

ysi

s

H

ybri

d E

lect

ric

Veh

icle

s E

lect

ric

Veh

icle

s In

tern

al C

om

bust

ion E

ngin

e V

ehic

les

Yea

r P

rice

of

gas

F

ord

Fusi

on

Hybri

d

Nis

san

Alt

ima

Hybri

d

Toyota

Pri

us

Hybri

d T

wo

ZA

PV

AN

S

hutt

le

ZA

PT

RU

CK

X

L

Fo

rd F

usi

on

SE

FW

D

Fo

rd F

usi

on

SE

L A

WD

Chev

role

t E

xpre

ss 1

500

2W

D

Pas

senger

V

an

Dodge

Gra

nd

Car

avan

C

argo V

an

0

$3.8

6

$25,2

22.3

1

$21,6

90.6

5

$20,4

93.9

0

$13,3

79.2

5

$15,4

19.2

5

$15,9

20.2

7

$21,1

38.5

4

$17,7

82.1

7

$17,6

63.8

4

1

$3.9

0

$27,2

08.0

5

$23,8

56.9

1

$21,9

83.2

0

$13,5

45.8

0

$15,5

85.8

0

$18,0

86.5

3

$24,1

17.1

4

$19,5

66.2

3

$19,0

28.1

2

2

$3.9

4

$29,2

33.0

9

$26,0

66.0

5

$23,5

01.9

9

$13,7

12.3

6

$15,7

52.3

6

$20,2

95.6

7

$27,1

54.7

1

$21,3

85.6

1

$20,4

19.4

1

3

$3.9

8

$31,2

98.0

7

$28,3

18.7

5

$25,0

50.7

2

$13,8

78.9

1

$15,9

18.9

1

$22,5

48.3

7

$30,2

52.1

8

$23,2

40.8

7

$21,8

38.1

4

4

$4.0

3

$33,4

03.6

2

$30,6

15.7

1

$26,6

29.8

8

$14,0

45.4

6

$16,0

85.4

6

$24,8

45.3

3

$33,4

10.5

0

$25,1

32.5

7

$23,2

84.7

4

5

$4.0

7

$35,5

50.3

8

$32,9

57.6

3

$28,2

39.9

5

$14,2

12.0

1

$16,2

52.0

1

$27,1

87.2

5

$36,6

30.6

4

$27,0

61.3

0

$24,7

59.6

5

6

$4.1

1

$37,7

39.0

0

$35,3

45.2

2

$29,8

81.4

2

$14,3

78.5

7

$16,4

18.5

7

$29,5

74.8

4

$39,9

13.5

8

$29,0

27.6

5

$26,2

63.3

2

Date post:	19-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	doancong
View:	217 times
Download:	4 times

INVESTIGATION OF THE FEASIBILITY OF INCORPORATING HYBRID ... · following definition so that our...

Documents