U.S. feds spends $300 million on green vehicles, will save $40 million in fuel costs
Every few months, the federal government puts out a little note announcing which and how many green vehicles
The money to buy these vehicles comes from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and the GSA says that the cleaner fleet will "save an estimated 16.7 million gallons of fuel over the next seven years, prevent 334 million pounds of greenhouse gas from entering the atmosphere, and save taxpayers at least $40 million in fuel costs." That seems worth it.
[Source: GSA]
PRESS RELEASE:
GSA Fulfills Administration's Recovery Act-Funded Greening of Federal Fleet
As part of its commitment to greening the federal fleet, GSA purchased 35 electric buses like those seen here using funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
Government's Advanced-Tech, Fuel-Efficient Buses Save Taxpayer Money
October 1, 2009
WASHINGTON - With the purchase of five compressed natural gas buses and 35 hybrid buses, the U.S. General Services Administration has successfully completed one of the Administration's key initiatives to green the federal fleet through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
"We're proud to have completed this program under such an aggressive schedule," said GSA Acting Administrator Paul F. Prouty. "By investing in more fuel-efficient federal vehicles, we're contributing to the nation's economic recovery while realizing significant long-term savings for both the taxpayer and the environment."
GSA had until September 30, 2009 to invest $300 million in new, more fuel-efficient vehicles for the federal fleet. Ahead of the deadline, GSA ordered 17,246 vehicles, including cars and buses from a total of six manufacturers. With the exception of the most recent purchase, GSA expects the majority of these vehicles to be delivered to the government by the end of October 2009. Allowing for production times, the buses are expected to be delivered in the third quarter of FY2010.
GSA will use the new vehicles to replace older, less-efficient models in the federal fleet. By increasing fuel efficiency, the Recovery Act vehicles will save an estimated 16.7 million gallons of fuel over the next seven years, prevent 334 million pounds of greenhouse gas from entering the atmosphere, and save taxpayers at least $40 million in fuel costs. As the older vehicles being replaced are sold, the money from the sales will be used to make additional investments toward greening the federal fleet.
The first phase of the purchase occurred on April 1, 2009 when GSA ordered 3,100 fuel-efficient hybrid vehicles for $77 million. On June 1, 2009, the agency invested $210 million in an additional 14,105 commercially available vehicles, including alternative fuel and hybrid vehicles. Each new replacement vehicle will have a higher miles-per-gallon rating than the one it replaces.
In the final phase, GSA invested the remaining $12.4 million in 40 advanced-technology buses and one hybrid-electric car. Five of the buses are powered with compressed natural gas, while another 35 are hybrid-electric buses. The compressed natural gas buses are produced by New Flyer, Inc of Crookston, Minnesota, while the hybrid-electric buses will come from Capitol Coach Works, Inc of Capitol Heights, Maryland. and Navistar International of Knoxville, Tennessee.
###
Founded in 1949, GSA manages more than 11 percent of the government's total procurement dollars and $24 billion in federal assets, including 8,600 government-owned or leased buildings and 213,000 vehicles.
GSA helps preserve our past and define our future, as a steward of more than 480 historic properties, and as manager of USA.gov, the official portal to federal government information and services.
GSA's mission to provide superior workplaces, expert technology solutions, acquisition services, purchasing and E-Gov travel solutions and management policies, at best value, allows federal agencies to focus on their core missions.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Throwback 10:11AM (10/12/2009)
$300 million to save $40 million? I assume these vehicles needed to be replaced anyway. If so the title of the post is wrong. If however these vehicles did not need to be replaced, it's always easy to spend other people's money.
Reply
Sebastian 10:42AM (10/12/2009)
You're right. I've changed it to be less inflammatory
Satn 10:54AM (10/12/2009)
alt title;
Government Goes Green; Green Bloggers Shocked it Cost Money
Matt234 11:00AM (10/12/2009)
We know how much they spent, and we know what the fuel saving will be. What's missing is how much _more_ the efficient vehicles cost over equivalents. $10M? $20M? ... $100M?
Presumably less than $40M or they wouldn't have made the purchase decision, but with the information in the press release, there is no way to tell what the actual savings will be. Lame.
cosman2001 10:13AM (10/12/2009)
The title of this article makes the government sound like they wasted money. However, not only are they saving 40 million $$, they are also creating jobs. In addition they are doing their part to curb our foreign oil addiction. I think its a bold statement when the government purchases electrical or alternative fuel vehicles to show the rest of us that controlled denotation isn't the only mechanism to power our vehicles. The bigger question is how many carbon tax credits did they receive?
Reply
mapoftazifosho 10:46AM (10/12/2009)
So long as the accounting was done for the cost benefit of not only the fuel, but the repair costs associated with keeping up an older fleet...they probably came out on top.
Reply
Woodenbee 10:55AM (10/12/2009)
well lets hope the no party doesn't "win" (steal) the next election and replace them all with GM gas guzzlers again, thats how they roll, its funny how GM once the darling of bloated republican contractors has been left to die in a ditch, thats what the right wing does to their friends and conspirators
Reply
wincros 10:56AM (10/12/2009)
The phony outrage of this article depends on the assumption that the vehicles did not need to be replaced anyway. It also depends on the fallacy that fuel savings must pay for the entire cost of a new vehicle. I guess anyone who has bought a Prius is idiotic for buying a car that does not save them the $30K purchase price when buying fuel over the next 7 years over what they spend with their previous car. That is the same ridiculous argument. If someone writes an article the object of which is obviously designed to make you angry at your government, or anything else for that matter, it is wise to treat it with a lot of suspicion. This kind of stuff is everywhere, news which is spun to gin up political anger.
Reply
KK 11:08AM (10/12/2009)
That's $40 million saved assuming gas price stays at $2.40 per gallon. That seems highly unlikely.
(I know, the press release correctly says "at least $40 million", but the ABG headline doesn't.)
Reply
Blown tranny 11:28AM (10/12/2009)
Fuel prices will probably go up as the world pulls out of recession. The savings may end up being higher.
Boyprodigy1 6:44PM (10/12/2009)
@Blown tranny,
Replace "may" with "will"
Laurens 11:43AM (10/12/2009)
All this makes absolutely no sense, unless a worldwide treaty exists to reduce CO2.
Who's going to prevent Chavez from subsidising fuel through tax incentives, for every gallon consumed?
Reply
KK 1:57PM (10/12/2009)
I think a worldwide treaty would only be possible if the US and other industrialized nations take the lead, and set an example for others to follow.
As a side benefit, we'd have the green technologies that we can sell to other countries.
Laurens 2:29PM (10/12/2009)
EV technology is hardly high tech. And does it make sense to run ahead of the pack? I would pick the low hanging fruit, and go for ROI opportunities. Especially when the country is short of cash already...
Boyprodigy1 6:48PM (10/12/2009)
@Laurens
Are you serious? Because our government is a little broke we should cease all r&d and secede our position as one of the most highly r&d centered countries in the world. Never mind the fact that we have thousands of universities that are already working on this tech in the first place or the fact that we have obligations anyway. You are an idiot (which is a statement that i don't want to take things lightly)...
Michael Hippenhammer 3:49AM (10/13/2009)
Who cares what others do in this world. If it is the right thing to do don't wait for someone else to do it. JUST DO IT !!! Stop whining about China and India and what are they going to do. WE ARE AMERICANS stop following and start leading for god sake! I'll bet they will follow the leader.
Nick 11:29AM (10/13/2009)
Laurens
"All this makes absolutely no sense, unless a worldwide treaty exists to reduce CO2."
The eternal excuse of the "needle in the haystack". Your reasoning goes as follows: "If it only makes a small difference on the total scale then why do it?".
It's got to start somewhere, and it usually always starts small..........if one would listen to the kind of theory, there would never, ever be anything happening in the field.
KK 3:35PM (10/12/2009)
Internal combustion isn't exactly high-tech either, but it's still not easy to design and manufacture cars that can compete with Toyota in terms of quality and price. Even for an established automobile manufacturer, it can take billions of dollars and many years to develop a completely new car platform.
And I don't think these American companies are really "ahead of the pack." Some European and Asian countries are already experimenting with hybrid buses.
Reply
Dan Mosqueda 7:53AM (10/13/2009)
I'm in the government, and while spending $300 million is a drop in the bucket, the $40 million is savings is very real to the departments O&M (Operations and Maintenance) budgets. What? This means they use one "color" of money to make the buy (Stimulus money, i.e. they wouldn't have made the purchase otherwise) and another "color" of money (O&M) to operate the vehicles. So, in the big picture, it might not seem like a savings, but it really is to an individual agency or office using the vehicles.
Another point would be the government often foots the bill for new technology or the capital needed for the marketplace to be able to offer the same technology to commercial and individual consumers.
I'm not defending the spending, just trying to help folks understand how the government works. It's not one huge checkbook, it's many millions of checkbooks each with compartments of money (colors like Research, Operations, Sustainment, etc...).
Reply
Ernie 6:05PM (10/13/2009)
Note: The subject should say "Saves $40 million per year". Assuming a 10 year lifespan of these vehicles, they will save more than they paid.
Reply