1. INTRODUCTION

In January of 2008, building upon research completed in the spring of 2007, Professor Gerald R. Higgins of the Richard Ivey School of Business, University of Western Ontario, completed this preliminary assessment of propane as a transportation fuel for light-duty fleets in Canada (“The Study”). The Study was limited specifically to fleet applications in light-duty vehicles (vehicles under 8,500 lbs. Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR)). Typical vehicle fleets in the Study would include police patrol vehicles, urban taxis, local and regional delivery trucks, ambulances, and a variety of service vehicles. The Study did not evaluate transportation fuels for personal-use vehicles.

The propane alternative was evaluated against other transportation fuels available to fleet operators at the time of the Study. As a prerequisite for inclusion and consideration as a transportation fuel in this Study, it was a requirement that each transportation fuel be “fit for purpose” in the defined fleet application, at the time of this Study. Factors such as the availability of a vehicle platform suitable for the fleet use defined, refuelling infrastructure, security of fuel supply, vehicle operating range, refuelling time, fleet performance experience, and economic viability were evaluated to determine if the fuel alternative was “fit for purpose” as a fuel in the specific fleet application.

The objective of the Study was to compare propane as a transportation fuel with other current and viable transportation fuels, for fleet use, basing the evaluation on empirical evidence available to the general public. Seven criteria (the “Relevant Criteria”) were examined, including:

1. Life-cycle operating costs;
2. Environmental impacts;
3. Security of fuel supply;
4. Fuel price stability;
5. Refuelling infrastructure;
6. Public and Private Sector Implications; and
7. Government policies.

In addition to the most popular transportation fuel choices, gasoline and diesel fuel, other fuels were reviewed to determine their qualification for inclusion in the Study. The Author’s research team reviewed Canadian Government sources such as Environment Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Transport Canada, and organizations at the Provincial level. Similarly, US Government organizations were accessed, including the US Department of Energy, and the US Department of Transportation. Information from many other sources, including universities and industry associations from both Canada and the United States were included in the research efforts.

Under the Canadian Federal Government’s Alternative Fuels Act (1995), alternative transportation fuels, by definition, include the following fuels: ethanol; methanol; propane gas; natural gas; hydrogen; and electricity.

Transportation fuel alternatives such as hydrogen, methanol, and electricity were eliminated from the Study, as they did not currently meet the “fit for purpose” qualification for this Study. Hybrid vehicles were excluded from this analysis as the vehicles currently available (Toyota Prius and Camry, Honda Insight, Ford Escape and others), primarily due to size, load carrying capacity, and performance capabilities, are not suited to fleet use in the defined fleet segment. While there are a number of Prius’ deployed in taxi use, the platform does not meet the requirements of the majority of the targeted fleet segment at this time. Biodiesel, although not currently defined as an alternative transportation fuel in the Alternative Fuels Act, was eliminated from the Study due to limited availability and the premium cost of the fuel.

The following Study is a comparison and evaluation of propane against the below-noted transportation fuel alternatives for light-duty fleets as defined above:

• conventional gasoline;
• gasoline/ethanol blends containing 10% ethanol (E10);
• gasoline/ethanol blends containing 85% ethanol (E85);
• conventional diesel fuel; and
• natural gas.