|HB 0262||Relating to Certain State Vehicles|
|Sponsor:||DOUGHERTY||Handling House Bill:|
|Last Action:||03/02/95 - Reported Do Pass H Energy & Environment Comm. w/HCA 1|
HB0262 Dougherty, Patrick
C O M M I T T E E
HB 262, HCA 1 -- ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES
COMMITTEE ACTION: Voted "do pass" by the Committee on Energy and Environment by a vote of 15 to 0.
This bill modifies the Fuel Conservation for State Vehicles Program. The deadline for state agencies to submit vehicle fleet energy conservation plans is changed from January 1, 1993, to October 1, 1995, and the deadline to achieve a 20% reduction in fuel consumption by state vehicles is changed from 1997 to 1999. Fuel economy for alternative fuel vehicles will be determined by methods outlined in federal regulations.
The bill also changes cost requirements for alternative fuel vehicle purchase or conversion. Rather than requiring the cost of these vehicles to not exceed the cost of conventional vehicles by more than 5%, state agencies will use the lowest life cycle costing methods, and include conversion costs for vehicles that were not originally manufactured to use alternative fuels.
HCA 1 -- allows fuel economy for propane-fueled vehicles to be calculated with methods used for natural gas until federal propane regulations are written; allows the life cycle cost of alternative fuel vehicles to exceed conventional fuel vehicle cost by up to 10%; allows state agencies to purchase alternative fuel vehicles pursuant to other government contracts; and makes technical corrections.
FISCAL NOTE: Estimated Net Cost to All State Funds of $960,439 in FY 96, $898,013 in FY 97, & $836,536 in FY 98.
PROPONENTS: Supporters say that this bill is a needed update of the original state vehicle fleet legislation passed in 1991. It includes realistic target dates, an improved definition of vehicle life-cycle cost, and improved purchasing mechanisms.
Testifying for the bill were Representative Dougherty; Department of Natural Resources Division of Energy; Natural Gas Vehicles Association; and Laclede Gas Company.
OPPONENTS: Those who oppose the bill say that the bill in its present form does not include propane-fueled vehicles in fuel economy determinations.
Testifying against the bill was the Missouri Propane Gas Association.
Terry Finger, Research Analyst