Press Packet Aspen Police Department’s Toyota Highlander Hybrid

506 E Main Street, Suite 102, Aspen, Colorado 81611

970-920-5400

970-920-5409 (fax)

www.aspenpolice.com

Press Release For Immediate Release Bill Linn, Assistant Chief of Administration 970-920-5400 [email protected] www.aspenpolice.com ASPEN, CO - May 29, 2008 - The Aspen Police Department has never been traditional, whether it has been in how we interact with our community, or the tools we use. Through times when most of the country was driving Ford Crown Victoria and Chevrolet Caprice police vehicles, we were driving Saabs and Volvos. We continue to break with tradition, and are now taking a more radical step in implementing a completely hybrid police vehicle fleet, among the first police agencies in the nation to do so. “The reasons we are buying these are the same reasons many consumers can agree with,” Police Chief Richard Pryor said Thursday. “We wanted to do our part to reduce CO2 emissions, to reduce the fuel we use, as well as provide a fully-functioning police patrol vehicle.” These three goals have been met by the Toyota Highlander Hybrid. A mid-size four-wheel-drive SUV, the Highlander hybrid is classified as a “Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicle,” yet generates a potent 268 horsepower. Before 2005 the Aspen Police Department began looking into using hybrid vehicles for use as a police patrol car. At that time, hybrid vehicles were making inroads in the consumer market, but they were untested in police patrol use. No vehicle produced at that time was judged acceptable for police patrol use. But in 2006, Toyota introduced the Highlander hybrid, which seemed like a potential platform for a police patrol vehicle, and the Aspen Police Department began exploring the idea. In March 2008 the police department purchased a Toyota Highlander Hybrid vehicle, and as an experiment, installed a full electrical police package of radio, emergency lights, radar, video & laptop computer. Two months of successful “on the street” police patrol testing has followed, as well as some specific laboratory-style tests, to determine that the Highlander will be a solid police vehicle platform.

506 E Main Street, Suite 102, Aspen, Colorado 81611

970-920-5400

970-920-5409 (fax)

www.aspenpolice.com

Through this, the police department has discovered that lower carbon emissions and a decrease in fuel consumption are achievable targets. We estimate that by increasing fuel efficiency by a conservative 55%, or from 12.9 mpg to 20mpg, the Aspen Police Department can decrease CO2 emissions by approximately 20 tons per year and save $7,000 in fuel costs, at current prices. Chief Pryor offered his thanks to the City of Aspen Mayor Mick Ireland, City Council, and other City staff for supporting us in this venture, showing their commitment to caring for our environment. He also wished to thank electrical engineer Mike Ogburn and the Rocky Mountain Institute for dedicating time to testing the vehicle and offering solutions to improve the electrical equipment installation. Lastly, thanks to Big Horn Toyota of Glenwood Springs for supplying the vehicles.

Fast Facts: Police patrol fleet gas mileage (traditional vehicles): 12.9 mpg (2007 year total) Miles driven in 2007: 108,847 Total gallons consumed: 8,415 gallons Current City of Aspen price for gasoline, purchased in bulk: $3.565 per gallon Current price for mid-grade gasoline, retail, Aspen, 5-29-2008: $4.799 Current gas mileage of Toyota Highlander test patrol vehicle, driven under regular patrol use: 21.73 mpg. Price of Volvo XC90 sedans, as paid (2005): $31,157 Price of Toyota Highlander Hybrid, as paid (2008): $35,392

506 E Main Street, Suite 102, Aspen, Colorado 81611

970-920-5400

970-920-5409 (fax)

www.aspenpolice.com

Michael Ogburn Mobility and Vehicle Efficiency Rocky Mountain Institute [email protected] 970 927 7305 April 30, 2008 Richard Pryor Chief of Police Aspen, Colorado RE: Aspen Police Hybrid-Electric Toyota Highlander Patrol Vehicle Chief Pryor, Thank you for the opportunity to assist your departmentʼs initiative to reduce the fuel used during your work to keep the City of Aspen safe. As a former product development engineer for Ford Motor Company who worked on the Escape Hybrid, I am interested in following your progress and assisting if possible. During my visit on April 29, 2008 I met with you, Officer Bill Linn, Deputy Adam Crider, as well as Kim Peterson and Calla Ostrander of the Aspen Canary Initiative. We discussed how the hybrid patrol vehicle had required several jump-starts due to a dead battery and it was our goal that day to see if we could identify any causes of this problem. The following pages outline my findings and recommendations. In summary, I feel that the Toyota Highlander Hybrid Vehicle is functioning properly and that the “police upfitting” is discharging the 12 volt starter battery. With minor modifications to the police upfitting installed on the vehicle the Highlander Hybrid should operate with normal reliability as would be expected of an unmodified vehicle. Furthermore we discussed the fuel economy of the Highlander Hybrid as observed during patrol operation. A typical rule of thumb is that if a vehicle is hybridized it will see approximately 50% fuel economy increase. Aspenʼs police patrol testing meets expectations, showing a 45%-70% improvement. The Highlander Hybrid delivers 16-19mpg versus the Volvo XC-90ʼs 11mpg - a vehicle of similar horsepower, weight, shape, and size. Warmest regards, Mike Ogburn

Rocky Mountain Institute

1

2008 Toyota Highlander Hybrid

2008 Volvo XC-90

Curb weight: 4508 lb

Curb weight: 4,464 lb

Hybrid-electric transmission + AWD

6-speed automatic transmission + AWD

3.3L V6

3.2L V6 235 hp

376 hp (209 hp engine+167 hp electric)

4.4L V8 311 hp (optional)

EPA City/Hwy: 27/25 mpg

EPA City/Hwy: 14/20 mpg

Aspen Police: 16-19 mpg observed*

Aspen Police: 11 mpg observed**

Est. Police Range: 275 mi (17.2 gal tank)

Est. Police Range: 232 mi (21.1 gal tank)

Hybrid Highlander vs. Volvo XC90: 45%-72% higher fuel economy (real-world Aspen Police patrol operation) * Operation March 15 2008 to April 30 2008 **Operation over 2 years

Rocky Mountain Institute

2

Findings: Data collected on April 29, 2008, 60 degrees F Battery Voltage: Vehicle parked, off



Vehicle parked, off, with headlights and brake lights on Vehicle parked, running, with headlights and brake lights on Vehicle parked, running, with lights + police gear on (no laptop)

12.5V (normal) 11.9V (normal) 13.8V (normal) 13.8V (normal)

Current Flow To Police Gear: Vehicle parked, off



Vehicle parked, running, police gear on (no laptop)

Vehicle parked, off, first 60 seconds after key-off Vehicle parked, off, beyond 60 seconds after key-off Vehicle parked, off, minimum observed current flow

0.04A (too high) 2.5 A (normal) 1.7A (normal) 0.25A (too high) 0.04A (too high)





Conclusion: Unnecessary Electrical Current Draw After Key-Off My conclusion from this investigation is that there are draws on the Toyota Highlanderʼs 12 volt starter battery after key-off. Passenger vehicles are designed to support a minimum level of current draw after key off, typically dome lights, hazard flashers, brief usage of headlights and little else. The draw seen after key off due to the police gear in the vehicle was over 1 amp for the first sixty seconds. This brief draw is likely not a problem. However, after 60 seconds the police gear continued to draw 0.25A for several minutes and was still drawing when the test was terminated. Over time, this draw is sufficient to cause a dead 12 volt starter battery. The police gear is equipped with several “timed-shut-off” devices that should theoretically reduce the current draw to 0.00A but do not appear to do so. With the assistance of Richard Pryor, Bill Linn and Adam Crider, multimeter current testing revealed that the 0.04 amp draw was due in equal parts to the “Mobile Vision” system and the “Charge Guard” system that runs the laptop docking station. Aspen Police previously identified an issue with the “Charge-Guard” system early during the trial of the Highlander Hybrid. An installation glitch caused the laptop docking station to turn off normally on a timer but then abnormally turn back on and stay on, causing a dead starter battery. Adam Crider spent significant time on the phone with the supplier and was able to implement a solution that eliminated the glitch. This improved reliability significantly but did not completely eliminate the dead battery problem. In conversation with Aspen Police Officers it was learned that the Volvo XC90 police vehicles also experienced dead batteries after purchase. Incorrect instructions from Motorola caused an installation error in the police radio wiring that resulted in current draw after key-off. This issue took approximately 6 months to identify and eliminate. This type of problem with police upfitting is common. Quite often these kinds of “bugs” need to be worked out even on conventional non-hybrid police vehicles. Rocky Mountain Institute

3

Solution:

Install a Secondary Battery and a Starter Battery Isolation Solenoid

My recommendation is to make two changes to the installation of police gear: 1) Install a second battery that will solely support the police gear. This battery would likely be installed in the rear of the vehicle. (secondary batteries are a common option on factory-installed police packages for Ford Crown Victoria and Chevy Tahoe) 2) Isolate the new secondary battery from the starter battery with a solenoid. This solenoid should be wired to engage only when the vehicle is running. It should disengage immediately upon key-off. In this configuration, the solenoid will allow normal operating of the police gear when the vehicle is running. It will also allow the vehicle to charge the secondary battery. When the vehicle is off the solenoid will open, isolating the vehicle battery and allowing the secondary battery to power the police gear as needed. Isolation of the vehicle battery is and replacement with a fresh battery is expected to completely eliminate the deadbattery issue that was experienced by Aspen Police on several occasions. Switched with Key Always On RECOMMENDED SETUP

12

12 V 12V-powered Police Gear (computer, radar, mobile-vision, etc)

Wiring configuration leaves police gear connected to 12V starter battery when key is off

Rocky Mountain Institute

Hybrid Battery

12V-powered Police Gear (computer, radar, mobile-vision, etc)

12V Police Power

age High Volt

12V Police Power

ge

Hybrid Battery

Hybrid System (with DC/DC converter)

oid

High Volta

V6 Engine

len

Hybrid System (with DC/DC converter)

so

V6 Engine

12 V ba star tte ter ry V

12 V ba star tte ter ry

12V batt

CURRENT SETUP

Secondary battery operates gear and a solenoid isolates the 12V starter battery when key is off

4

NOTE: It is recommended that if the vehicle experiences another dead battery that a multimeter be used to check the voltage of the starter battery and that another attempt be made to start the vehicle before jump starting. This will assist in further diagnosis of this problem, confirming that the battery is in fact the cause of the no-start condition.

Appendix Background: Police Vehicle Upfitting Police vehicles require electronic systems such as radios, radar, and video monitoring systems that are not available directly from vehicle manufacturers. To meet police needs aftermarket companies modify existing vehicles, installing the equipment specified by a particular police department. Certain vehicles are designed with an optional “police package” which typically offers pre-installed wiring, an upgraded battery, a larger alternator, battery-discharge-prevention device and, in some cases, a secondary battery. The Toyota Highlander Hybrid does not offer a police package. Background: Hybrid Vehicles and Conventional Alternators Hybrid vehicles are equipped with a transmission that incorporates an electric motor and battery that assists the engine when driving, recaptures braking energy, and permits engine-off operation in certain situations. These vehicles do not have a “starter” or an “alternator” as normal cars do. Instead, the hybrid system starts the engine and uses a “DC/DC converter” to convert high voltage from the hybrid battery into 12 volts to charge the vehicle starter battery. Because the 12 volt starter battery does not have to “crank” the engine, hybrid vehicles are typically equipped with smaller starter batteries. Because there is no alternator, there is typically no issue supplying sufficient 12 volt power to charge the starter battery on a hybrid vehicle. This is because the electronic DC/DC converter on a hybrid can operate at 100% power regardless of engine speed, unlike conventional alternators which rely on rotation of magnetic fields to generate energy.

Rocky Mountain Institute

5

Michael Ogburn Mobility and Vehicle Efficiency Rocky Mountain Institute [email protected] 970 927 7305 May 16, 2008 Richard Pryor Chief of Police Aspen, Colorado RE: Follow-up Visit #1, Aspen Police Hybrid-Electric Toyota Highlander Patrol Vehicle Chief Pryor, Thank you for the opportunity to assist your departmentʼs initiative to reduce the fuel used during your work to keep the City of Aspen safe. The progress your team has made to refine the police upfitting on the hybrid patrol vehicle has reduced the draw on the vehicleʼs starter battery to 0.00 Amps after key-off exactly as we had hoped it would. During my visit on May 15, 2008 I met with you and Officer Bill Linn to review the changes made to the vehicle and discuss ways to further test the new system. Measuring 0.00 Amps of current after key-off confirmed that the newly installed solenoid is disconnecting the police equipment from the vehicleʼs starter battery as desired. This should eliminate the no-start issue after leaving the vehicle parked. We then replicated a discharged-secondary-battery condition to create maximum draw on the vehicleʼs charging system and demonstrated the vehicleʼs ability to handle this draw for several seconds. In summary, I feel that the Toyota Highlander Hybrid Vehicle is now well isolated from the police equipment after key-off and that the new secondary battery will sufficiently handle the loads of the police equipment after key-off for up to 5 hours and routinely for 2.5 hours. This is well above the 1 hour requirement of the Aspen Police Department. Several simple tests will further verify that this is true. I was also pleased to hear that the on-patrol fuel economy is now averaging closer to 22mpg which is a 100% increase in fuel mileage over the Volvo XC-90ʼs 11mpg. Warmest regards, Mike Ogburn

Rocky Mountain Institute

1

Findings: Data collected on May 15, 2008, ~50 degrees F, with a digital multimeter Current Flow from starter battery to Police Gear: Vehicle parked, running, police gear on (no laptop)

Vehicle parked, off, first 60 seconds after key-off Vehicle parked, off





2.5-4.0A (normal) 0.00A (ideal) 0.00A (ideal)

Vehicle Starter Battery Voltage: Vehicle parked, off



12.3V (slightly low) Vehicle parked, running, with lights + police gear on (no laptop) 13.9V (normal) Secondary Battery Voltage: Vehicle parked, off



Vehicle parked, running, with no police equipment

Vehicle parked, running, police equipment on (no laptop) Vehicle parked, running, police equipment on + radio transmit

12.8V (very good) 13.6V (normal) 13.3V (normal) 12.8V (normal)

Conclusion: Problem solved: My conclusion from this investigation is that the updated police upfitting configuration which includes a solenoid to isolate the vehicle starter battery from the police equipment is working normally. Further testing was done to identify if the hybrid patrol vehicleʼs DC/DC converter would tolerate a worst case scenario. This worst case scenario was assumed to be a high current draw situation during vehicle operation. Should the secondary battery ever become extremely low, it would draw a charging current from the DC/DC. The worst case would then be: Current draw to charge the secondary battery + current draw of all police gear + current draw during police radio transmit + current draw of normal vehicle operation. Rather than discharging the secondary battery which would have been time consuming, we used the City of Aspenʼs battery load tester to draw a simulated charge current. This load tester is essentially a “toaster” element that absorbs energy to create a current drain. With this device connected to the secondary battery and drawing current, the radio was then switched to transmit mode while all other police gear was turned on. The results were as follows: Simulation of worst-case current load scenario: ~5 second test Secondary battery voltage during load-test + radio transmit 12.2V (normal) Vehicle starter battery voltage during load-test + radio transmit 13.5V (normal) The worst-case test results did not cause any abnormal operation. The vehicle remained running while in park and the police gear functioned normally. It is noteworthy that the vehicleʼs starter battery voltage dropped to 13.5 V from its normal 13.9V. This indicates that the DC/DC converter was operating at maximum capacity during the test. Having reached the maximum load of the DC/DC converter without any change to

Rocky Mountain Institute

2

vehicle operation indicates that temporarily experiencing this assumed worst case scenario will not negatively affect the Toyota Hybrid System. Further testing: The recommendation of this team is to make two further tests to fully validate the installation of police gear in the new two-battery configuration: 1) Overnight parking simulation: Re-calibrate the police gear to incorporate the desired post-key-off operation of various devices including approximately 1 hour of video surveillance. Verify that this gear is working as expected by checking that 1 full hour of video and remote microphone data is recorded. Then use the vehicle to perform a normal patrol event, triggering a video recording at the end of use before parking the vehicle for ~48 hours. Before vehicle-restart, check and record the voltage of secondary battery and the starter battery. Restart the vehicle, enable all police gear, and use the vehicleʼs police radio to contact dispatch to verify immediate and full operation of systems as expected. Voltage above 11.0V on the secondary battery and above 12V on the starter battery indicates a “pass” on this test. 2) Long emergency response simulation: With the vehicle running and climate control operating normally, put it in park and turn on all normal police gear used during emergency events. Leave the vehicle in this state for approximately 2 hours to simulate responding to an emergency. Upon return to the vehicle, check and record the voltage of the two batteries. Verify normal operation of the vehicle and the police gear. Normal vehicle operation, starter battery voltage of ~13.8V and secondary battery voltage above ~13V indicates a “pass” on this test. Safety Suggestions: 1) The secondary battery should be equipped with a ~100 amp fuse near the positive terminal. The original upfitting package includes this type of fuse at the starter battery under the hood. Duplicating the original installation on the second battery to provide over-current protection is recommended. 2) The new solenoidʼs terminals are exposed. Should a metal object come in contact with the terminals which are located right rear passengerʼs seat, there could potentially be a dangerous short circuit. I recommend a non-conductive cover that allows cooling air to reach the warm solenoid. 3) The second batteryʼs terminals are exposed. These should be covered to reduce the risk of short circuit.

Rocky Mountain Institute

3

Refinement of the battery isolation method: The simple solenoid used to isolate the secondary battery from the vehicle starter battery is adequate as installed. However, as Chief Pryor noted, the solenoid gets warm to the touch during vehicle operation indicating wasted energy. Furthermore, a 0.3-0.5V drop was measured across the solenoid during operation, indicating moderate internal resistance in the contacts. This could be lowered through the use of a more advanced device. There are several modern technologies that will do the job of this solenoid. Options include: Kilovac 50A DC contactor: http://relays.tycoelectronics.com/kilovac/ DC Solid-state Relay: http://www.hellroaring.com (identified by Officer Linn) Expected battery energy available after key-off: If the police gear that operates after key-off remains at or below the 3 amps measured during previous testing, the secondary battery can be expected to last a maximum of 5 hours before being fully discharged. To extend the calendar life of the battery, it should not be drawn below 50% charge on a regular basis. Taking this into account, the police gear could draw 3 amps for 2.5 hours without battery degradation. Alternately, a draw of 1.6 amps for 5 hours or 4.8 amps for 1.5 hours would also be permissible and not use more than 50% of the battery capacity at room temperature operation. Available battery energy in extremely cold situations may be reduced by half or more. To combat this loss in available energy, a second battery or a larger capacity battery made by the same company could be installed at a later date if it proves to be necessary. ODYSSEY PC 680 performance data at 25°C, per 12V module Time to 10.02v

2 min.

Watts (W) 1486

Amps (A) 143.0

Capacity (AH) 4.8

Energy (WH) 49.5

5 min.

792

78.8

6.6

66.0

10 min.

512

49.3

8.4

87.1

15 min.

389

36.7

9.2

97.4

20 min.

318

29.6

9.8

104.9

30 min.

236

21.6

10.8

118.2

45 min.

173

15.6

11.7

130.1

1 hour

138

12.3

12.3

138.0

2 hour

79

6.9

13.8

157.2

3 hour

56

4.8

14.4

166.5

4 hour

43

3.7

14.8

172.8

5 hour

35

3.0

15.0

177.0

8 hour

23

2.0

16.0

187.2

10 hour

19

1.6

16.0

192.0

20 hour

10

0.8

16.0

204.0

Time

Rocky Mountain Institute

4

Static Test Results Aspen Police Department’s Toyota Highlander Hybrid May 22nd 2008 1. Overnight parking simulation: This simulation was run from 1820hrs 05-19-08 to 0700hrs on 05-22-08. The vehicle was parked in a closed unheated garage space for this test. The video system was recalibrated to record for 1 hour after key off. Power to the laptop, front screen and keyboard and docking station was left set to shut off 15 minutes after key off. Data collected is as follows: •

At key off at the start of the simulation the vehicle battery read 12.7v & the secondary battery read 12.5v.

•

On 5-20-08 at 1800hrs after ~24 hours the vehicle battery read 12.16v & the secondary battery read 12.34v.

•

On 5-22-08 at 0700hrs after ~60 hours the vehicle battery read 12.14v & the secondary battery read 12.17v.

•

The vehicle started normally and all police equipment also functioned normally. Then with engine running the vehicle battery read 13.7v.

2. Long emergency response simulation: This simulation was run from 1500hrs on 5-1908 to 1730hrs on 5-19-08. The vehicle was parked in an open garage space for this test. The vehicle was left running normally with vehicle radio, headlights, climate control set at medium power, and with overhead emergency lights, video system and laptop running. The police radio & radar system were powered up, but were not being actively used. Data collected is as follows: •

On 5-19-08 at 1755 after ~2.5 hours and after turning the vehicle off, the vehicle battery read 12.7v & the secondary battery read 12.5v.

•

After taking the above reading the video and laptop systems were switched off and the secondary battery read 12.8v. The solenoid was “very” hot to the touch.

It should be noted that test 2 immediately followed test 1.

506 E Main Street, Suite 102, Aspen, Colorado 81611

970-920-5400

970-920-5409 (fax)

www.aspenpolice.com

Photos Aspen Police Department’s Toyota Highlander Hybrid

Exterior view of the Toyota Highlander Hybrid police patrol vehicle.

Interior view of the Toyota Highlander Hybrid police equipment.

506 E Main Street, Suite 102, Aspen, Colorado 81611

970-920-5400

970-920-5409 (fax)

www.aspenpolice.com

1

Page:

Sales, Service & Installation By:

Quote Order Number: 0025214 Order Date: 11/8/2007

Salesperson: JKI Customer Number: 10-ASP1001

12851 W 43RD DRIVE, UNIT # 1 GOLDEN CO, 80403 3032880313 Sold To:

Ship To:

CITY OF ASPEN POLICE DEPT. 506 E. Main Ste 102 Aspen, CO 81611 Confirm To:

CITY OF ASPEN POLICE DEPT. 506 E. Main Ste 102 Aspen, CO 81611

Richard Pryor Customer P.O.

Ship VIA

08' Highlander

INSTALL

Item Number

F.O.B.

Terms NET 30 DAYS

Product Line

Ordered

Unit

Price

Amount

Aspen Police Department Unit #: -- 2008 Toyota Highlander (HYBRID) *BRUSH GUARD Polar Bear 1 Pc. Brush Guard 70R02SRR 700 SURFACE MOUNT LED RED 70B02SBR 700 SURFACE MOUNT LED BLUE 7EGRILB 7ESERIESGRILLEHOUSINGBLACK 11.1005SF LED FLASHER, STROBE PATTERN SA315P SIRENSPEAKER SAK1

1.000

EACH

461.250

461.25

WHL

1.000

EACH

105.000

105.00

WHL

1.000

EACH

105.000

105.00

WHL

2.000

EACH

39.200

78.40

ABL

1.000

EACH

22.185

22.19

WHL

1.000

EACH

140.000

140.00

WHL

1.000

EACH

21.000

21.00

1,925.000

1,925.00

Universal Mounting Bracket for SA314 Speaker, Explorer,2002-03, Taurus w/o ABS, 2001, Suburban/Tahoe, 2003. SX8SPLTA WHL 1.000 EACH 50" LIBERTY SX MODEL SPLIT TA, AL, TD BRKT-CUSTOM

AVT

1.000

EACH

40.000

40.00

CUSTOM BRACKET Custom bracket to mount lightbar to roof rack LBT3400

ANT

1.000

EACH

4.500

4.50

L BRACKET 3/4" TRUNK CCSRNTA2

WHL

1.000

EACH

750.000

750.00

CENCOM 2 SIREN SYSTEM W TA Continued

2

Page:

Sales, Service & Installation By:

Quote Order Number: 0025214 Order Date: 11/8/2007

Salesperson: JKI Customer Number: 10-ASP1001

12851 W 43RD DRIVE, UNIT # 1 GOLDEN CO, 80403 3032880313 Sold To:

Ship To:

CITY OF ASPEN POLICE DEPT. 506 E. Main Ste 102 Aspen, CO 81611 Confirm To:

CITY OF ASPEN POLICE DEPT. 506 E. Main Ste 102 Aspen, CO 81611

Richard Pryor Customer P.O.

Ship VIA

08' Highlander

INSTALL

F.O.B.

Terms NET 30 DAYS Ordered

Item Number

Product Line

CCMICX20

WHL

1.000

20' MIC EXT TLNS2RB

WHL

Unit

Price

Amount

EACH

42.920

42.92

1.000

EACH

240.600

240.60

DUAL TALON SYNC RED/BLUE Red/Blue LEDs to be mounted at rear window of vehicle LAW4CCCC

WHL

1.000

EACH

461.300

461.30

UNIV LED HIDEAWAY FOUR LAMP DSR

STK

1.000

EACH

2,795.000

2,795.00

DSR with 2 Ka-Band Antennas 155-2211-00

STK

1.000

EACH

49.000

49.00

REMOTE CABLE KIT MVD-FBDVS

MVI

1.000

EACH

5,295.000

5,295.00

1.000

EACH

200.000

200.00

1.000

EACH

MOBILE VISION BASIC DVR PACKAGE *MVD-RDR-STALKE Mobile Vision radar interface BRKT-CUSTOM

100.000

100.00

CUSTOM BRACKET Custom bracket to mount CenCom light and siren controller, Stalker radar, Mobile Vision digital video system and remote radio *DATA911 MOUNT 1.000 EACH

AVT

800.000

800.00

Data 911 mounts and fabricatio RH1600

MNS

1.000

EACH

538.560

538.56

RESPONDER HARNESS CENCOM GOLD RP35

MNS

1.000

EACH

325.260

325.26

PDU UNIT FOR CENCOM GOLD Continued

3

Page:

Sales, Service & Installation By:

Quote Order Number: 0025214 Order Date: 11/8/2007

Salesperson: JKI Customer Number: 10-ASP1001

12851 W 43RD DRIVE, UNIT # 1 GOLDEN CO, 80403 3032880313 Sold To:

Ship To:

CITY OF ASPEN POLICE DEPT. 506 E. Main Ste 102 Aspen, CO 81611 Confirm To:

CITY OF ASPEN POLICE DEPT. 506 E. Main Ste 102 Aspen, CO 81611

Richard Pryor Customer P.O.

Ship VIA

08' Highlander

INSTALL

Item Number

F.O.B.

Terms NET 30 DAYS

Product Line

Ordered

Unit

Price

Amount

/LABOR

1.000

EACH

2,988.000

2,988.00

LABOR CHARGE /MISCMATINST

1.000

EACH

298.800

298.80

40.000

40.00

MISC MATERIAL INSTALL Install CUSTOMER SUPPLIED truck vault from 2005 Volvo XC90 -- **ANY MODIFICATIONS NEEDED TO CUSTOMIZE TRUCK VAULT TO MAKE IT FIT 08' HIGHLANDER WILL BE BILLED AT AV-TECHS REGULAR HOURLY CHARGE** **NOTE: electrical equipment box that is currently on top of truck vault will be used IF POSSIBLE. If a new box must be built to accomodate new vehicle or equipment, additional fee will be charged** Install CUSTOMER SUPPLIED Motorola remote face radio Install CUSTOMER SUPPLIED DATA 911 computer system Install CUSTOMER SUPPLIED flashlight and charger

BRKT-CUSTOM

REMOVE Truck Vault from existing Volvo XC90 to be put into new 08' Highlander. Labor will include the moving of all electronic equipment mounted on truck vault in Volvo, moving it to the floor and a box to be built around it for protection AVT 1.000 EACH

CUSTOM BRACKET /LABOR

1.000

EACH

576.000

576.00

LABOR CHARGE /MISCMATINST

1.000

EACH

57.600

57.60

MISC MATERIAL INSTALL

Customer Signature ______________________________________

Date _______________

AV-TECH Electronics, Inc. will not be liable for any direct, indirect, consequential, or incidental loss or damage arising out of the installation, use or inability to use the product selected. AV-TECH Electronics, Inc. is not responsible for the selection of appropriate equipment or product type required for a particular application or service. Terms: Net 30 days from invoice date, unless otherwise specified. 1-1/2% interest per month will be charged on balances past due. Returns: Merchandise returns will not be accepted without authorization and will be subject to a 25% restocking fee. Returns must be made within 30 days of invoice. Special designs or customized work cannot be returned for credit.

Net Order:

18,460.38

Less Discount:

0.00

Freight:

0.00

Sales Tax:

0.00

Order Total:

18,460.38

DO NOT PAY FROM THIS SALES ORDER!! INVOICE WILL BE SENT!!

Hummer versus Prius “Dust to Dust” Report Misleads the Media and Public with Bad Science Dr. Peter H. Gleick Pacific Institute May 2007

Abstract The CNW Marketing Research, Inc.’s 2007 “Dust to Dust: The Energy Cost of New Vehicles From Concept to Disposal” caught the interest of the media and the public with its claim that a Hummer H3 SUV has a lower life-cycle energy cost than a Toyota Prius hybrid. Closer inspection suggests that the report’s conclusions rely on faulty methods of analysis, untenable assumptions, selective use and presentation of data, and a complete lack of peer review. Even the most cursory look reveals serious biases and flaws: the average Hummer H1 is assumed to travel 379,000 miles and last for 35 years, while the average Prius is assumed to last only 109,000 miles over less than 12 years. These selective and unsupported assumptions distort the final results. A quick re-analysis with peer-reviewed data leads to completely opposite conclusions: the life-cycle energy requirements of hybrids and smaller cars are far lower than Hummers and other large SUVs. CNW should either release its full report, including methods, assumptions, and data, or the public should ignore its conclusions. Unfortunately, “Dust to Dust” has already distorted the public debate.

Introduction In March 2007, an automotive marketing company CNW Marketing Research, Inc. (CNW) announced the release of a private study on the comparative life-cycle energy costs of a wide range of automobiles.1 The public version of the report2 included a remarkable conclusion: counting all lifetime energy inputs, the massive Hummer H1, H2, and H3 sport utility vehicles (and many other large SUVs) use less energy per mile driven than the highly touted Toyota Prius hybrid (and many other smaller vehicles). These findings were reported widely and uncritically by newspapers,3 blogs, and industry accounts, including glowing mentions by syndicated conservative columnist George Will4 and at least one policy group.5 1

“Dust to Dust: The Energy Cost of New Vehicles From Concept to Disposal.” CNW Marketing, http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/. This is an update of a similar report released a year earlier. 2 Methods, sources, and original data have never been released, and according to the company, no independent review was conducted. 3 See, for example, the commentary “Hidden cost of driving a Prius,” by James Martin in the Philadelphia Inquirer, April 4, 2007’ “US data trashes Prius claim of 'greenest car,'“ by S. O’Grady in the UK Independent, November 6, 654 13th Street, Preservation Park, Oakland, California 94612, U.S.A. 510-251-1600 | fax: 510-251-2203 | email: [email protected] | www.pacinst.org

Pacific Institute · Established 1987

The report’s conclusions are completely at odds with what the science currently says about vehicle energy requirements. This, of course, does not mean the conclusions are wrong. It does, however, mean that the authors must provide supporting evidence and analysis in a format that can be reviewed and tested. As noted by French mathematician and astronomer Pierre Simon Laplace: “The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness.” Or as Carl Sagan said: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.” CNW has provided no such proof. The little supporting evidence that it has released suggests that the contentions in the report are, at best, unproven, and are likely wrong: the result of faulty analysis, untenable assumptions, manipulation and misuse of facts and data, numerical mischaracterization, and inadequate review. Analyzing the limited portions of the report and data that have been released reveals several major flaws and the violation of several fundamental tenets of good science. We present this analysis below. When these flaws are corrected, the conclusions change radically.

Lack of Peer Review The study notes, indeed brags, that no outside organization saw the report before it was released.6 This is one of the report’s most egregious faults. All scientific and analytical studies benefit from outside, independent review, and real science requires such review. Peer review is a fundamental requirement for identifying errors, methodological flaws, and data mistakes prior to publication. Furthermore, CNW has failed to release any reviewable information on methods, data, data sources, or assumptions that would permit independent scrutiny of the conclusions. The absence of this information violates a fundamental rule of science requiring access to details about how an analysis is done. Namely: would another scientist come up with the same results? Although a large (450+ page) public report is available from the consulting company, this report mostly consists of repetitive and uninformative tables of data on automobile energy requirements. It provides almost none of the actual data on which the conclusions are based, and none of the details of the analysis and methods that would permit the unusual claims to be verified.7

2006; “Selling to young hardly Element-ary,” by Jim Mateja in the Chicago Tribune, April 27, 2007; and many more. 4 George Will: “Use a Hummer to Crush a Prius,” April 12, 2007. Will is syndicated in over 450 papers. His April 12, 2007 column also appeared under the apt title “Fuzzy Climate Math.” 5 Shikha Dalmia of the Reason Foundation, July 19, 2006, “Have You Hugged a Hummer Today?” 6 Although CNW president Art Spinella has conducted all public responses and discussion, the authorship of the report is not explicit. The report itself states: “…no company, institution, organization or other group has been asked to judge the methodology or results prior to being published by CNW Marketing Research, Inc.” (“Dust to Dust” page 364). Drafts of this analysis were reviewed by A. Lovins, W. Slaughter, M. Hoofnagle, I. Hart, H. Cooley, H. Hauenstein, and L. Schewel. I thank them for their suggestions. Errors are, of course, my responsibility alone. 7 Although the size of the report is often touted as an indication of how thorough it must be, most of it consists of repetitive tables, and more than 160 pages at the end are e-mails, reproductions of newspaper accounts, and other materials unrelated to the analysis.

2

Pacific Institute · Established 1987

Selective Choice and Presentation of Data When the conclusions of an analysis differ substantially from similar studies done elsewhere, and when those other studies are not cited or included, it raises serious concerns about the selective choice of information. Comparing “Dust to Dust” with the readily available, peer-reviewed scientific literature from the energy and automotive sectors suggests that CNW’s basic assumptions and data differ dramatically from comparable assessments. Reading CNW’s report and the accompanying pieces they provide reveals numerous misuses of facts and data. Example #1: Biased Mileage Assumptions and Faulty or Unjustified Data The report’s major indicator is total energy use per mile traveled, which is calculated by dividing the energy cost by the lifetime mileage. The most obvious manipulation of data is the company’s choice of total vehicle lifetime miles for each vehicle. For reasons not explained in the report, the Hummer H3 is assumed to travel 207,000 miles in its lifetime. Even more remarkable, the Hummer H1 is assumed to travel 379,000 lifetime miles. The Prius is assumed to travel only 109,000 miles.8 After readers of “Dust to Dust” questioned Prius’s assumed lifetime miles, CNW provided a note revealing that they had assumed early Priuses traveled only 6,700 miles per year, which translates into the low lifetime mileage assumption used in the study.9 Digging further into the study reveals that the odd lifetime mileage assumptions are further biased by unjustified overall lifetime assumptions. A table in “Dust to Dust” lists extraordinarily precise assumptions (to four significant figures) about “Years of Service.” Even a cursory look at this table shows peculiarities, such as the assumed 34.96 year average lifetime for the Hummer H1.10 These assumptions about lifetime and total miles completely bias the final results. While we have been unable to find any supporting evidence for the CNW data, either in the report itself or in any published literature, we have found contradictory evidence. Published studies suggest that CNW’s assumption (and thus their conclusion) is incorrect, reporting that Prius owners drive their vehicles distances similar to other sedans – on the order of 15,000 miles per year.11 An independent assessment conducted by the Rocky Mountain Institute, using the lifecycle model developed by Argonne National Laboratory (GREET 2.7),12 also suggests that both “lifetime energy” and “energy per mile” for the Prius are far lower than for the Hummer 8

“Dust to Dust” pages 21 to 24. This assumption was revealed in “Why 100,000 Miles for Prius?” posted on the CNW website. It has no citations or listed author, although “Art” is the file author. http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/ (April 10, 2007). We note here that this conflicts with page 40 of “Dust to Dust,” which shows the Prius’s (equally implausible) average annual mileage as 9,146 miles. 10 “Dust to Dust,” page 44. 11 See, for example, “Diesel and Hybrids Don’t Mix: Perceptions of the Interested Public and Actual Driving Behavior of New Car Owners,” D. Gerard, P. S. Fischbeck, and S. Mathews, Center for the Study & Improvement of Regulation, Carnegie Mellon University, November 2006. 12 Greenhouse gases, Regulated emissions, and Energy use in Transportation model. http://www.transportation.anl.gov/software/GREET/greet_2-7_beta.html 9

3

Pacific Institute · Established 1987

H3, even when using conservative assumptions about energy required for materials and fabrication of the Prius. 13 Changing just the total lifetime mileage assumption reverses the conclusions: the Prius (and comparable automobiles) consume far less energy over their lifetimes than larger vehicles, especially the largest SUVs like Hummers. This peculiar “lifetime mileage” assumption is repeated throughout the report for all hybrid vehicles reviewed. Table 1 shows CNW’s lifetime mileage assumptions for comparable hybrid and non-hybrid model cars. Table 1:

Unusual vehicle lifetime mileage assumptions in the CNW Report for similar conventional and hybrid makes. Vehicle Make

Conventional

Hybrid

Honda Accord

209,000

117,000

Honda Civic

178,000

113,000

Toyota Highlander

156,000

140,000

Ford Escape

161,000

127,000

Source: CNW “Dust to Dust” (2007)

Example #2: Incorrect Distribution of Lifetime Energy Costs Another example of an unusual assumption and choice of data is the reported distribution of energy across the different phases of vehicle life. The CNW results suggest that the majority of energy is consumed during the production of the vehicle. These results are at odds with every other study we’ve seen on the energy life-cycle costs of automobiles. Other studies independently conclude that the vast majority of energy is consumed during “vehicle operations,” with lesser quantities used during materials acquisition, fabrication, and vehicle disposal. For example: •

A report produced by a British research firm concluded that more than 90% of all energy used in the motor industry went to vehicle operation; less than 10% went to manufacturing and production.14

•

The British auto industry trade group estimated in their 2006 sustainability report that life cycle CO2 emissions – a strong proxy for energy – are allocated 10% to manufacturing; 85% to use; and 5% to disposal.15

•

The Center for Sustainable Systems of the University of Michigan, which pioneered and refined the tool of life-cycle assessment, conducted a joint project with Chrysler, Ford,

13

See, “Hummer-Prius Comparison” by H. Hauenstein and L. Schewel. May 2007. http://www.rmi.org/library_trans 14 L. Elghali, V. McColl-Grubb, I. Schiavi and P. Griffiths. 2004. “Sustainable resource use in the motor industry: a mass balance approach.” Viridis Report VR6. Transport Research Ltd. 15 “The UK Automotive Sector: Toward Sustainability.” 2006. Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. www.smmt.uk.co

4

Pacific Institute · Established 1987

General Motors, the Aluminum Association, the American Iron and Steel Institute, and the American Plastics Council. They analyzed the life-cycle energy costs of the 6 systems, 19 subsystems, and 644 discrete parts and components composed of 73 different materials comprising a typical North American mid-sized car and concluded that more than 85% of all energy is the result of using the car, not making, assembling, repairing, or disposing of it.16 •

A comprehensive energy life-cycle analysis of a Volkswagen Golf Mark 3 concluded that 73% of total energy is consumed during the use and disposal phases, 11% in materials production, 8% in vehicle manufacturing, and 8% in fuels manufacturing.17

•

The MIT study, “On the Road in 2020,” reported on a comprehensive energy life-cycle analysis and found that 80% to 90% of all energy was used in the operation stage; 7% to 12% in the materials production stage, and the remainder in vehicle assembly, distribution, and disposal.18

•

A 2006 study from Argonne National Laboratory concluded that around 75% of all hybrid and internal combustion vehicle energy use comes from the operation of the vehicle. The rest comes mostly from producing the fuels and the manufacture and disposal of the vehicle and its materials.19

Example #3: Inconsistent Data Manipulation The CNW study applies a special “heavy charge for design and development” to the Prius and other hybrids.20 E-mail correspondence from the CNW president suggests that CNW divided the costs of developing automotive technology and a car itself over the number of cars produced to date, explicitly penalizing newer car technologies, such as hybrids.21 Similarly, CNW reportedly divided the costs of building a factory over the small number of cars it has produced to date, not total production – a classic example of inappropriate amortizing.22 Whether this is the actual

16

Center for Sustainable Systems, University of Michigan. 2005. Personal Transportation Factsheet. Ann Arbor, Michigan (August). See also, Keoleian, G.A., K. Kar, M. Manion, and J. Bulkley. 1997. Industrial Ecology of the Automobile: A Life Cycle Perspective. SAE R-194. Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA CSS97-04, and G.A. Keoleian and D.V. Spitzley. 2006. “Life cycle based sustainability metrics.” In M.A. Abraham (editor) Sustainability Science and Engineering: Defining Principles. Elsevier B.V. Amsterdam, pages 132-135. 17 G. W. Schweimer, M. Levin. Life Cycle Inventory for the Golf A4. Volkswagen AG, Forschung, Umwelt und Verkehr, Wolfsburg 2000. http://www.volkswagen-umwelt.de/_download/sachbilanz_golf_a4_englisch.pdf. 18 M. A. Weiss, J.B. Heywood, E.M. Drake, A. Schafer, and F.F. AuYeung. 2000. “On the Road in 2020.” Energy Laboratory Report #MIT EL 00-003. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. http://www.cleanairnet.org/transport/1754/articles-69297_resource_1.pdf 19 “Development and Applications of GREET 2.7 – The Transportation Vehicle-Cycle Model.” Argonne National Laboratory, Energy Systems Division, ANL/ESD/06-5, A. Burnham, M. Wang, and Y. Wu. November 2006. 20 “Dust to Dust,” page 352. 21 From CNW, Why 100,000 Miles for Prius? “As for Hummer [sic], much of the design, development and manufacturing energy costs are spread across more than just this single model.” http://cnwmr.com/nssfolder/automotiveenergy/ (April 10, 2007). 22 http://www.truedelta.com/blog/?p=66. Art Spinella, the editor of the report noted in an interview quoted at hybridcars.com that if the study were repeated in three years time, the results would be “totally different.” www.hybridcars.com/environment-stories/dust-to-dust-energy-costs.html.

5

Pacific Institute · Established 1987

method used, and whether this same method was applied to other vehicle models, will only be determined if the full methods and calculations are released for review.

Errors in Methods of Analysis Without detailed information about the analysis, clues about the kinds of errors can only be gleaned from the results. An example that raises serious questions is the vastly different conclusions the CNW report presents for two Toyota models, the Scion xA and xB. These two cars are engineered with the same processes, built on the same assembly line and chassis, transported and shipped together, distributed through the same dealer network, have the same engines, displacement, power, torque and transmissions, are about the same weight (within 25 kilograms), and have very similar fuel consumption ratings. Yet the CNW study assumes the lifetime mileage of the xA to be 156,000 miles and the xB to be 189,000. The lifetime energy of these vehicles is, as a result, also very different, though no justification for these differences is provided, or apparent.23 Other errors in methods or analysis are suggested by the author’s confusion over the difference between power and energy, and misuse of conversion units. For example, the report states: “A Joule is one watt per second of energy consumption,” and “A 60 watt light bulb uses 60 Joules of energy.”24 These conversions are incorrect: a Joule is one watt-second of energy; and a 60-watt bulb uses 60 Joules per second. Whether these errors are simply typographical or propagate analytically through the analysis cannot be determined without the release of the full report.

Misuse of Certainty and Uncertainty; Misuse of Precision versus Accuracy The report includes examples of the misuse of certainty and uncertainty, and a confusion of the difference between precision and accuracy. Extensive data in the form of numbers are presented in the report, always to a higher degree of certainty and precision than appears warranted – often to four or five significant figures.25 For example, the lifetime figures for each vehicle model are reported to four significant figures (such as the 34.96 years for the Hummer H1 noted above).26 The absurdity of this type of false “certainty” or “precision” can be seen in the following: the Mercury Mariner hybrid is reported to last 11.56 years; the Toyota Highlander Hybrid is reported to last 11.60 years, or 4219 days versus 4234 days.27 CNW must thus be in possession of information that supports this precise difference of 15 days. We know of no such information. As a result, the report is filled with information that appears precise but in fact has little accuracy.

23

A discussion of this can be found at http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.f104323/221, and detailed engineering information on the similarities between the Scion xA and xB are at Car and Driver: http://www.caranddriver.com/previews/6642/2004-scion-xa-and-xb-page2.html. 24 See page 306 of “Dust to Dust.” CNW Marketing. 25 See any of the data tables in “Dust to Dust” for examples of “illusory precision” – the reporting of data or results with more precision than warranted. Precision does not imply accuracy. 26 See the tables on pages 39-47 of “Dust to Dust.” CNW Marketing. 27 Assuming 365 days per year.

6

Pacific Institute · Established 1987

Uncertainty is also discussed twice in the published version of the report: once to describe the “statistical accuracy” of the report as “plus or minus 8.6 percent” and once to say that “The information contained is as accurate as we can make it currently although we believe it has an error margin somewhere between 11 and 14 percent.”28 Despite these (conflicting) claims, it appears that the report’s authors made no actual scientific estimate of uncertainty. “Statistical accuracy” cannot be evaluated with the precision given because of the gross uncertainties in the data; and given the large number of factors that appear to have been considered, overall uncertainty is going to be a combination of the uncertainty associated with each single factor, and is thus going to be a substantially larger than the values claimed.

The Lack of Transparency in Regard to Funding As of May 2007, the company continues to refuse to provide information on the sources of funding for the analysis, other than to say that the report was “self-funded.” What this appears to mean is that funds from other clients (or profits from those funds) must have been used. By itself, this is certainly not evidence of error, but it violates fundamental principles requiring the transparency of research funding.29

Conclusion This short review and analysis calls into question the unsubstantiated conclusions of the CNW “Dust to Dust” report – it appears that the report suffers from fatal flaws. Indeed, correcting only a few of these flaws completely changes the conclusions. A full analysis, however, would require more information about the data, assumptions, methods, and calculations used in the report. CNW has not released this information for independent review. We call on them to do so. At that time, it may be possible to accurately review and assess the important question of life-cycle energy for automobiles. Until then, substantial peer-reviewed and verifiable research indicates that the only reliable ways to cut the use of fossil fuels in the transportation sector are to build more efficient automobiles, develop cars that use alternative energy sources, and drive fewer miles. For more information about the Pacific Institute, visit www.pacinst.org. For more information about the Institute’s Integrity of Science initiative, visit www.integrityofscience.org.

28

See page 15 and page 364 of “Dust to Dust.” CNW Marketing. The Pacific Institute’s Integrity of Science initiative, which supported this review, is funded by grants from the Open Society Institute, and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.

29

7