Federal Vehicle Fleets: Agencies Have Continued to Incorporate Alternative Fuel Vehicles into Fleets, but Challenges Remain

Since 1988, a series of laws have been enacted and executive orders issued related to federal goals of reducing federal fleets' petroleum use and greenhouse gas emissions. For fiscal year 2017, federal agencies were required to: (1) to acquire certain types of vehicles, (2) to use more alternative fuel, and (3) to meet targets for reducing petroleum and per-mile greenhouse gas emissions. Federal agencies were also under a directive to increase acquisitions of zero emission (electric) vehicles.

GAO was asked to review federal agencies' efforts related to these fiscal year 2017 requirements. This report addresses: (1) how agencies reported meeting fleet energy requirements and how agencies efforts changed their fleets and (2) challenges agencies face related to further meeting fleet energy goals.

To conduct this review, GAO surveyed 29 federal agencies subject to fleet energy requirements and selected 5 agencies—of a variety of sizes and missions—for case studies. The case studies results are not generalizable to all agencies. GAO also: (1) reported on DOE's and GSA's data on federal fleets for fiscal years 2008 through 2017, including GSA's acquisition and cost data for fiscal year 2017, the most current data available; (2) reviewed DOE's and EPA's information on agencies' performance related to fiscal year 2017 requirements; and (3) interviewed federal officials. The directives to reduce per-mile greenhouse gas emissions and increase acquisitions of electric vehicles were revoked by an Executive Order issued in May 2018.

In responding to fleet management requirements over the past 10 years, agencies have incorporated an increasing number of alternative fuel vehicles into their fleets. These have been predominantly flex-fuel vehicles, as hybrid and battery electric vehicles continue to make up a small percentage of agencies' fleets (see figure). The Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for overseeing agencies' compliance by analyzing fleet data. Most agencies reported meeting the fiscal year 2017 requirements to reduce petroleum use and per-mile greenhouse gas emissions. DOE and other agency officials attributed agencies' success in meeting these requirements to (1) acquiring low greenhouse-gas-emitting and alternative fuel vehicles, and (2) improving general fleet management such as by reducing miles traveled.

According to agency officials, three challenges have continued to hinder agencies' efforts to further the goals of reducing federal fleets' petroleum use and greenhouse gas emissions. First, while hybrid and electric vehicles can offer reductions in petroleum use and greenhouse gas emissions, the costs of these vehicles and their charging infrastructure make it challenging for agencies to acquire them on a large scale. According to GSA data, agencies purchased 373 electric vehicles (sedans and minivans) in fiscal year 2017—along with about 4,500 hybrid electric sedans—out of a total of over 16,000 sedans and minivans acquired. In total, agencies spent about $10.5 million more to purchase hybrid or electric vehicles than they would have to purchase comparably sized conventionally fueled vehicles. However, agencies did not consistently track the life-cycle costs of these vehicles. Second, agencies also stated that a lack of fuel and infrastructure availability limits agencies' use of alternative fuel. Third, agency officials stated that a continuing need for larger vehicles limits the number of low greenhouse-gas-emitting vehicles agencies can acquire.

The federal government, like the rest of the nation, has relied largely on  petroleum-powered vehicles—i.e., gasoline or diesel fuel—in its fleets. In  fiscal year 2017, these fleets included about 604,000 domestic vehicles  that traveled over 4.5 billion miles to help meet a variety of government  missions. Since 1988, a series of laws have been enacted and executive  orders issued aimed at reducing federal fleets’ reliance on petroleum.  Among other things, for fiscal year 2017, federal agencies were required  to (1) acquire certain types of vehicles, such as vehicles that run on fuels  other than petroleum or use gasoline efficiently; (2) increase use of  alternative fuel; and (3) meet targets for reducing petroleum and per-mile  greenhouse gas emissions. In light of these requirements, agencies have  identified broad goals to reduce reliance on petroleum fuel and reduce  greenhouse gas emissions. As technological advancements have  enabled manufacturers to develop a variety of vehicles that run on  alternative fuels, agencies have had to balance costs, availability of  alternative fuel vehicles that meet agencies’ needs, and other issues with  their efforts to meet these requirements.

You asked us to review federal agencies’ efforts and any challenges they  face related to meeting the federal energy requirements and goals for  vehicle fleets. This report addresses:  how agencies meet fleet energy requirements and how agencies’ efforts changed their fleet composition, and challenges federal agencies face related to furthering fleet energy goals.

The report also includes information on the extent to which agencies  consider lifecycle costs when selecting vehicles.

To determine the extent to which federal agencies reported meeting fleet  energy requirements and the composition of federal agencies’ fleets, we  analyzed data from the Federal Automotive Statistical Tool’s (FAST)  database on the composition and fuel use of federal agencies’ fleets from  fiscal years 2008 through 2017, the most current data available at the  time of our review. Federal regulations direct agencies to submit  information annually on all of their non-tactical vehicles (those not used  for military purposes) to this database, which the Department of Energy  (DOE) and General Services Administration (GSA) established in 2000.  To assess the reliability of these data, we interviewed and collected  written responses from DOE officials on how the data are collected,  maintained, analyzed, and presented. This effort included how DOE flags  suspicious data, reviews the data, and validates the final entries. Based  on the information collected, we found the data sufficiently reliable for  reporting on the composition and fuel use of federal agencies’ fleets.

We reviewed federal statutes, regulations, and executive orders, and  examined DOE and GSA guidance on the various applicable statutory  requirements and executive orders. We reported on DOE or the  Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) assessment of agencies’  performance relative to select statutory requirements and directives in  executive orders (which we refer to as federal fleet energy requirements)  that were in effect for fiscal year 2017. This effort included two directives  that were issued in a 2015 Executive Order—to acquire zero emission  vehicles and to reduce per mile greenhouse gas emissions.  Subsequently, in May 2018, a new Executive Order issued by the current  administration revoked the 2015 Executive Order, so that these two  directives were no longer in effect for fiscal year 2018. Guidance for the  new Executive Order was issued in April 2019.

We also identified five agencies for case study—Department of the  Interior (Interior); Department of Veterans Affairs (VA); Department of  Transportation (DOT); the Army; and the Environmental Protection  Agency (EPA). We selected these agencies to include a variety of fleet  sizes, vehicle compositions, and agency missions. We reviewed  documents reporting on the extent to which these agencies met federal  fleet energy requirements and interviewed agency officials, including fleet  managers, to understand how they met these requirements. We spoke  with these officials both before and after the 2015 Executive Order was  revoked. The results from the case studies cannot be generalized to  make inferences about all agencies.

To determine any challenges agencies face related to further meeting  fleet energy goals, we reviewed information on costs, petroleum  consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions of alternative fuel vehicles  and petroleum-fueled vehicles offered for lease by GSA using DOE’s  Vehicle Cost Calculator and Alternative Fuel Life-Cycle Environmental  and Economic Transportation (AFLEET) tool and GSA’s annual vehicle  guides. We did not conduct a full life-cycle accounting of the relative  environmental costs and benefits of alternative fuel vehicles compared to  petroleum-fueled vehicles in federal fleets because we did not find  reliable data to conduct a study of that detail. However, we reviewed  available studies and government reports related to life-cycle accounting  of the costs of alternative fuel vehicles compared to petroleum fueled  vehicles in general. We also reviewed lease and purchase cost data  provided by GSA for fiscal year 2017 for all federal agencies. We  requested information from our case study agencies on actual costs of  using alternative fuel vehicles, but agencies were unable to provide that  information because they had not consistently tracked these data. In April  2018, we also surveyed 29 federal agencies subject to the requirements  that support the fleet energy goals on challenges they have faced in  meeting them. (See app. I for survey results).

At the time of the survey, the federal fleet energy requirements and  directives for fiscal year 2017 were still in effect, as the 2015 Executive  Order had not yet been revoked. We received a 100 percent response  rate to our survey. We also reviewed documentation from these agencies,  including their Strategic Sustainability Performance Plans and fleet  management plans. The strategic sustainability plan is to prioritize agency  actions to support the reduction of greenhouse gas emission and other  agency wide targets. The fleet management plan is to specifically address  how an agency’s fleet will meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets and  other relevant fleet requirements. In addition, we interviewed fleet  managers and other agency officials from the case study agencies as well  as GSA and DOE on the challenges agencies face related to fleet energy  requirements and goals. For more information about our scope and  methodology, see appendix II.

We conducted this performance audit from November 2017 to July 2019  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Fleet Energy Requirements and Directives

Federal agencies’ fleets consist of many types of vehicles that support a  variety of purposes. For example, federal vehicles may be used to carry  staff and gear to remote, off-road locations to perform maintenance or  other tasks; to transport and provide healthcare to veterans; or to support  daily operations on military installations. Congress and several  administrations have required federal agencies to take various steps to  reduce federal fleets’ petroleum use and greenhouse gas emissions.  During fiscal year 2017, agencies were:  to meet requirements to acquire alternative fuel vehicles and low greenhouse-gas-emitting vehicles; to increase use of alternative fuel; and to decrease use of petroleum and per-mile greenhouse gas emissions (see table 1).

According to DOE guidance for the 2015 Executive Order, acquiring such  vehicles and increasing the use of alternative fuels can facilitate the goals  of reducing both petroleum use and greenhouse gas emissions.

For fiscal year 2017, in addition to meeting the above requirements,  federal agencies were to meet other requirements related to overall fleet  management. Federal regulations require agencies to complete a fleet  management plan annually and conduct an assessment of their fleet at  least every 5 years. In addition, an Executive Order issued by the prior  administration in 2015 directed agencies to determine and plan for their  optimum fleet inventory with emphasis placed on eliminating unnecessary  or non-essential vehicles.

Certain federal fleet energy directives in place in fiscal year 2017 were  revoked by an Executive Order issued in May 2018. Specifically,  directives related to acquiring zero emission (electric) vehicles and  reducing per-mile greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the additional  fleet management expectations, were revoked. The Trump  administration issued a new Executive Order requiring that the Secretary  of Energy, in collaboration with other federal agencies, review existing  federal vehicle fleet requirements and report to the Council on  Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the Office of Management and Budget  (OMB) regarding opportunities to optimize federal fleet performance,  reduce associated costs, and streamline reporting and compliance  requirements. According to DOE officials, DOE submitted a report to CEQ  and OMB as required.

In April 2019, CEQ and OMB issued implementing instructions for the  Executive Order. The implementing instructions emphasized that  agencies should focus on the statutory requirements while increasing  efficiency, optimizing performance, and reducing waste and costs. The  guidance particularly emphasized agencies’ focus on reducing petroleum  use and increasing alternative fuel consumption. The guidance did not  mention the extent to which agencies should continue to acquire any  specific type of alternative fuel vehicle.

Annually, federal agencies are responsible for reporting vehicle inventory  (including acquisitions and disposals), fuel consumption, mileage, and  cost to the FAST database. Additionally, federal agencies are required to  annually report on their fleets’ inventories, operating costs, and other fleet  data. Costs submitted to the FAST database include acquisition costs,  maintenance, fuel costs, indirect costs, commercial lease, GSA lease,  and disposal proceeds. Prior to fiscal year 2017, agencies submitted this  data at an aggregate, rather than the vehicular level, so that costs or  other performance could not be analyzed at the vehicular level. For fiscal  year 2017, as required by GSA and DOE, agencies began submitting  vehicular level data to the FAST database, providing more detail about  agency’s vehicles. The FAST database specifically tracks data to  assess agencies’ performance relative to fleet energy requirements in  federal statute and executive orders.

A range of vehicles qualify as alternative fuel vehicles (see fig. 1). This  range includes vehicles that run entirely on alternative fuel, such as  electricity, and dual-fueled vehicles that can run on an alternative fuel as  well as on gasoline, such as flex-fuel vehicles, which can run on gasoline  or ethanol fuel blends (E85). In 2008, the definition of alternative fuel  vehicles was amended to include hybrid electric vehicles, which run on  gasoline with help from an electric battery, and, in certain circumstances,  other vehicles that would achieve a significant reduction in petroleum  consumption, such as highly fuel efficient gasoline vehicles that are also  low greenhouse gas-emitting vehicles.

Alternative fuel vehicles, including electric vehicles, can offer  environmental benefits compared to similarly-sized conventional  petroleum-fueled vehicles but also carry their own environmental costs.  For example, flex-fuel vehicles, if fueled by E85, reduce petroleum use  because E85 consists of up to about 85 percent ethanol, and according  to DOE, using ethanol as a vehicle fuel reduces greenhouse gas  emissions, along with emission of other harmful toxics. However, using  ethanol increases other harmful emissions deemed carcinogenic and may  also contribute to ozone formation. Furthermore, as we reported in May  2019, the production of biofuels, such as ethanol, just like the production  of gasoline, results in greenhouse gas emissions throughout its life- cycle—including growing the corn feedstock, transporting it, converting it  to ethanol, distributing the ethanol, and burning it in an engine. Other  emissions are released indirectly through broad economic changes  associated with increased biofuel use, including increased ethanol use,  such as when changes in land use to grow corn cause the conversion of  previously nonagricultural lands into agricultural lands. Nonetheless,  recent studies have found the life-cycle emissions of corn ethanol to be  lower than those of gasoline.

Similarly, battery-electric, plug-in hybrid electric, and hybrid-electric  vehicles rely on batteries for all or some of their power, reducing or  eliminating petroleum use and associated tailpipe greenhouse gas  emissions, but charging, producing, and disposing of these batteries can  result in environmental effects. With respect to charging, the production of  electricity to power these vehicles results in emissions, the amount of  which is dependent on the source of the electricity, a factor we discuss in  greater detail later in this report. With respect to production, GAO  previously reported that extracting lithium and other minerals from  locations where it is abundant, such as in South America, can pose  environmental challenges that would damage the ecosystems in these  areas. With respect to disposal, according to DOE’s alternative-fuels  data center, the disposal of batteries used in electric and hybrid-electric  vehicles can result in hazardous materials entering the waste stream— but work is under way to develop battery recycling processes that  minimize the life-cycle effects of such batteries. According to DOE, as  electric-drive vehicles become increasingly common, the battery-recycling  market may expand.

In addition, the climate in which battery-electric and plug-in electric  vehicles are used can affect the life of the battery. However, federal  agencies do not collect the data that would allow analysis of these effects  specific to the use of vehicles in federal agencies’ fleets. Furthermore,  emissions related to fuel production or battery production or disposability  are not incorporated into the requirements placed on federal agencies  with respect to their fleets. As we discuss in more detail later, the  various types of alternative fuel vehicles vary in the extent to which they  can help agencies meet existing requirements to reduce petroleum use  and the subsequently revoked requirement in place for fiscal year 2017 to  reduce tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions.

According to DOE officials, DOE is responsible for overseeing energy  goals and requirements and assists agencies in meeting these federal  energy requirements. DOE tracks whether federal agencies are meeting  the fleet energy requirements by analyzing the fleet inventory, fuel  consumption, and fuel use data uploaded to the FAST database. DOE  also oversees the Fleet Sustainability Dashboard (FleetDASH) database.  FleetDASH tracks agencies’ fuel consumption through data produced  when employees use fuel cards. This tool can track where vehicles are  filling up and if there was an alternative fuel station nearby that could  have been used. FleetDASH can also provide agency fleet managers  with reports on alternative fuel use and when drivers missed opportunities  to fuel with alternative fuels. DOE also issues guidance and conducts  research into vehicle technologies that can support energy requirements,  including electric vehicles. In prior work, we recommended that DOE  develop guidance for agencies that specifies the elements that agencies  should include in their plans for acquiring a mix of vehicles to meet  federal requirements and goals. In June 2010, DOE issued the  Comprehensive Federal Fleet Management Handbook, implementing this  recommendation. DOE’s Fleet Management Handbook recommends to  agencies how to develop greenhouse gas and petroleum reduction  strategies and acquire vehicles in support of these strategies, among  other issues. DOE also has developed online tools to help provide  guidance to agencies and consumers on the fuel efficiency and  environmental effects of vehicles.

GSA is responsible for providing vehicles for federal agencies to  purchase or lease. GSA is a mandatory source for purchase of new  vehicles for executive agencies and other eligible users. Federal  agencies can also use GSA to acquire leased vehicles. Under this  arrangement, an agency informs GSA what kind of vehicle is necessary  for its mission. Every year, GSA publishes an annual guide on vehicles  available for purchase or lease that includes the vehicles’ fuel type,  purchase and lease prices, size, and other specifications.

In setting the lease prices, GSA is required by law to recover all costs it  incurs in providing vehicles and services to federal customers. Agencies  that lease vehicles from GSA generally pay a monthly rate and a mileage  rate. These charges are designed to cover fixed costs such as: (1) the  vehicle’s acquisition cost; (2) administrative costs (including staff and  facilities); and (3) depreciation—as well as the variable costs of fueling  (except electricity used) and vehicles’ maintenance. In the case of  alternative fuel vehicles, if the cost of the vehicle is greater than that of an  equivalent conventional vehicle, agencies must cover these higher  costs. Pursuant to law, GSA distributes these higher costs for  alternative fuel vehicles across the agency’s entire leased fleet via a flat  per-vehicle monthly surcharge in the year the vehicle was acquired.  Surcharges are set at the agency headquarters’ level. According to a  GSA fact sheet, this approach allows GSA to offer a greater variety of  alternative fuel vehicles without affecting lease rates of non-alternative  fuel vehicles and spread the additional cost across all agencies.

At times, GSA has conducted special pilot programs that have waived  higher costs of alternative fuel vehicles in order to test new technology.  For example, in 2011 and 2014, GSA ran two pilot programs that added  over 300 electric vehicles and charging stations to the fleet. According to  GSA officials, these pilots were designed to help GSA Fleet understand  more about the performance, costs, and maintenance needs of electric  vehicles to help them prepare for the potential increase in electric  vehicles in the fleets in order to better advise other agencies on these  vehicles’ use and operation. In these programs, GSA spent over $5.9  million covering the additional costs for the electric vehicles and spent  another $1.2 million on purchasing electric-vehicle-charging stations.

Agencies Reported Meeting Most Fleet Energy Requirements by Adding More Alternative Fuel Vehicles to their Fleets and Improving Fleet Management

The majority of agencies subject to federal-fleet energy requirements  reported meeting most requirements for fiscal year 2017 by changing the  mix of vehicles acquired and improving fleet management. Specifically,  agencies credited acquiring low greenhouse-gas-emitting and alternative  fuel vehicles for helping to reduce petroleum use and per-mile  greenhouse gas emissions. Agencies also described improving their fleet  management in other ways, such as removing unnecessary vehicles and  reducing miles traveled in order to reduce petroleum use and greenhouse  gas emissions. Agencies’ fleets reflected increasing numbers of  alternative fuel vehicles over the past 10 years, predominantly flex-fuel  vehicles.

Agency Officials Stated That Acquisitions and Better Fleet Management Helped Reduce Petroleum Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

DOE and other agency officials we spoke with from agencies that met the  reduction targets for petroleum use and per-mile greenhouse gas  emissions generally attributed their ability to meet these requirements to  efforts in two areas:  1. acquiring low greenhouse-gas-emitting vehicles whenever they could (even if they did not meet the related requirement) as well as alternative fuel vehicles, and 2. improving fleet management in other ways, such as by eliminating unnecessary vehicles or driving fewer miles, in line with GSA’s fleet management guidance.

In line with these efforts, a majority of agencies reported meeting most  fleet energy requirements for fiscal year 2017 (see table 2).

Fleet managers at two of the case study agencies said that acquiring low  greenhouse-gas-emitting vehicles was key to their ability to meet the  fiscal year 2017 targets for reducing petroleum use or greenhouse gas  emissions. For example, although VA reported not meeting the low  greenhouse-gas-emitting acquisitions requirement for fiscal year 2017,  VA officials said that they did acquire low greenhouse gas vehicles when  they could, and that to the extent they acquired such vehicles, it was the  primary reason they were able to reduce their per-mile greenhouse gas  emissions by 24 percent from fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2017. This  reported reduction far exceeded the requirement for a 4 percent reduction  in per-mile greenhouse gas emissions during this time frame. According  to VA officials, VA’s acquisition process requires them to consider low  greenhouse-gas-emitting vehicles for each acquisition and to select one  whenever one is available that will meet the purpose for the vehicle.

According to VA officials, the reason VA reported not meeting the low  greenhouse-gas-emitting acquisitions requirement for fiscal year 2017  was that the agency did not consistently self-certify for exceptions to the  requirement in cases where there was no low greenhouse-gas-emitting  vehicle available that met their mission needs, an issue we also heard  from GSA officials. (As shown in table 2, above, this was the one fleet- energy requirement that was reported as being met by less than a  majority of the 29 agencies, with 8 reporting meeting this requirement for  fiscal year 2017).

Fleet managers at all of our case study agencies emphasized that they  sought to acquire low greenhouse-gas-emitting vehicles whenever one  was available that would serve their needs. GSA officials told us agencies  are acquiring significant numbers of low greenhouse gas vehicles. By  their count, of the sedans agencies acquired in fiscal year 2018, 92  percent were low greenhouse-gas-emitting vehicles; of the light-duty  sport-utility vehicles and trucks agencies acquired, 45 percent were low  greenhouse-gas-emitting vehicles. GSA officials stated that according to  their analysis, it is likely that the low number of low greenhouse gas  vehicles being reported is a result of how the vehicles are identified and  reported, and that the number reported is lower than the number  acquired. Vehicles considered to be low greenhouse-gas-emitting  vehicles include selected makes and models of conventionally fueled  vehicles that were identified by EPA as highly efficient, as well as different  types of alternative fuel vehicles, such as selected makes and models of  flex fuel vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and hybrid electric  vehicles, and all battery electric vehicles. Thus, the costs of vehicles  considered to be low greenhouse-gas-emitting vary widely. We discuss  later in the report the costs of different types of alternative fuel vehicles.

Along with the acquisition of low greenhouse- gas-emitting vehicles  generally, fleet managers at some case study agencies stated that their  acquisition and use of alternative fuel vehicles also helped them to meet  the fiscal year 2017 targets for reducing petroleum and per-mile  greenhouse gas emissions. Fleet managers at two agencies we spoke  with stated or reported that their acquisitions of hybrid vehicles and, to a  lesser extent, small numbers of plug-in hybrid and battery electric  vehicles also helped managers to meet petroleum and greenhouse gas  emissions reduction targets. According to Interior’s fiscal year 2015  Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan, over 1,300 hybrids helped the  agency reduce petroleum consumption, increase fuel efficiency, and  reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Within Interior, officials at the National  Park Service told us that they replaced older, inefficient gas vehicles with  more fuel efficient hybrids. EPA officials stated that acquiring hybrid  vehicles and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles helped them exceed their  per-mile greenhouse gas emission reduction target for fiscal year 2017 by  just over 9 percent. Furthermore, of the 29 agencies we surveyed, 20  identified that a key benefit to acquiring battery-electric or plug-in hybrid  electric vehicles was environmental, particularly in reducing greenhouse  gas emissions.

In addition, some fleet managers emphasized the role that flex-fuel  vehicles fueled with E85 had played in their efforts to meet these targets.  Some agencies told us that they acquired flex-fuel vehicles to meet  alternative fuel vehicle acquisition requirements, and that using E85 in  these vehicles contributed to reducing petroleum use and per-mile  greenhouse gas emissions. For example, DOT’s fleet manager stated  that DOT’s acquisition of flex-fuel vehicles and focus on using E85 to fuel  those vehicles when available helped DOT to meet these targets for fiscal  year 2017. Similarly, in the 2016 Strategic Sustainability Performance  Plan, EPA emphasized that using alternative fuel in flex-fuel vehicles  helped the agency reduce petroleum use. According to DOE officials, for  agencies that met the fiscal year 2017 petroleum reduction target, about  11 percent of their petroleum reduction was due to using alternative fuel.  According to DOE officials, the balance of petroleum reduction for these  agencies was achieved through fuel efficiency improvements and  behavioral changes, including reduction in vehicle miles traveled.

In spite of the emphasis some agencies put on alternative fuel use as part  of their strategy to reduce petroleum use and greenhouse gas emissions,  alternative fuel use in federal fleets overall has dropped in recent years.  According to data reported in FAST, while alternative fuel use increased  from 4.9-million gasoline gallon equivalents in fiscal year 2005 to 16.2- million gasoline gallon equivalents in fiscal year 2013, since fiscal year  2013 it declined to 12.1-million gasoline gallon equivalents in fiscal year  2017 (see fig.2). The fleet energy requirement to increase use of  alternative fuel by 10 percent is based on a fiscal year 2005 baseline, and  most agencies reported continuing to meet this requirement. In fact, as a  whole, the federal government could continue to decrease its alternative  fuel use by as much as 6.7 million gasoline gallon equivalents and still  meet the targeted 10 percent increase above the fiscal year 2005  baseline. While E85 was the primary alternative fuel used, according to  DOE data, alternative fuel use per dual-fueled vehicle is also at  comparatively low levels—decreasing between fiscal years 2012 and  2016 from 123 to 90 gasoline gallon equivalents. This decrease was  despite DOE’s reporting that the number of dual-fueled alternative fuel  vehicles with access to alternative fuel increased from about 80,000  vehicles to about 112,000 over the same period. DOE officials said  agencies could be using more alternative fuel, but suggested the recent  decline could be due to a general lack of available E85 stations, among  other reasons.

Fleet managers from all five case study agencies reported that their  efforts to improve fleet management—even beyond those specifically  related to acquiring alternative fuel vehicles—also helped them to reduce  petroleum use and greenhouse gas emissions. Officials at several  agencies reported in their Strategic Sustainability Performance Plans or  told us that carrying out required fleet reviews helped them reduce the  number of vehicles and change to more fuel-efficient vehicles, which  directly helped them meet energy requirements. For example, EPA  officials told us that through reviewing their vehicle usage, they identified  which vehicles to either eliminate or replace with more efficient ones,  moves that resulted in reducing petroleum use. Furthermore, in its 2017  Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan, EPA cited that it has reduced  its fleet by 170 vehicles in the past 5 years and that its last study showed  the potential to discontinue use of 80 to 100 vehicles in the next 5 years.  Similarly, DOD reported in its fiscal year 2016 Strategic Sustainability  Performance Plan that Army’s strategy to meet the requirement to reduce  petroleum use was to reduce its fleet size and find the right mix of  vehicles to meet its mission needs—in addition to acquiring fuel-efficient  and alternative fuel vehicles. In this plan, Army reported that between  fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2015, it reduced its fleet’s size by 16,400  vehicles.

According to GSA officials, at times, an agency may reduce its petroleum  use and greenhouse gas emissions more by replacing large, inefficient  vehicles (such as older, large trucks) with more efficient vehicles (such as  new small trucks or sedans) even if both are fueled by gasoline—than by  replacing an already highly efficient conventionally fueled small sedan  with an alternative fuel vehicle of the same size. Our review of FAST data  suggests that agencies were more successful in reducing the number and  size of their sedans and size of their sport utility vehicles than in reducing  the number or size of their larger vehicles, such as vans and trucks (see  fig. 3). For example, overall, the number of sedans in federal fleets fell by  4 percent from fiscal year 2013 to fiscal year 2017, with the number of  larger sedans falling by 15 percent and the number of subcompact  sedans increasing by 37 percent, suggesting that agencies moved to  smaller, more efficient sedans. On the other hand, among passenger  vans, there was an increase in heavier, medium-duty passenger vans,  and an overall increase in trucks was fueled by an increase in medium- duty trucks, while the number of light-duty trucks fell.

In addition to reviewing and changing fleets, fleet managers also reported  that encouraging certain driver behavior helped them to meet energy  goals. According to VA’s, Interior’s, and EPA’s fleet managers, agencies  also reduced greenhouse gas emissions through educating or  encouraging drivers to make behavioral changes such as reducing  vehicle idling and overall miles traveled. For example, according to EPA  fleet managers, certain regional offices have systems in place that  facilitate their combining of motor pools and sharing trips to reduce  petroleum use. As previously indicated, according to DOE officials, 11  percent of the reduction in petroleum use for agencies that met the  petroleum reduction target was due to an increase in alternative fuel use.  According to DOE officials, the balance of petroleum reduction for these  agencies was achieved through fuel efficiency improvements and  behavioral changes, including reduction in vehicle miles traveled.

Overall Composition of Federal Fleets Includes More Flex-Fuel Vehicles and Hybrids, and Electric Vehicle Numbers Remain Low

As a result of agencies’ efforts to meet federal fleet energy requirements,  the number of alternative fuel vehicles in federal fleets has grown steadily  over the past 10 years, largely due to an increase in flex-fuel vehicles.  The number of alternative fuel vehicles in federal fleets increased by 65  percent from fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year 2017, according to FAST  data (see fig. 4). During that same time, the number of conventional  petroleum-fueled vehicles decreased by 19 percent. As a result, as of  fiscal year 2017, alternative fuel vehicles made up about 38 percent of  approximately 604,000 total domestic vehicles in the fleet.

Most of the alternative fuel vehicles in the federal fleets—about 87  percent in fiscal year 2017—are flex-fuel vehicles. As previously  mentioned, while flex-fuel vehicles can contribute to reducing petroleum  consumption when E85 is used, data show that the usage of E85  continues to fall (see fig. 2), thus reducing the potential environmental  benefits of acquiring these vehicles. While the majority of flex-fuel  vehicles offered to federal agencies by GSA in fiscal year 2017 did not  cost more for agencies to acquire than equivalent petroleum-fueled  vehicles, some flex fuel vehicles did cost more for agencies to acquire,  with, for example, a few sport-utility flex-fuel vehicles costing between  $4,000 and $7,000 more than comparable vehicles. Within the past  decade, the number of hybrid vehicles in federal fleets also increased  significantly, from almost 1,800 in fiscal year 2008 to over 25,000 in fiscal  year 2017. Hybrids accounted for about 11 percent of all alternative fuel  vehicles in fiscal year 2017. Finally, while agencies have acquired some  electric vehicles, the number of electric vehicles in federal fleets has  remained very small—consisting of just over 1,000 plug-in hybrid electric  and battery electric vehicles in fiscal year 2017.

Several Challenges May Limit Further Progress toward Fleet Energy Goals

In spite of federal agencies’ reported general success in meeting fleet  energy requirements, several challenges may hinder agencies’ further  progress towards the goals of reducing federal fleets’ petroleum use and  greenhouse gas emissions. First, although acquiring electric and hybrid  vehicles could help agencies meet the current fleet energy goals to  reduce petroleum use and per-mile greenhouse gas emissions in federal  fleets, depending on where and how the vehicles are used, costs can be  prohibitive. The costs of these vehicles and charging infrastructure make  it challenging for agencies to acquire them on a large scale. Second, a  lack of fuel and infrastructure availability limits agencies use of alternative  fuel, specifically E85. Third, agency officials we interviewed stated that a  continuing need for larger vehicles to perform certain tasks limits the  number of low greenhouse gas vehicles agencies can acquire—and thus  the potential to reduce petroleum use and greenhouse gas emissions.

Higher Costs Pose Challenges to Acquiring Electric and Hybrid Vehicles

Acquiring electric and hybrid vehicles could help agencies meet fleet  energy goals, but higher costs pose challenges. As described previously,  prior to May 2018, federal agencies were under a directive to acquire  zero-emission (electric) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles for 20 percent  of all new agency passenger vehicle acquisitions by December 31, 2020,  and for 50 percent by December 31, 2025. Some of the discussions we  had with agency officials about challenges related to acquiring electric  vehicles took place while this directive was in effect. In part because  guidance on the new Executive Order had not been issued at the time we  spoke with them (although it was subsequently issued in April 2019),  agency officials we spoke with after this directive was revoked said they  were uncertain of the effect of the new Executive Order and would  continue to try and meet fleet energy goals until new guidance was  issued.

Compared to other alternative fuel vehicles available from GSA, battery  electric, plug-in hybrid electric, and hybrid electric vehicles can offer  potential to further general federal goals to reduce petroleum use and  tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, battery electric vehicles  consume no petroleum and produce zero tailpipe greenhouse gas  emissions, while plug-in hybrid electric vehicles have the potential to  consume very little gasoline, with a correspondingly small amount of  tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions from the gasoline used, and hybrid  electric vehicles offer higher fuel economy than many other vehicles.  According to DOE’s Fleet Management Handbook, replacing a petroleum- fueled vehicle with a battery electric vehicle provides a 100 percent  reduction in that vehicle’s use of petroleum. In addition, according to DOE  officials, for purposes of tracking agencies’ compliance with the now- revoked Executive Order’s fleet requirements, battery electric vehicles  were considered emissions free, and plug-in hybrids were considered  emissions free when run on electricity.

The now-revoked fleet requirements did not consider emissions  generated during the production of fuel or the manufacturing process. The  Council on Environmental Quality guidance states that emissions  generated from the production of electricity are not counted toward  agencies’ fleet emissions because those emissions are assumed to be  captured in each agency’s facility electricity reporting and their annual  greenhouse gas data report. Counting them as fleet emissions would  result in double counting. Nevertheless, to fully consider the potential  environmental benefits of alternative fuel vehicles, these emissions would  need to be considered and compared to the emissions generated by the  production of fuel and manufacturing process of conventionally fueled  vehicles.

From a full life-cycle perspective, greenhouse gases emitted during the  manufacturing of a vehicle affect a vehicle’s overall emissions. Accurately  determining the amount of greenhouse gas emitted during the  manufacturing of different types of vehicles is complicated, and we found  no federal source that publishes this information. However, a study by the  International Energy Agency found that manufacturing battery electric  vehicles results in higher greenhouse gas emissions than manufacturing  conventional internal combustion engine gasoline-fueled vehicles—but  that over the typical life of an electric vehicle, the elimination of tailpipe  emissions results in these vehicles having lower greenhouse gas  emissions overall than conventional gasoline-fueled vehicles, with the  amount of emissions savings depending on the carbon intensity of power  generation used to charge the vehicles. Another study, by Argonne  National Laboratory, considered mid-size light-duty vehicles. According  to this study, on a life-cycle basis—including emissions related to the  manufacture and disposal of the vehicles, the production of the fuel, and  the use of fuel to operate the vehicle—hybrid electric vehicles produced  about 25 percent fewer greenhouse gas emissions per mile than  conventionally fueled gasoline vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles  produced about 26 to 29 percent fewer greenhouse gas emissions per  mile than conventionally fueled gasoline vehicles, and battery electric  vehicles produced about 26 to 34 percent fewer greenhouse gas  emissions per mile. The study also considered the life-cycle greenhouse  gas emissions for flex fuel vehicles run on E85, finding them to produce  about 20 percent fewer greenhouse gas emissions per mile than a  conventionally fueled gasoline vehicle.

This study also considered the costs of alternative fuel vehicles in light of  their potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It estimated that in  2013 dollars and, based on high volume production, a 15-year vehicle  life-cycle, and a 5 percent discount rate, the greenhouse gas emissions  avoided by using hybrid-electric vehicles compared to a conventional  gasoline fueled vehicle cost $240 per metric ton. For plug-in hybrid  electric vehicles, the cost is between $390 and $860 per metric ton of  greenhouse gas emissions avoided, and for battery electric vehicles the  cost is from $1,090 to $2,600 per metric ton of greenhouse gas emissions  avoided. For flex fuel vehicles, the cost was estimated to be $170 per  metric ton of greenhouse gas emissions saved.

Based on these findings, when an agency replaces a petroleum fueled  vehicle with a battery electric vehicle, a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle, or a  hybrid electric vehicle, it can reduce its petroleum use and greenhouse  gas emissions, though the extent of its reduction depends on the type of  vehicle the agency acquires, and the type of vehicle it replaces, as well as  many other factors. However, it may currently be paying more for such  vehicles from a life-cycle perspective. In the time since this study was  published, according to DOE, battery costs have continued to fall, and  these vehicles may be cost competitive in the near future.

For battery-electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, which  must be regularly charged from the electrical grid, one consideration  included in the Argonne National Lab study’s analysis of how much  greenhouse gasses are emitted through the vehicle’s operation is the  level of greenhouse gas emissions associated with electricity generation.  Such emissions affect the extent to which using electricity instead of  gasoline to fuel vehicles reduces the amount of greenhouse gas  emissions generated into the atmosphere—and this varies by location.  While the Argonne National lab study described above based its analysis  on the average mix of electrical generation in the U.S., the amount of  greenhouse gas emissions associated with electricity generation in the  U.S. actually varies widely depending on the sources used to generate  the electricity.  These sources vary depending on the region of the  country where the electricity is produced.

For example, the production of electricity from burning coal causes  relatively high greenhouse gas emissions, while the production of  electricity from solar or wind causes little to no greenhouse gas  emissions. As a result, a battery electric vehicle charged in a region with  low coal electricity generation, such as the Northeast—whose electricity  generation mix includes about 2.6 percent coal—will result in greater  greenhouse gas emissions reductions than those charged in regions  where most electricity generation comes from coal, such as the upper  Midwest, which uses about 62.3 percent coal (see fig. 5). These figures  are meant to illustrate the differences in electricity generation, and they  do not account for other factors that may affect vehicles’ efficiency and  thus the extent to which they lead to reductions in emissions. For  example, in extreme weather conditions, the range of battery-electric  vehicles can be reduced, resulting in more frequent charging, and thus  more electricity use. Further, the use of air conditioning or other  components in the vehicle can also impact their fuel efficiency. We  analyzed emissions data on vehicles operating in different parts of the  country and found that when considering both tailpipe and fuel-production  greenhouse gas emissions, electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles  produce less greenhouse gas emissions than an equivalent gasoline-only  vehicle in both higher-coal and lower-coal electricity generation regions.  In higher-coal electricity generation regions, however, electric vehicles  can offer less or about an equivalent reduction in greenhouse gas  emissions to comparably-sized hybrid electric vehicles, whereas in lower- coal electricity generation regions, electric vehicles offer the opportunity  to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by a greater extent than  comparably-sized hybrid electric vehicles.

In 2009, we recommended that DOE develop guidance to help agencies  plan to acquire the right mix of vehicles that can meet requirements while  also taking into account the energy sources used to generate the  electricity used to fuel electric vehicles. In response, DOE issued  guidance that recommended agencies consider, among other things,  whether coal-based electricity is used in an area in order to evaluate the  location and emissions-reduction potential of using such vehicles.  However, of the five case study agencies we spoke to, no agency officials  said that they specifically worked to locate electric vehicles where the  production of electricity was likely to produce fewer greenhouse gases.  Since greenhouse gas emissions due to the production of electricity were  not considered in the now-revoked executive order’s requirements and,  according to the case study agency officials, was not stressed by GSA in  discussions about increasing electric vehicles, they stated that this had  not been a focus of their efforts. Instead, they stated that they focused on  locating electric vehicles where they were able to install electric charging  stations and had a mission need that fit with the use of electric vehicles.

According to some agency officials, the higher acquisition costs  associated with electric vehicles and the costs of installing charging  infrastructure have hindered the extent of their integration into federal  fleets. (See app. III for a more detailed discussion of life-cycle costs of  electric vehicles.) As part of an effort to further the overall goal of  reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the now-revoked 2015 Executive  Order called for agencies to increase their acquisition of zero-emission  vehicles (battery-electric vehicles) or plug-in hybrid electric vehicles by  2020. While all five case study agencies had acquired small numbers of  electric vehicles and associated charging infrastructure, two fleet  managers said that the cost challenges would have made it difficult to  acquire sufficient numbers of vehicles to meet the Executive Order’s  requirements by 2020, had the Executive Order not been revoked.

To meet the revoked electric-vehicle acquisition requirements, federal  agencies would have had to acquire close to 3,000 battery electric or  plug-in hybrid electric vehicles per year starting in 2020, according to  GSA officials. According to data provided by GSA, in fiscal year 2017,  agencies purchased 373 battery electric or plug-in hybrid electric  vehicles. Just over half of these vehicles were plug-in hybrid electric  minivans, with the rest being sedans. The purchase of these 373 battery  electric or plug in hybrid electric vehicles, plus an additional 4,584 hybrid  electric sedans, made up about 31 percent of the just over 16,000 sedans  and minivans acquired that year—and increased the total amount  agencies spent purchasing sedans and minivans by about $10.5 million  (see table 3)—or about 3 percent of the total of approximately $314  million spent purchasing sedans and minivans overall. Among the  hybrid electric, battery electric, and plug-in hybrid electric sedans and  minivans, federal agencies purchased the largest numbers of hybrid- electric sedans, which had the smallest additional average per-vehicle  costs as compared to comparably sized gasoline or flex-fueled vehicles.  As a result, agencies spent an average amount of about $2,000 more per  battery electric, plug-in hybrid electric, and hybrid electric vehicle  acquired, although the average amount per vehicle varied widely by size  and type of vehicle acquired. As described below, some of the higher  acquisitions costs of these alternative fuel vehicles will be recovered due  to lower maintenance and fuel costs of the vehicles over time. However,  we were unable to get data on federal agencies’ actual lifecycle costs of  these vehicles because, according to agency officials, agencies had not  tracked these data consistently.

Of the 29 agencies we surveyed, 11 identified acquisition costs as a  challenge to acquiring and using electric vehicles. In addition, 20 of the 29  agencies identified charging infrastructure as a key challenge to acquiring  electric vehicles, citing the costs of installation among other challenges.

In discussions with case study agencies, federal officials did not cite the  acquisition costs of flex-fuel vehicles as a challenge to acquiring these  vehicles. Some officials stated that these vehicles’ relatively low costs  compared to other alternative fuel vehicle options was one reason that  agencies have largely met the alternative fuel vehicle acquisitions  requirement through the acquisition of flex fuel vehicles. GSA’s  purchasing data did not provide sufficient detail for us to analyze the  extent to which agencies paid more to purchase flex fuel vehicles.  According to GSA’s leasing data on GSA-leased vehicles, for fiscal year  2017, agencies acquired over 20,600 alternative fuel vehicles, of which  over 14,700 were flex fuel vehicles leased at no additional cost.  However, agencies also acquired 1,268 flex fuel vehicles that, on  average, had an additional cost of about $2,300, with the result that  agencies spent a total of about $2.9 million more to acquire these  vehicles to lease than if they had acquired equivalent gasoline-fueled  vehicles.

When agencies choose to lease an alternative-fuel vehicle that is more  expensive than a comparable conventionally fueled vehicle, under law,  GSA must spread that difference in cost—sometimes referred to as the  incremental cost—across the agency’s entire fleet during the year the  alternative fuel vehicle is acquired. According to GSA officials, this  requirement makes it easier for agencies to incorporate higher-priced  alternative fuel vehicles, such as battery-electric or plug-in hybrid electric  vehicles, into their fleets. The difference in cost between acquiring a plug- in hybrid electric or battery-electric vehicle compared to an equivalently  sized conventionally fueled vehicle can vary depending on the amount  GSA has negotiated with the dealer to pay for a particular vehicle. For  example, GSA’s lease offerings showed that for fiscal year 2019,  agencies would have to pay anywhere from about $5,300 to $19,400  more to acquire a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle than to acquire an  equivalently sized conventionally fueled vehicle, and approximately  $16,100 to $18,800 more to acquire a battery electric vehicle that is an  equivalently sized conventionally-fueled vehicle. Officials from two case  study agencies told us that because GSA spreads the additional costs  over an agency’s entire leased fleet, the costs may not affect the  agency’s budget much as long as the agency acquires only a small  number of vehicles. For example, according to a local DOT official, the  acquisition of two battery-electric Ford Focuses added an additional $15  per vehicle to each of its vehicles in its fleet.

While electric vehicles have higher acquisition costs, they generally have  lower fuel and maintenance costs than conventionally fueled vehicles,  and as a result, GSA officials charge agencies lower mileage rates for  these vehicles. GSA also charges agencies lower mileage rates for hybrid  vehicles, based on their higher fuel efficiency. Of the agencies we  surveyed, 14 of the 29 identified lower fuel and maintenance costs as a  key benefit to acquiring battery electric or plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.  Because of these lower mileage rates, the more miles an agency drives a  leased electric vehicle, the more the overall cost difference to the agency  between an electric vehicle and a conventionally fueled vehicle will shrink.  However, our analysis of GSA’s leasing rates showed that over 5 years— the typical life of a lease of an electric vehicle—and with average  mileage—these lower mileage costs would not make up for the higher  acquisition costs of these vehicles (see fig. 6). GSA officials and several  fleet managers also told us that in their experiences with leasing electric  vehicles, lower utilization coupled with the lower mileage costs charged  by GSA to agencies had not made up for the significantly higher  acquisition cost over the life of the leases. The GSA lease costs consider  the lifetime costs of the vehicles, including fueling and maintenance and  eventual disposal of the vehicle through auction. The five case study  agencies we spoke with did not use a life-cycle analysis to compare costs  across various vehicle types when making vehicle procurement decisions.  However, all five case study agencies told us they analyze life-cycle costs  to inform their lease versus purchase decisions. See appendix III for more  discussion on life-cycle costs.

Fleet managers at three of the case study agencies we spoke with before  the Executive Order was revoked told us that they had worked to increase  the number of electric vehicles in their fleets, in spite of the higher costs.  Officials at a few agencies stated that when the budget allowed, they  would try to acquire electric vehicles. For example, VA officials told us  that VA budgets for electric vehicles on the local level, and that local staff  decide how much of their budget will go towards funding of electric  vehicles. VA and Interior officials said their acquisitions of electric  vehicles had thus far not greatly affected their budgets, but within Interior,  the fleet managers for Fish and Wildlife Services and the Bureau of Indian  Affairs said cost could become an issue if more electric vehicles were to  be acquired. GSA Office of Governmentwide Policy officials told us that  agencies could fit the higher costs of acquiring electric vehicles into their  budget by reducing their fleet size and acquiring a few of these more  expensive vehicles. Further, GSA has introduced several initiatives to  help agencies finance alternative fuel vehicle acquisitions, including  specific electric vehicle initiatives. For example, in fiscal year 2016,  according to an Army fleet manager, Army acquired electric vehicles  through GSA at a price GSA had negotiated that was equal to the price  for comparably sized petroleum fueled vehicles. However, this pricing  was only offered in 2016 as part of a one-time deal that GSA negotiated  with the vehicle manufacturer.

In addition to the costs of purchasing or leasing electric vehicles,  agencies described challenges balancing the costs of purchasing and  installing charging stations with other competing priorities. Agency  officials told us they generally prefer charging stations, such as Level 2  stations, that can charge a vehicle in a few hours to allow vehicles to be  used multiple times a day.  These types of Level 2 charging stations can  cost anywhere from about $400 to $8,000 depending on the model and its  features and do not include installation costs. Generally, the less  expensive models may not include features such as energy monitoring  that tracks electricity use or communication capabilities that enables data  communication that some fleet managers said they view as necessary to  manage and track the performance and costs of electric vehicles. We  were unable to determine the total amount that agencies had spent to  acquire existing charging stations to date because data were not  available at a sufficient level of detail.

Installation costs also varied widely, depending, among other things, on  the complexity of the installation, such as the need for trenching or  upgrading the electrical service. For example, officials from VA told us  that sometimes in order to install charging stations, they have had to  trench an entire parking lot to ensure the units have the necessary power  to charge its vehicles—which can be expensive. DOE estimates that to  install a charging station it costs about $100 per foot to trench through  concrete, lay conduit, and refill. As a result, it could cost up to $10,000 to  trench 100 feet. Further, the Veterans Health Administration indicated that  funding for purchasing and installing charging stations at their facilities  had to compete with other priorities. Specifically, the costs for charging  stations came out of the facilities’ capital-planning budget, which also  includes funding for veterans’ care. Similar to determining what agencies  have spent on charging stations, we were also unable to determine what  total installation costs have been to date because of data limitations.

Although many federal facilities are not equipped with fast charging  infrastructure and the number of public charging stations remains limited,  federal agencies had begun taking steps to install more charging  stations. Prior to the 2015 Executive Order being revoked, agencies had  recently begun to install more of these stations as part of their efforts to  prepare for the requirement that 20 percent of light-duty vehicle  acquisitions be zero emission (electric) vehicles or plug-in hybrid vehicles  by 2020. We found 12 out of the 29 agencies we surveyed had installed  more than 20 charging stations, while 14 others had installed at least one  charging station, and only 3 agencies had not installed any charging  stations. According to past Strategic Sustainability Performance Plans,  agencies had started to implement strategies to increase their electric- vehicle infrastructure. For example, according to EPA’s fiscal year 2016  plan, it planned to conduct a survey of its parking facilities to develop a  charging infrastructure policy and plan, including identifying potential  locations for charging stations. Similarly, Army officials described taking  additional steps, including sending specialized teams to several of its  bases to determine the optimal and least costly placement of its charging  stations. However, fleet managers also told us they were having  difficulties installing electric vehicle infrastructure, in particular at leased  facilities. Specifically, several agencies’ fleet managers told us that it was  difficult or impossible to install charging stations at leased properties  unless their installation was negotiated into the lease from the beginning.  In part because guidance on the new Executive Order had not been  issued at the time we last spoke with agency officials on this issue, the  extent to which the revoking of the directive related to acquiring electric  vehicles would affect agencies’ efforts to install charging infrastructure  was unclear.

Availability Limits Agencies’ Use of Alternative Fuel

Fleet managers told us that another challenge that may limit progress  toward energy goals was a lack of fuel availability—in particular the  availability of E85—which made it difficult to fuel flex-fuel vehicles with  alternative fuel. Of the 29 agencies, 20 identified the availability of E85  as a challenge to using alternative fuel in flex-fuel vehicles. While some  agencies still largely rely on flex-fuel vehicles to meet alternative fuel  vehicle acquisition requirements, E85 can only be found at about 2  percent of all refueling stations, according to GSA. To help agencies  locate alternative fuel stations, such as those with E85, DOE developed  an Alternative Fuel Station Locator tool that maps nearby refueling  stations. VA and Interior officials said they routinely use the tool to check  for accessible alternative fuel stations prior to acquiring an alternative fuel  vehicle.  However, outside the rural Midwest and Texas, E85 may be  difficult to find. In addition, when E85 is available, agency officials from  two case study agencies said these locations may be mislabeled, out of  service, or too far from the vehicle’s operating location. We reported  similar concerns in 2011; specifically, that while agencies acquired  primarily flex-fuel vehicles, the low availability of E85 resulted in a  majority of flex-fuel vehicles receiving a waiver from the requirement to  use alternative fuel, and as a result, agencies refueled their flex-fuel  vehicles with petroleum.

Another difficulty fleet managers face with regard to increasing the use of  E85 is that, even when E85 is available and conveniently accessible,  drivers still may refuel with gasoline—even though federal agencies have  undertaken a number of efforts to encourage its use. As we mentioned  previously, to help agencies track their fleet fuel purchases, DOE  developed the FLEETDASH system that can identify opportunities where  drivers could have refueled with E85 within 5 miles of their location but,  instead, chose not to because they were unaware or unwilling. Some  agency officials described using this system to try to increase alternative  fuel use. For example, VA officials told us they use FLEETDASH to track  and identify opportunities to increase their alternative fuel use. In another  example, EPA officials told us that to increase their use of alternative  fuels, drivers at one location started to print out maps that identified  alternative fuel refueling locations near their routes. DOE recently  estimated that if federal agencies refueled flex-fuel vehicles with E85  every time they refueled within 5 miles of an E85 station, the use of E85  would quadruple, and agencies could decrease their use of petroleum by  10 percent and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by a further 9 percent.

Agencies’ Need for Larger Vehicles Limits the Number of Low Greenhouse-Gas-Emitting Vehicles They Can Acquire

Another challenge that may limit further progress towards energy goals is  that agencies continue to need larger, less efficient vehicles for many of  their mission needs, according to many agency officials. According to  FAST data, about 85 percent of agencies’ fleets in fiscal year 2018 was  comprised of sport-utility vehicles, passenger vans, and trucks (as  illustrated previously in fig. 3). In response to our survey, 26 of 29  agencies indicated that mission or intended use was a very important  factor when selecting a vehicle, and officials at some case study agencies  told us that they had a significant need for larger vehicles to meet certain  missions. For example, Interior operates on large rural Indian  reservations where they need pick-up trucks or sport-utility vehicles to  navigate the often rugged terrain. In another example, DOT officials  stated that to support their national airspace facilities, their vehicles must  drive off-road carrying bulky or sensitive tools to go to remote air strips.  For these purposes, they look to acquire larger vehicles such as cargo  vans and enclosed pickup trucks with 4-wheel drive capabilities or 2- wheel-drive sport-utility vehicles that have the ground clearance to meet  their needs.

GSA and agency officials told us that the vehicles designated as low  greenhouse-gas-emitting vehicles are typically smaller vehicles and in  some cases are not suitable for these mission needs. For example, GSA  offered one 4x2 hybrid-electric sport-utility vehicle and one 4x4 plug-in  hybrid-electric sport-utility vehicle in fiscal years 2017 and 2018. In fiscal  year 2019, additional vehicles have been added. While these options are  considered low greenhouse-gas-emitting vehicles, an agency official told  us that they have a variety of other characteristics that may make them  less desirable for certain missions—for example, they may cost  significantly more than other options to acquire, or, in the case of the  plug-in, rely on charging infrastructure that the agency may not have in  the location where the vehicle is needed. According to VA staff, there are  not enough low greenhouse gas vehicle options to ensure fleet managers  can meet mission goals and low greenhouse-gas-emitting vehicle  acquisition requirements. For example, VA relies on minivans to transport  patients and deliver health care services; however, no gasoline or E85- fueled minivans offered by GSA in fiscal year 2017 were designated as  low greenhouse-gas-emitting vehicles. Furthermore, in some cases, when  an agency has determined it needs a larger vehicle, fleet managers told  us they are likely to choose a flex-fuel vehicle because these vehicles are  offered in larger, more rugged models. These vehicles are often not  designated as low greenhouse-gas-emitting vehicles but count towards  the alternative fuel vehicle acquisition requirements.

In contrast, officials representing four case study agencies stated that  when the mission need is suitable for a sedan, the agency seeks to  acquire low greenhouse-gas-emitting vehicles. GSA offers a number of  alternative fuel vehicle options for sedans, including hybrid, battery  electric, and plug-in electric hybrid vehicles. Further, many GSA offered  gasoline-fueled sedans are also designated as low greenhouse-gas- emitting vehicles. Officials at one agency told us, when possible, the  agency acquires alternative fuel sedans such as flex-fuel vehicles, hybrid  vehicles, or, in a few cases, electric vehicles. Furthermore, officials at this  agency stated that when they are acquiring a vehicle where alternative  fuel is not readily available, they will sometimes acquire a low  greenhouse-gas-emitting vehicle that runs only on gasoline.

We provided a draft of this report to Army, DOE, DOT, EPA, GSA,  Interior, and the VA for their review and comment. In response, Army,  DOE, EPA, GSA, Interior, and VA provided technical comments which  were incorporated as appropriate. Army and DOT reviewed the report but  did not provide any comments.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretaries of the  Departments of Defense, Energy, Interior, and Veterans Affairs, and the  Administrators of GSA and EPA. In addition, the report will be available at  no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff has any questions about this report, please contact me  at 202-512-2834 or vonaha@gao.gov. Contact points for our Office of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. GAO staff that made major contributions to this report are  listed in appendix IV.

Appendix I: Survey of Federal Agencies on Acquiring Alternative Fuel Vehicles

In April 2018, we initiated a survey of 29 federal agencies’ fleet  managers. The questions we asked and the aggregate results of the  responses to the closed-ended questions are shown below. Our survey  was comprised of closed- and open-ended questions. We do not provide  results for the open-ended questions. We received 29 completed survey  responses—a response rate of 100 percent.  1. What is the process your agency follows when acquiring a new vehicle to replace a vehicle?

Please list (in numerical order) the sequence of events from deciding to  acquire a vehicle to actually acquiring it. To the extent that the process is  different when adding an additional vehicle, please describe that as well.  (Written responses not included)  2. At what point in the above process, does your agency consider whether to acquire an alternative fuel vehicle or a petroleum fuel vehicle when replacing a vehicle? To the extent that the process is different when adding an additional a vehicle, please describe that as well.

3. (Written responses not included)In the process to replace a vehicle described above, does your agency consider vehicle life-cycle cost information as part of a lease versus purchase analysis?

3a. If yes, does your agency consider the following factors in their  vehicle life-cycle cost analysis? Please check one answer for each  row.

In the process to add an additional vehicle, does your agency consider vehicle life-cycle cost information as part of a lease versus purchase analysis? 4a. If yes, please describe how, if at all, the above lease versus  purchase analysis differs in the case of adding an additional vehicle,  and in particular any differences in the type of life-cycle cost  information considered in the case of adding a vehicle.  (Written responses not included)  5. Excluding the lease versus purchase analysis, does your agency conduct any other vehicle life-cycle cost analysis at any other point in the vehicle replacement process described in Question 1? 5a. Does your agency compare the life-cycle costs of multiple vehicle  types prior to selecting a type of vehicle to acquire?

5b. Does your agency perform a cost analysis comparing life-cycle  costs of acquiring a non-electric vehicle to costs of acquiring an  electric vehicle?  5c. If no, please describe how your agency considers the results of  this life-cycle cost analysis—excluding the lease versus purchase  analysis.  (Written responses not included)  5d. What factors below does your agency consider in this life-cycle  cost analysis? Please check one answer for each row.

Useful life (number of years  it is expected to be used)

6.  In the process to add an additional vehicle, does your agency  consider vehicle life-cycle cost information at any point outside the  lease versus purchase analysis?  6a. If yes, please describe how, if at all, any life-cycle cost analysis  described in question 5 differs in the case of adding an additional vehicle,  and in particular any differences in the type of life-cycle cost information  considered in the case of adding a vehicle.  (Written responses not included)  7. Has your agency ever determined that an electric vehicle is the most appropriate vehicle to meet the agency’s needs? 7a. If yes, please provide some examples of those situations and how  your agency determined the type of electric vehicle (i.e. electric  vehicle, plug-in electric hybrid vehicle, hybrid electric, etc.).  (Written responses not included)  8. How important are the following factors when determining whether the vehicles your agency acquires will be alternative fuel vehicles or petroleum fuel vehicles?

Mission (The  expected function  or purpose of the  vehicle)

Availability of  alternative fuel  vehicles  Other (specify in  box below)

For agencies that indicated there were other factor(s), we provided an open-ended question that  requested a description of the factor(s) and 3 agencies provided descriptions of other factors not  shown here.

9.  What are the benefits, if any, (including any related to costs,  maintenance, environment, safety, federal requirements, etc.) of  acquiring and using each of the following types of alternative fuel  vehicles relative to petroleum fuel vehicles?  9a. Electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles  (PHEVs) that use battery power  (Written responses not included)  9b. Hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) powered by an internal  combustion engine  (Written responses not included)  9c. Flex Fuel Vehicles (FFVs) designed to run on E85  (Written responses not included)  9d. Other alternative fuel vehicles  (Written responses not included)  10. What are the challenges, if any, (including any related to costs,  maintenance, environment, safety, federal requirements, etc.) of  acquiring and using each of the following types of alternative fuel  vehicles relative to petroleum fuel vehicles?  10a. Electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles  (PHEVs) that use battery power  (Written responses not included)  10b. Hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) powered by an internal  combustion engine  (Written responses not included)  10c. Flex Fuel Vehicles (FFVs) designed to run on E85  (Written responses not included)  10d. Other alternative fuel vehicles  (Written responses not included)  11. How many electric charging stations has your agency installed? 12. Has your agency encountered any challenges while trying to site and install electric charging stations? 12a. If yes, what were those challenges and how, if at all, have you  been able to overcome them?  (Written responses not included)  13. Has your agency encountered any challenges related to acquiring and using alternative fuel vehicles and alternative fuel while trying to meet federal fleet energy requirements, including Executive Order 13693? 13a. If yes, what were those challenges and how, if at all, have you  been able to overcome them?  (Written responses not included)  14. Has your agency taken steps to prepare for Executive Order 13693’s requirement that 20 percent of all new passenger vehicles be zero emission vehicles or plug-in hybrids by 2020? 14a. If yes, please provide some examples of the steps you have  taken.  (Written responses not included).  15. Has the availability of alternative fuel vehicles from GSA’s inventory ever prevented your agency from acquiring an alternative fuel vehicle? 15a. If yes, please describe what vehicle you were interested in and  why it was not available.  (Written responses not included)

Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

You asked us to review the costs and challenges related to federal  agencies’ meeting the different federal energy requirements for vehicle  fleets. This report addresses: (1) how agencies meet fleet energy  requirements and how their efforts changed agencies’ fleets and (2)  challenges federal agencies faced related to furthering fleet energy goals.  The report also includes information on the extent agencies consider life- cycle costs when selecting vehicles.

To determine the extent to which federal agencies reported meeting fleet  energy requirements and the composition of federal agencies’ fleets, we  analyzed data from the Federal Automotive Statistical Tool’s (FAST)  database on the composition and fuel use of federal agencies’ fleets from  fiscal years 2008 through 2017, the most current data available at the  time of our review. Annually federal agencies must submit data on all of  their non-tactical vehicles to this database, which the General Services  Administration (GSA) and the Department of Energy (DOE) established in  2000 and is used to satisfy statutory and regulatory reporting  requirements. We reviewed the data relative to selected statutory  requirements and directives that were in effect for fiscal year 2017.  Specifically, we analyzed these data to identify the total numbers of  alternative fuel vehicles by fuel type and vehicle size in federal fleets and  the changes in alternative fuel use during this time period. DOE provided  us fleet performance data on the extent to which each of the agencies  subject to these federal requirements met requirements or directives to  acquire alternative fuel vehicles, use alternative fuel, and reduce  petroleum use and per-mile greenhouse gas emissions for fiscal year  2017. In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reported  on the extent to which agencies were meeting the requirement to acquire  low greenhouse-gas-emitting vehicles for fiscal year 2017, based on the  same database. To assess the reliability of these data, we interviewed  DOE officials on how the data were checked for accuracy and collected  written responses from them on how the data were collected, maintained,  analyzed and presented. This assessment included how DOE flags  suspicious data, reviews the data, and validates final entries. Based on  the information collected, we found the data sufficiently reliable for our  purposes of identifying the number of vehicles by type of vehicle and size,  and fuel consumed by federal fleets in order to describe how vehicle  fleets changed over the past decade.

In May 2018, a new Executive Order was issued that revoked a previous  Executive Order. The previous Executive Order contained two directives,  to acquire zero emission (electric) vehicles and reduce per-mile  greenhouse gas emissions by specific targets and specific years. Thus,  while the above statutory requirements for fiscal year 2017 remained in  effect for fiscal year 2018, the directives related to acquisition of zero  emission (electric) vehicles and per-mile greenhouse gas emissions  reductions were no longer in effect after May 2018. To understand the  different federal energy requirements for vehicles fleets and guidance for  agencies to implement them, we reviewed federal statutes, agency rules,  and executive orders, and examined DOE and GSA guidance on the  various statutory and regulatory requirements and executive orders. For  example, we reviewed DOE’s federal fleet management handbook  intended for agencies to select and implement strategies to reduce fleet  greenhouse gas emissions and use of petroleum, and EPA guidance on  how to meet the requirement to acquire low greenhouse-gas-emitting  vehicles, among other documents. In April 2019, CEQ and OMB issued  implementing instructions for the Executive Order. The implementing  instructions emphasized that agencies should follow the statutory  requirements that are still in place and annually identify targets for  petroleum reduction and increases in alternative fuel use as part of  agencies’ Strategic Sustainability Plans.

To broaden our understanding of agencies efforts to meet requirements,  we also identified five case study agencies—Department of the Interior  (Interior), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Department of  Transportation (DOT), the Army, and the EPA. We selected these case  study agencies based on data from the FAST database and their planning  documents to represent different sized fleets, a mix of alternative fuel  vehicle types, including electric vehicles, and missions with varying  vehicle needs. Interior, VA, and Army represented larger fleets, whereas  DOT represented medium and EPA small sized fleets. In part, we also  chose DOT and EPA to learn about their unique vehicle acquisition  processes and plans for acquiring electric vehicles, based on their  responses to the survey we conducted, which is described below. From  these case study agencies and their sub-agencies, we interviewed  agency officials, including fleet managers, to learn their efforts to meet  requirements, how they acquired vehicles, and how they managed their  fleets. We spoke with these agencies before and after the Executive  Order was revoked in May 2018. We also reviewed documents reporting  on the extent to which these agencies met fleet energy requirements. The  results from the case studies cannot be generalized to make inferences  about all agencies. However, we determined that our selection  methodology was appropriate for our design and objectives and that this  methodology would generate valid and reliable evidence to support our  work.

To determine any challenges agencies face related to further meeting  fleet energy goals, we surveyed 29 federal agencies, and asked them to  describe their vehicle acquisition processes, the type of cost analysis  done when acquiring an alternative fuel vehicle, and the benefits and  challenges of using alternative fuel vehicles. We identified and surveyed  agencies that were required to comply with fleet energy requirements and  conducted the survey beginning in April 2018. Overall, 31 federal  agencies were subject to these requirements in fiscal year 2017;  however, as part of our review of Department of Defense (DOD)  documentation, we found that its various military departments operate  independently and decided to survey Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, and  Navy separately. We also excluded the Court Services and Offender  Supervision Agency because of the decentralized nature of its fleet and  the Defense Agencies within DOD because it was small relative to other  DOD agencies. To increase the validity and reliability of our survey, we  conducted pretests of the survey with fleet management officials from  three federal agencies: VA, Interior, and the Government Accountability  Office. We received a 100 percent response rate to our survey. (See app.  I for survey results.)

To further learn about the challenges of alternative fuel vehicles as well  as strategies agencies were using to acquire these vehicles, we  interviewed agency officials, including fleet managers, from our five case  study agencies, GSA and DOE. In addition, to understand agencies’  efforts to further fleet energy goals and the challenges they faced, we  reviewed the Fleet Management Plans and Strategic Sustainability  Performance Plans of each agency we surveyed. The strategic  sustainability plan is to prioritize agency actions to support the reduction  of greenhouse gas emission and other agency wide targets. The fleet  management plan is to specifically address how an agency’s fleet will  meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets, petroleum reduction targets,  and other relevant fleet requirements. We also focused our analysis only  on selected types of alternative fuel vehicles. Specifically, we included  flex-fuel vehicles, hybrid-electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles,  and battery electric vehicles because these represent the most numerous  in federal fleets or those with specific acquisition requirements.

We obtained vehicle cost information from GSA’s Alternative Fuel Vehicle  Guide that lists the costs and specifications of each alternative fuel  vehicle GSA offers, and analyzed cost differences based on fuel type. For  the purposes of our analysis, we focused on lease costs, not the costs of  purchasing a vehicle from GSA, because in fiscal year 2017, 70 percent  of agencies battery electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles were  leased. To analyze and compare petroleum consumption and greenhouse  gas emissions, we judgmentally selected a sample of vehicles from  GSA’s Alternative Fuel Vehicle Guide and first estimated their annual fuel  using DOE’s Vehicle Cost Calculator. We then entered their estimated  fuel use into Argonne National Laboratory’s Alternative Fuel Life-Cycle  Environmental and Economic Transportation (AFLEET) tool to estimate  well to wheel greenhouse gas emissions.  To assess the reliability of  these tools, we interviewed and collected written responses from DOE  officials regarding the source of the data and the values and assumptions  used in its calculations. Based on the information collected, we found that  they were sufficiently reliable to estimate petroleum consumption and  greenhouse gas emissions.

We conducted this performance audit from November 2017 to July 2019  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Appendix III: Agencies’ Consideration of Costs in Selecting Electric Vehicles

Until May 2018—during the time when the previous administration’s  Executive Order was in effect—our case study agencies acquired limited  numbers of battery electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles with a  general understanding that, when the mission need was compatible,  acquiring such vehicles was supported by the Executive Order’s  requirements in spite of their higher costs compared to a conventional  vehicle. As of February 2019, the last time we spoke with agency officials  on this issue, agency officials stated that they were uncertain of the effect  of the new executive order and would continue to try and meet fleet  energy goals until new guidance was issued. This guidance was  subsequently issued in April 2019, and emphasized that agencies should  focus on the statutory requirements while increasing efficiency, optimizing  performance, and reducing waste and costs.

Until May 2018, when the previous Executive Order was revoked, agencies were expected to increase their acquisition of battery electric or plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Specifically, agencies were to acquire “zero-emission” or plug-in hybrid electric vehicles for 20 percent of all new agency passenger vehicle acquisitions by December 31, 2020—and for 50 percent of all new agency passenger vehicle acquisitions by December 31, 2025—in addition to meeting the other various federal fleet requirements. According to Department of Energy guidance on this Executive Order, the targets phased in over time to account for the expected future market availability and cost competitiveness of these vehicles. However, as of fiscal year 2017, GSA officials and several fleet managers also told us that in their experiences leasing electric vehicles, the lower mileage costs of these vehicles had not made up for the significantly higher acquisition cost over the life of the leases, a situation that they described as a challenge to significantly increasing the numbers of such vehicles in their fleets. Three case study agencies described acquiring battery electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles—despite the higher costs—largely because of the Executive Order’s requirement. Similarly, 10 of the 29 agencies we surveyed identified “meeting federal requirements” as a key benefit to acquiring electric vehicles.

All five case study agencies had acquired small numbers of electric vehicles in light of the Executive Order’s requirements. Agency officials described acquiring these vehicles when their mission and budgets allowed for it. For example, a case study agency with a larger fleet told us that mission needs drove its vehicle acquisitions, and there were limited instances in which an electric sedan would have met the agency’s mission needs. However, when the agency acquired a vehicle for a mission that could be met with an electric vehicle— such as to ferry officials to and from different offices in an area where  charging stations were easily accessible—it would have been likely to  select an electric vehicle, in part, to help the agency take steps  towards meeting the Executive Order’s acquisition goals.

Agency officials at four of the five case study agencies said once they  had identified an opportunity to acquire an electric vehicle—generally  at a location where the mission aligned with the capabilities of an  electric vehicle, recharging infrastructure was available, and there  were sufficient funds in the budget—they would conduct a lease  versus purchase analysis to determine whether leasing or purchasing  the vehicle would be most the cost effective option, a key aspect of a  life-cycle cost analysis. We have previously reported that a life-cycle  cost analysis, which considers vehicle costs from the beginning to the  end of vehicle ownership, can help agencies make cost-effective  decisions. Officials at the fifth case study agency, Army, stated that  the agency had conducted an agency-wide analysis that had  determined that leasing was always a better option than purchasing  for non-tactical vehicles, and so it no longer conducted this analysis  on a vehicle-by-vehicle basis.

Officials at our case study agencies stated they did not conduct life- cycle cost analysis to compare and contrast different types of vehicles  during the acquisitions process because they considered mission and  federal fleet energy requirements to be the key drivers of which type  of vehicle to select. However, about half of the agencies that  responded to our survey stated that they did do so. Specifically, 14 of  29 agencies indicated they conduct a life-cycle costs analysis outside  of a lease-versus-buy analysis when replacing a vehicle, and 13 of  these agencies responded that they did such an analysis to compare  the costs of an electric vehicle to a non-electric vehicle. Almost all of  these agencies responded that they considered initial acquisition cost,  fuel cost, electricity consumption, useful life, maintenance costs, and  annual miles, with fewer agencies checking that they considered other  costs, such as depreciation and disposal costs.

As of February 2019, the last time we spoke with agency officials on this  issue, agency officials stated that they were unsure of how the revoking of  the previous Executive Order and implementation of the new Executive  Order would affect the extent to which they acquired electric vehicles in  the future. Officials at one case agency stated that with the uncertainty  surrounding the requirement to acquire more of these vehicles in the  future, it was likely that they would not acquire electric vehicles due to  their higher costs. Another case study agency said that although the  Executive Order had been revoked, the agency may continue to acquire a  limited number of these vehicles in locations where it had already  invested funds for electric vehicle infrastructure.

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the individual named above, Alwynne Wilbur (Assistant  Director); Eric Hudson (Analyst-in-Charge); Ross Gauthier; Bonnie Ho;  Malika Rice; Amy Rosewarne; Kelly Rubin; Andrew Stavisky; and Crystal  Wesco made key contributions to this report.

Federal agencies largely use vehicles powered by gasoline or diesel fuel. Since 1988, agencies have been required to reduce their reliance on these fuels and lower their greenhouse gas emissions.

To meet 2017 requirements, agencies used more alternative fuel vehicles, primarily flex-fuel vehicles that run on gasoline-ethanol blends. Agency officials told us that the higher cost of electric vehicles was one of the things that kept them from adding more of them to their fleets.

In 2017, electric vehicles represented less than 1 percent of alternative fuel vehicles in agencies’ fleets, while hybrids represented about 11 percent.