GSA EV Pilot Program Inspires Innovation at Air Force, EPA, and VA

The General Services Administration (GSA) plays a leading role in the effort to implement President Barack Obama’s executive order to increase the use of electric vehicles among federal agencies as the federal government’s mandatory purchasing agent. The GSA buys all non-tactical vehicles for the federal government and provides a full-service leasing program to federal agencies. Accordingly, the agency owns and leases a significant portion of the federal fleet, replacing about 20 percent of the vehicles a year, according to Amanda Fredriksen, Assistant Commissioner in the Federal Acquisition Service for the GSA. On average, the federal fleet is about three years old.

In 2012 and 2014, the GSA ran two successful electric vehicle pilot programs, which added approximately 300 EVs into the federal fleet. The pilot programs provided electric vehicles to a variety of federal agencies with high vehicle use. The initial project involved 115 cars and the second 200 cars. In both cases, GSA provided one charging station per vehicle.

The key to success in each of the pilot programs was working with agencies where there was strong buy in from high level decision-makers and the fleet managers themselves. Where the project was most successful, there had to be someone on the ground who was advocating for it. In a sign that the program has good prospects for the future, the GSA frequently hears from Individuals working in federal agencies who want to incorporate electric vehicles into their fleets, but have not been able to follow through yet.

Challenges in Adding Electric Vehicles to Federal Fleets

Federal fleet managers must address several challenges in adding electric vehicles to their fleets. At the top of the list is the fact that electric vehicles typically cost more than conventional gasoline vehicles. Other challenges include infrastructure installation, ensuring a good customer experience, collecting data and measuring performance, and changing the way that fleet managers think about what kinds of vehicles are the most appropriate for their customers. The following sections will discuss each of these challenges in turn and examine successful strategies for addressing them.

High Cost of Electric Vehicles. A high sticker price can block fleet managers from purchasing electric vehicles even though operational expenses for EVs are less than for conventional vehicles. Conventionally fueled sedans available through the GSA cost between $14,000 to $17,000. Electric vehicles are much more expensive. The Ford Focus cost $26,000 in 2016 and was $28,000 in 2015. A plug in hybrid vehicle costs $29,000 to $31,000.

When private sector consumers purchase electric vehicles, the total cost of ownership over the life of the car can be less than for conventional vehicles thanks largely to federal tax incentives that lower costs. However, the federal government does not benefit from tax incentives that private companies or individuals receive. As a capital expenditure, the EV will be more expensive than a conventional gasoline car, but savings will accrue over time because the EV has lower operating expenses. Nevertheless, it is not clear if the EV is cheaper than a conventional vehicle over the lifetime of the car. In fact, according to current estimates, there is still a gap to making EVs fully cost competitive and the operational price paid ultimately depends on a large number of variables. A central factor is the price of gasoline, which has been highly volatile in recent years. Another key variable is how many miles the vehicle is driven in electric mode (a situation affecting hybrids).

With high costs front and center, fleet communities are reticent to move forward with electric vehicles, often repeating the mantra “We’re not quite there yet.” From a pure cost perspective, such a view makes sense, but, beyond the economics, fleet managers have other reasons to move forward with the electric vehicles, such as setting a good example for other federal agencies, state and local government agencies, companies and individuals. Driving change in the public and private sector is a priority for federal agencies.

The GSA is taking several steps to bring down the price of EVs. In 2016, the GSA was working to aggregate federal demand in order to reduce the price that the government pays for each vehicle. Starting in July 2016, the federal government launched efforts to partner with state and local governments to increase buying power.

Beyond aggregating demand, the GSA is working to reduce the contracting burden on other federal agencies with the goal being to set up a government-wide contract so agencies can order cars off of the centralized contract. The GSA procurers have presented this idea to agencies to learn what they need. Additionally, working with the GSA, agencies can create motor pools and share their fleet resources among a broader group of drivers, ensuring that resources are used most effectively. For example, beginning in November 2016, the GSA is making charging stations available across the government, expanding access to both level 1 and level 2 chargers. The GSA is also setting up a mapping system that will be on-line and will show where the stations and electric vehicles are located.

The participants in the GSA pilot program have also sought out ways to reduce the cost burden of electric vehicles. In many cases, these efforts take the agencies far beyond the framework of the initial pilot. A prime example comes from the Los Angeles Air Force Base. In November 2010, before the GSA pilot began, there was a meeting of all the armed services to discuss the possibility of electrifying the Pentagon’s 200,000 non-tactical vehicles worldwide. There was strong interest, but few resources to make it happen. Dr. Camron Gorguinpour, now the Director of Transformational Innovation for the U.S. Air Force, was tapped to lead the effort as the head of the Air Force’s energy use policy.

The key to success for the adoption of the electric vehicles was bringing the cost down to a price level that was comparable with conventional gasoline engines. Overcoming the cost hurdle required defining and implementing a business plan that could deliver the new technology at a price that made sense. The constrained resource environment did not help: At that time, the military was facing budget cuts and was shrinking its fleet size to deal with financial realities.

In order to set up a demonstration pilot project, the team wanted to electrify the entire fleet of vehicles on one Air Force facility. The idea was to convert all vehicles: sedans, trucks, shuttle buses. The team chose the Los Angeles Air Force base because it had a limited number of vehicles. The California location also made sense because the project needed cooperative utilities and a regulatory environment that strongly supported EVs. The demonstration project went live in December 2015 and the base currently has 42 EVs of all varieties, from sedans to trucks, on site. Because California is an unusually receptive environment for electric vehicles, the military also wanted to show that it was working in other states, and set up smaller demonstration projects in Ft. Hood, Texas and Joint Base Andrews in Maryland. Work is also underway in New Jersey.

Gorguinpour and his colleagues focused on leveraging the three areas that they thought provided the most likely basis for success in bringing down costs: purchasing in volume, providing vehicle-to-grid battery services, and developing creative financing solutions.

U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt Rey Sedantes, left, of the 61st Civil Engineering and Logistics Squadron at Los Angeles Air Force Base, receives instruction on how to operate the Princeton bidirectional electric vehicle charging stations from vehicle operations contractor, Oscar Machado, right, during a training demo in El Segundo, California, on October 31, 2014. From Los Angeles Air Force Base Flickr.

Volume. So far, the Department of Defense has not been able to gain much traction in volume sales. Ideally, both the federal agencies and the car makers would benefit if the federal government could commit to purchasing large numbers of vehicles, providing a reliable and substantial market for the manufacturers in return for a volume discount for the government. One part of the problem is that it has proven difficult to identify enough willing fleet managers interested in acquiring the electric vehicles and putting together enough of a coalition of purchasers to proceed. Similarly, the manufacturers often have trouble providing a discount to the government for buying EVs in bulk.

In the area of passenger sedans, the GSA cut a good deal with Ford on zero emission vehicles, making it possible for agencies to purchase the Ford Focus Battery Electric Vehicle for $26,684.20 if the government purchased a large number of vehicles. So far, however, not enough agencies have been willing to commit to purchases to make the deal happen.

In the area of trucks and other specialized vehicles, manufacturers have not been prepared to offer the kinds of discounts for volume purchases that would make it cost effective for the government to buy large numbers. Initially, Gorguinpour and his team thought that they could negotiate a deal whereby if the government purchased 1,000 electric trucks, the manufacturer would be able to reduce the price by 30-40 percent. Unfortunately, the equipment manufacturers ultimately said that the price for purchasing 500 vehicles would be the same as for one vehicle. Small companies that make electric trucks and other vehicles were not able to offer a deal trading high volume purchases for a per-vehicle discount.

Another problem in making electric vehicles cost effective is that it is hard to compete with low cost conventional vehicles. The GSA can use its bargaining power to get good deals on a wide variety of conventional vehicles that currently benefit from cheap gasoline. For example, the GSA can lease conventional passenger sedans for about $160 a month and 15 cents/a mile. If they are driven about 1,000 miles a month, the total cost to the agency is approximately $310 a month. At those prices it is hard to justify the much more expensive EVs, particularly when installing a charging station is an extra cost.

Vehicle to Grid. As another method of reducing the costs of the electric vehicles, the Air Force asked whether it would be possible to generate revenue from providing services to the grid. One option was to use the batteries in the vehicles to offer storage options for local utilities. This potential revenue source only makes sense if there are enough vehicles available to provide a minimum baseline of service, and the LA Air Force Base did not reach this threshold. Unfortunately, this kind of service is not likely to be broadly deployed in the near future. However, utilities in California are willing to work on these kinds of solutions. Similarly, in the Washington, DC, area, PEPCO is supportive and there is growing interest in Texas. Vehicle to grid options are definitely a possibility that should be studied for future potential.

Financing. In cases where it is not practical to lower prices, DoD looks for innovative financing solutions. One example, currently under consideration, is working with the relevant local utilities to install Level 3 charging stations, which make it possible to charge an EV in less than 20 minutes, alleviating the need for the federal facilities to bear that cost burden. A facility that deploys 10 or more electric vehicles can commit to a level of electricity usage that makes it worthwhile for a utility to cover the cost of installing charging stations. In return for a guaranteed monthly fee, the utility installs a level 3 fast charging station near a DoD facility. The station is close enough to the facility to be convenient for base users, but off the actual facility site so that it is accessible to the public as well. The utility can make back the money it spent on the installation because the Level 3 charging stations can sell electricity to the general public, including employees and contractors of the facility who themselves would be encouraged to purchase electric vehicles for their personal use.

Financing the arrangement can be done through an area-wide agreement that the federal government signs with utilities to provide electricity. These 10-year agreements with regulated public utility companies across the US make it easier for federal agencies to order and manage their electricity needs. The utility’s purchase and deployment of charging stations can be handled through an addendum to the agreement. If the fleets can couple the charging stations with a competitive price on the electric vehicles, then the use of such vehicles becomes economically feasible since they can compete with the conventional vehicles supplied by the GSA. Currently a pilot project is seeking to demonstrate that this kind of arrangement is feasible. As an added bonus, such programs will contribute to creating a nation-wide network of charging stations.

Additional Infrastructure Requirements. In addition to addressing cost issues, fleet managers seeking to add electric vehicles need to acquire new types of infrastructure, particularly charging stations. Before the advent of electric vehicles, fleet managers did not have to think about charging stations when they were buying cars. Now they need to ask where this money will come from in the budget because purchasing an EV typically means paying more for the actual vehicle and then adding on the charging station.

Another question is where to put the chargers. A lot depends on who owns the facilities where the vehicles will be housed. Are facilities owned by federal agencies or is it the GSA who owns the facility? In some cases, chargers may not have been installed because of on-going remodeling taking place in the building. If the agency does not own its parking garage, there could be complications. Similarly, there could be multiple federal agencies in one building. Another question is who will install the charger? If the installer comes from a different organization, that can raise additional questions in terms of providing compensation. Another question for agency representatives is whether the agency should handle these issues or whether they want the GSA to take care of the infrastructure.

The GSA effort to develop a government-wide blanket purchase agreement to streamline the acquisition process for electric vehicles will also include charging stations. A question the GSA still has under consideration is how many charging stations per vehicle to procure and the type of charging station attributes (level, networked/non-networked, etc) that are needed. Determining such details can be a daunting task for agencies who are just learning about electric vehicle and charging station technology.

GSA surveys have shown that 92 percent of drivers charge their EVs at a primary duty station. Such practices help reduce reliance on outside charging stations.

Failing to plan ahead can mean that fleets are left without the necessary charging stations. In some cases, agencies that have acquired EVs without making plans to install the charging stations have come back to the GSA and said, “These vehicles won’t work here because we don’t have the infrastructure!” Agencies often say they do not have the money required to purchase the charging stations. Given the pervasive financial constraints, agencies need to be intentional to come up with the resources required for the infrastructure.

While the infrastructure needs may seem daunting at first, several agencies have successfully handled them. One example is the Department of Veterans’ Affair’s Brockton Campus of the Boston Health Care System, which is staffed by 1,500 employees, and offers veterans a wide range of healthcare options. Its fleet of 150 vehicles (40-60 sedans) includes three EVs: two Chevy Volts and a Ford C-MAX acquired in 2014 as part of the GSA pilot program. The facility has three charging stations in different locations. The two Chevy Volts are part of the facility’s motor pool, making a variety of local trips or sometimes longer journeys to Connecticut or New Hampshire. Use depends on the needs of the requester. Mental health nurses use the C-MAX to drive throughout the Brockton community visiting patients in their homes. This work is usually 6-7 hours a day and requires a lot of starting and stopping.

All three of Brockton’s PHEVs are well used and average about 11,000 miles a year. The Volts have a range of 75 miles, while the Ford takes advantage of kinetic breaking for a range of 80-85 miles. The vehicles last the day on one charge. The Boston area’s inclement weather does not pose a problem as the battery charge provides enough energy for air conditioning in the summer and overcoming storms in the winter.

Determining the location and ensuring the security of the three charging stations were the main issues involving the electric vehicle infrastructure. The guiding principles were: engineering, practicality, safety, and durability, according to Jeffrey Barnes, the fleet manager of the VA’s Brockton Campus. Making sure that the charging stations did not get knocked over was key. To date, there have been no problems, even as Boston had to dig out of a historic snowstorm in the winter of 2015.

The EPA’s Atlantic Ecology Division’s laboratory in Narragansett, Rhode Island has been similarly successful in installing infrastructure. The lab is a state-of-the-art aquatic research facility that is part of the EPA's National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory under the Office of Research and Development. The site has implemented numerous sustainability solutions including a green roof and a 5 kilowatt (kW) photovoltaic (PV) array and four 1 kW wind turbines to offset the site’s energy use. The lab has approximately 150 staff, with half of these being contractors. The researchers are mostly working on the water and the site’s fleet of 12 trucks is focused on water work where electric vehicles are not considered relevant. The laboratory is participating in the GSA pilot electric vehicle program and currently has one PHEV Ford C-Max passenger sedan. The car is used by staff to travel to meetings and in some cases for longer trips, such as to Maryland or Cincinnati. The lab is leasing the vehicle through GSA and it is driven approximately 8,000 miles a year.

Existing facility staff were able to install the new charging station, so that did not present an additional burden. The pilot program provided the station for free, though usually such equipment would cost $3,000 to $6,000. This charging station is hooked up to the lab’s regular electricity supply and draws power from the grid.

After a small hiccup, the lab was able to integrate the new technology successfully. At first, the station was charging, but not capturing the data on how much electricity was being used. Fleet managers face some additional work because they must track the electric and gas usage for their EV. But as, Barbara Sherman, fleet manager at the site, pointed out, you learn quickly how to do this task. Once the machine was capturing the data, it has worked well.

Currently, the lab’s EV charges at the plant. The lab encourages its EV drivers to use only free charging stations outside of the plant. Part of the reasoning behind this practice is the need to capture the data on the vehicle’s usage. For lab personnel who travel to the EPA’s Boston office, it would be useful to charge the vehicle in the Boston parking lot. However, accessing the garage is difficult due to security concerns and is generally considered too much hassle to be worth it.

Ensuring a Good Customer Experience. Providing a good experience for GSA customers can also be a factor. One issue that has come up is bureaucratic car culture: sometimes higher-ups want a bigger car and it is hard for fleet managers to convince them that they are better off in a small electric car. Drivers who are not familiar with electric cars may also be apprehensive. However, in most cases, once they try out the EVs, most drivers are happy, finding the cars responsive, with good handling, and able to speed up and slow down quickly. GSA conducted an online survey of all of the drivers who had participated in the EV pilot program. They received feedback from 70 out of 240 customers and learned that there was an 82 percent satisfaction rate, with 88 percent saying that charging their EVs was easy. In most cases, it seems that once drivers have tried electric vehicles, they are happy with them.

Given that its EVs have a range per charge of about 70 to 80 miles, the VA’s Brockton campus is able to run them mainly on electricity rather than gasoline. They use about about 33 kwh/month of power, helping the campus reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.

One drawback that the EPA lab encountered was that its current vehicle only gets about 20 miles per charge. Once the charge runs out, the vehicle switches to its conventional gasoline engine. When the laboratory acquired the vehicle in 2014, there was not much choice and the lab would definitely prefer a vehicle that can travel farther without recharging. Given the success of the pilot, it plans to acquire a longer-range electric vehicle in the future.

From a slow start, the lab’s electric vehicle is now in great demand. Now the Ford PHEV is part of the lab’s overall motor pool on-line reservation system. Initially it took a while to get people to request the vehicle for their travel. Currently, there is high demand from a variety of users. The vehicle is driven about 8,000 miles per year, reaching its usage goals, and is starting to face more demand than the car can provide.

Collecting Data and Measuring Performance. EVs provide numerous opportunities for collecting data on the usage of both the cars and the charging stations, making it possible to track their performance and sustainability contributions. GSA plans to have data solutions in place by 2017 as required by the executive order. Data from the cars can keep track of how they are used and how much energy they require (and save). Networked charging stations can communicate data back to a server and keep track of who is actually using the car. If there are different users in one location, they can use a reservation system associated with the charger. Additionally, networked chargers are capable of collecting a fee and recording the exchange of funds. They can also regulate which individuals have access to the charger.

Crucial to success in the ability to establish a baseline for current vehicle usage and greenhouse gas emissions and then measure progress in increasing the use of electric vehicles and reducing emissions. Currently, there is a disjointed system of reporting with a variety of different systems, with some agencies reporting through high level aggregators such as the FAST system and the Federal Motor Vehicle Registration System, while others use systems that measure vehicle level fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, such as Fleet Dash. Developing a comprehensive, unified system will address these problems.

An integrated system could better measure progress. For example, if a fleet currently has a conventional gasoline car that is driven 70 miles a day, that vehicle would be a good candidate for replacement by EV if it is not located in an extreme climate. An electric Nissan Leaf has a range of approximately 90 miles and could be charged overnight. Such an EV might produce 40 percent fewer greenhouse gases than the conventional gasoline vehicle.

In terms of establishing a baseline for current usage patterns, fleet managers have a good sense of how the vehicles under their control are being operated. They could easily develop a roster of vehicles with details on how they are being used, which would generate a greater sense of accountability, hopefully creating a virtuous circle that continues on over time, according to John Davies, Senior Sustainability Officer in the Office of Federal Sustainability at the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

Meeting the High Expectations of the E.O. Federal fleet managers have to face a lot more demands than private sector fleet managers because the feds have to implement the ambitious goals laid out by the president’s executive order, which requires putting more EVs on the road as part of federal fleets.

In fact, however, there is a lot of ambivalence among agencies and fleet managers. Rather than taking the goals seriously and figuring out from a strategic agency perspective how to implement them, people say “We will do it when it is not too onerous.” For many fleet managers, unless there is charging infrastructure present, acquiring EVs is a non-starter.

While the E.O. spells out specific goals for federal fleets, it leaves it up to the agencies to figure out the best way to hit the targets. In particular, the E.O. does not lay out where the vehicles will be deployed. In practice, some locations in the U.S. are more conducive to deploying EVs than others and some fleets are more likely to be able to use EVs efficiently because of their daily usage patterns. The E.O. seeks to highlight these issues by encouraging agencies to collect vehicle-level data, given them an evidence-based assessment of what their best options are.

The E.O. has an inclusive definition of electric vehicles that includes both battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and plug in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). The BEVs have no gasoline engine so run on electricity at all times. The PHEVs run on electricity until the battery is fully drained and then have the option of using the conventional gasoline engine. PHEVs are typically more popular among fleet managers because they provide greater flexibility than BEVs. What potentially could happen is that agencies could purchase PHEVs and not install the requisite charging infrastructure. Such a scenario would be a waste of resources. That is essentially what happened earlier with the E85 ethanol vehicles. Agencies purchased vehicles that had the capability to use ethanol but typically fueled them with gasoline. The risk of wasted resources is even greater with electric hybrid vehicles because there is a larger cost differential between electric hybrid vehicles and conventional vehicles than between E85 vehicles and conventional cars.

Planning for Rapid Technology Change. The technology underlying electric vehicles is evolving quickly. The range for BEVs was 60-70 miles just a few years ago and battery systems were not robust back then. The vehicle range would deteriorate more rapidly than was hoped for. Today we see rapid improvements in the technology, with longer ranges and increasingly efficient batteries. While we can assume that future technologies will improve on current ones, the exact nature of these changes are hard to predict.

Ideally, fleet managers would be planning for future technological improvements. It is possible that the market will produce vehicles with greater range than we are seeing now. In that sense, purchasing a Nissan Leaf in 2025 will be more compelling than buying one now. There is a lot of uncertainty in how things will develop over time. A rational plan would anticipate those kinds of changes. Some agencies are more motivated to engage in this kind of thinking. Fleet managers in such an environment may get cues from their leadership. The best fleet managers are doing more systematic analysis and identifying vehicles that likely will satisfy operational requirements.

Changing the Way that Fleet Managers Think about Electric Vehicles. What is the main obstacle in fleet managers’ thinking to purchasing and deploying electric vehicles? Part of the problem is apprehension of the unknown. Many fleet managers are mechanically inclined. The vast majority are not electrical engineers and are not familiar with the new electric technology. Managers would need to take some ownership of that situation and address the fact that they don’t have the technical skill sets to deal with EVs. Training programs on the new vehicles play an important role here.

Fleet manager decision-making is shaped to a significant degree by the shared experience of their peers. Many have limited familiarity with these new vehicles. There are numerous decisions that need to be made about where to install the infrastructure required for the electric vehicles. Costs vary. These considerations are non-trivial. It is hard to stick your neck out and take ownership of a project budget when there are many unknown variables about future costs. Since only a few fleets have implemented the electric vehicles so far, there is not a lot of experience among the fleet manager community to share with colleagues.

The budgeting process also raises a host of concerns. Institutionally things are set up so that fleet managers have budgets to buy and maintain vehicles. But they don’t have money for charging infrastructure. If you are transitioning to something that is more capital intensive than operational, then the whole logic of your budget shifts. Fleet managers may have difficulty explaining these technical difficulties to their finance teams. Accounting technicalities complicate the process, especially in terms of designations assigned to specific assets. Other issues involve real property and personal property and the nomenclature of organizational accounting systems. Who claims the ownership of the asset, a designation which is based on where the asset is physically located? There is ambiguity for who is responsible for an asset that is deployed. If there is a charging station at a facility, who fixes it? The agency or the fleet? It matters if it is real or personal property. These unresolved issues are examples of a reason why there is a reluctance among some fleet managers to deal with the issues of electric vehicles.

To take a concrete example, at the EPA lab, funds to lease the electric sedan came from the travel budget, whereas the rest of the conventional field work fleet was covered by the expense budget. In the future, potential purchases of electric trucks could come from the expense budget. The GSA pilot program provided the charging station for free. The contractor to install the charging station was paid from the operations and maintenance contract. Without the pilot program, it would have been much more difficult for the lab to acquire an electric vehicle. If the lab had to buy the EV under ordinary conditions, it might not have chosen to use the electric vehicle option. Additionally, on its own, the lab could not have purchased the charging station.

Given that there is some personal risk for the fleet managers, institutional dynamics tend toward the status quo. Change-makers have to really push to make progress. The existing farrago of reporting and data systems include many aspects that are backward looking. Metrics oriented to the here and now can hinder change if you are making decision that will pay off a few years out. To use a sports metaphor, you need to be able to skate to where the puck is going to be, not sit waiting for it to come to you. Fleet managers face a lot of uncertainty in trying to be responsive to a changing future.

Lessons Learned

The EPA’s Atlantic Ecology Division learned several lessons from its experience with the pilot programs:

Electric vehicles work and meet fleet needs. The lab’s experience has proven that it can sustain its Ford PHEV for five years. Looking forward, they plan to replace it with another EV that will have a greater range.
Marry the car to the mission. Fleet managers will need to look at the specs for the vehicle they acquire and understand how many miles you can go on the electric charge. Although the Ford is technically a four-passenger vehicle, it is uncomfortable for long rides with more than two people. There is little legroom inside the cabin and the foam seats lack ergonomic sympathy for the human body. There is not much trunk space, but one person with luggage in the backseat works.
If the electric vehicle procurement is taking place outside of a pilot program, the fleet manager will need to pay attention to the charging stations.
PHEVs are preferable to BEVs. If the vehicle only had a battery and ran out of charge, it might not be able to return to the lab. Fleet managers appreciate having the plug in option, but feel that they need the option now to switch to a conventional gasoline engine if the charge ran out.

The VA’s Brockton Campus similarly has had a positive experience with the EVs in its fleet and would like to add more.

Electric vehicles are suited to meet the facilities’ needs. Looking at the big picture, most of its driving needs in the future will be local within 20-30 miles. People in the far reaches of the state have tele-health and it will not be necessary for caregivers to visit them personally. Instead, the nurses will be more focused on veteran-patients in the immediate area, and they are accessible by electric vehicle.
Electric technology looks more sustainable over time. The Brockton facility has also looked into using hydrogen-powered vehicles, but they do not have the infrastructure now to make them work in the Boston area. The plant wants to get away from the use of E85 vehicles. In previous years, Brockton had met the federal mandate of deploying 75 percent E85 vehicles, but there was simply not enough ethanol available. Drivers were using the E85 vehicles with gasoline, which was counterproductive. There was only one or two ethanol fueling stations 20 miles from the facility. The EPA web site lists the existing electrical charging station sites and they are proliferating widely, suggesting the EVs are here to stay and that their use will continue to grow.
The technology is manageable. Jeffrey Barnes, fleet manager for Brockton, took a course for first responders dealing with accidents involving electric vehicles. Therefore, he has a sense of what to expect from these vehicles if they are involved in an accident. This knowledge makes him confident that he can deal with any difficulties that might arise.

Overall, the GSA has learned several lessons from its experience with the pilot program. First, it is important to install charging stations in locations where vehicles are driving 8,000 miles/year or more to secure the best return on investment. Second, if the charging station is not located in a closed-in area, then the station must be set on private access per federal regulation to ensure that unauthorized individuals do not use it. Agencies with BEVs had more issues than those with PHEVs. And, finally, there is always room for improvement in terms of providing more public charging stations, finding the best use for EVs in terms of local/city vs. long/highway driving, dealing with batteries (short range vs. high cost to replace), and the need for more initial training on setup and charging.