January 2018

 

Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Energy Report

Prepared by the State Energy Manager’s Office at the Department of Administrative Services with assistance from the Department of Environmental Services and the

State Government Energy Committee.

 

2

Summary of Report Findings

I n Fiscal Year (FY) 2017, the State’s building square foot-age has decreased slightly from FY2016 but still shows a

significant increase from the baseline data of FY2005. De-spite the building square footage increases since FY2005, the State’s fossil fuel use decreased by thirteen percent. Energy efficiency investments and fossil fuel switching projects im-plemented since FY2005, have provided the State with over $32 million in avoided energy costs. A reduction in fleet fuel usage has allowed the State to reduce its passenger automo-bile fleet-produced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by ap-proximately fifteen percent since 2010.

Overview of the State of New Hampshire’s Energy Use

N ew Hampshire state government uses energy to provide electricity and heat to its buildings and to power its vehicle fleet. The State owns and operates more than 500 buildings and occupies many

more in the form of leased space. The State’s energy portfolio has changed significantly since FY2005. This change is illustrated in Figure 1 below, by detailing total building energy consumption, energy costs, and square footage and comparing the baseline year FY2005 to FY2014-FY2017.  

New Hampshire state government has been successful in significantly reducing the amount of energy used to power its lights and appliances, heat its buildings, and operate its vehicles since it began tracking this information in FY2005. During this same time period, energy prices for transportation fuels, heating oil, propane, and electricity all increased significantly.

Figure 1 – Total Building Energy Consumption

In addition to buildings, the State operates a passenger vehicle fleet of approximately 2,000 vehicles. This

figure includes sedans, light duty trucks, minivans, SUVs, etc. The State is working to reduce greenhouse

gas emissions from the state vehicle fleet by 30 percent on a metric-ton basis by 2030, as compared to a 2010

baseline.

Highlights

Welcome New State Energy Manager!

Natural Gas Contract at Lowest Rate in the State’s History

New Benchmark for Fleet Report

Energy Saving Performance Contracts at Their Best! - Cannon Mountain ESPC Summary

859,178,223 826,071,877 

850,283,594 

766,060,701 800,227,804 

$13,946,660

$18,606,334$17,909,801

$16,868,300

$17,854,545

6,890,482 

7,717,716  7,659,929  7,726,787  7,496,478 

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

14,000,000

16,000,000

18,000,000

20,000,000

 500,000,000

 550,000,000

 600,000,000

 650,000,000

 700,000,000

 750,000,000

 800,000,000

 850,000,000

 900,000,000

FY05 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17

Energy Con

sumption (kBTU

)

Total Building Energy Consumption

Total Energy Consumption Total Energy Costs Total Sq Ft

 

3

New Hampshire State Government Building Energy Use

T he State tracks its building energy use in three ways, total energy use, fossil fuel energy use, and En-ergy Use Intensity (EUI). Total energy use is the sum of all thermal and electrical energy consump-

tion and is measured in British Thermal Units (Btus); converting to Btus provides the ability to compare the energy use intensity of individual buildings regardless of fuel type. Fossil fuel energy use is defined as thermal and electrical power consumed that is generated through the burning of fossil fuels such as, but not limited to, propane, oil, diesel, natural gas, and coal. Building-energy use is evaluated on an Energy Use Intensity (EUI) basis by calculating the Btus used per square foot of building space.

Fossil fuel energy use is reported as a percentage of the state’s total energy consumption. As summarized in Table 1 below, between FY2005 and FY2017, the square footage of building space owned by state govern-ment increased by nine percent while total State energy use decreased by seven percent and the amount of energy derived from fossil fuels also decreased by thirteen percent.

Table 1 - Summary of State of NH Energy Consumption (FY05 & FY17)

The State’s estimated avoided fossil fuel energy costs were calculated by taking into consideration weath-er normalization (measures the impact of weather on energy consumption), energy efficiency investments and fossil fuel switching projects. As summarized in Figure 2 below, using FY2005 for the baseline, the State has avoided over $32 million in fossil fuel energy costs. These savings represent dollars that were retained within the state’s economy and represent a monetary savings to New Hampshire’s tax payers.

Figure 2 – Avoided Fossil Fuel Energy Costs

Total Cost Cost Use EUI FF EUITotal Square

Feet

Total kBtus

Used

Fossil-Fuel

kBtus Used

F Y05 6,896,447 895,809,239 660,171,441 $ 15,094,692 $ 2.02 124.6 92.6

F Y17 7,496,478 835,126,647 573,701,628 $ 19,112,791 $ 2.37 106.7 76.5

%

Change-13% 17% -14%

(kBtus per

sq ft)

($ per sq

ft)

9% -7% 27%

(fossil fuel

kBtus per

sq ft)

-17%

$1,034,895 $2,068,336

$3,984,254 $3,957,245 $5,705,860

$6,589,719

$3,692,136

$2,235,005

$2,838,405

$13,

946,

660

$20,

283,

207

$18,

059,

830

$17,

814,

563

$16,

846,

146

$16,

307,

583

$18,

606,

334

$17,

909,

801

$16,

868,

300

$17,

854,

545

$21,

318,

101.

57

$20,

128,

166.

23

$21,

798,

817.

12

$20,

803,

391.

07

$22,

013,

442.

35

$25,

196,

052.

71

$21,

601,

936.

79

$19,

103,

305.

20

$20,

692,

949.

66

FY05 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17

Avoided Fossil Fuel Energy Costs

Avoided - Total Energy Costs Actual - Total Energy Costs W/O Fuel Switching & EE Measures

 

4

Weather Impacts of Building Energy Use

W eather can have a significant effect on energy use patterns. For this reason, we must consider weather in our energy calculations to determine how much of a perceived reduction or increase in

energy use from one year to the next is the result of energy efficiency and what is because of weather vari-ations. The metrics we use to measure weather’s impact on energy usage are called heating degree days (HDD) and cooling degree days (CDD). Heating degree days are the number of degrees Fahrenheit that a day's average temperature is below 65◦ F and cooling degree days are the number of degrees the average daily temp is above 65◦ F (e.g. a day with an average temperature of 50◦ F would have 15 HDD). A winter with more heating degree days means higher heating demand for buildings and thus more energy required. Similarly, more cooling degree days in the summer means those buildings with air conditioning would have higher cooling demand therefore requiring more energy.

Fiscal years 2014 through 2016 show a clear example of how weather conditions in New Hampshire effect-ed energy consumption in state-owned buildings. FY2014 and FY2015 were among the coldest winters in New Hampshire record, and FY2016 provided the opposite with the warmest year on record both globally and in the State. The relationship between total degree days (HDD + CDD) and energy intensity of state buildings (EUI) is clearly illustrated in Figure 3. This figure shows increased energy usage during the ex-treme cold of FY2014 and FY2015 then a sharp decrease of EUI in FY2016 mirroring the dramatic decline in total degree days (TDD). In FY2017, there was a slight uptick in total degree days which shows an in-crease in energy compared to FY 2016.

Figure 3 – Degree Days vs. Energy Use Intensity

Understanding the significant impact that degree days (especially heating degree days) have on building energy use, priorities must be placed on investments in high efficiency heating systems and weatherizing state buildings. Projects that focus on air-sealing and insulation will not only save energy but lead to lower energy costs and increased comfort for the occupants of the State’s buildings.

The Volume of Work to be Done

W ith more ambitious energy savings targets in place coupled with an aging building inventory, the State has even more work to do than in years past. The State Energy Management (SEM) office

within the Department of Administrative Services (DAS) has grown from a sole State Energy Manager in 2005 to a team of two and a half employees, adding an energy project manager in 2009 and a part-time data

 

5

analyst in 2015. This past summer, SEM office had multiple staffing changes. A new State Energy Manag-er, Donald Perrin, was hired and our part-time data analyst position became vacant. With the current un-employment rate being at an all-time low, the SEM office has not been able to fill the part-time data ana-lyst position for the past 6 months. The current job market is very competitive in NH and future employ-ees are in search for full-time, benefitted positions. By making the data analyst position full-time, SEM office and State agencies would benefit from having someone long term that would be able to provide training, data input, analysis, and manage Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) revenue from renewable en-ergy projects.

Each agency is required to designate an Energy Coor-dinator to help organize and implement their energy efficiency efforts and who will interface with SEM. Executive Order 2016-03 better defines the role and duties of the Energy Coordinators. The SEM has con-tinued to meet with Energy Coordinators individual-ly and as a group to provide them with energy reduc-tion strategies to use within their agencies.

There are massive education opportunities state-wide for reducing ongoing operating expenses through in-vestments in energy efficiency. However, without adequate investments of additional capital and per-sonnel resources, the State is unlikely to achieve these energy reduction goals and their associated cost sav-ings.

Ultimately, it is each agency’s responsibility to meet these reduction targets and SEM will continue to provide as much technical and financial support as possi-ble to aide in their success.

The SEM office works really hard to minimize the economic impact to the agencies utility budgets by locking in gas and electrical pricing with fixed contracts. As a result of the fixed contracts, the State locked the gas supply rate at it’s lowest rate to date: $5.052 per dekatherm; and the electric supply rate in-cludes a 25% renewable energy component.

Additionally, the State Energy Manager has analyzed the performance of past energy efficiency capital investments and energy saving performance contracts to project the level of investment required to meet energy reduction goals moving forward. With the expected fossil fuel reductions associated with these in-vestments, it is estimated that the State will need to infuse a minimum of $40 million into energy efficien-cy projects over the next 12 years to meet the current reduction targets set by the Executive Order.

Energy Saving Performance Contracts at Their Best!

E nergy efficiency investments must be accelerated to meet the more ambitious fossil fuel reduction tar-gets set by Governor Hassan’s executive order. Energy saving performance contracting, or ESPC, is a

method available to state agencies for achieving significant energy savings and making improvements to their facilities with no upfront capital dollars. All of the costs of the project are paid for through the reduc-tion in energy expenses. ESPC is a crucial investment tool for meeting the executive order reduction goals. The State’s ESPC program completed construction on two projects (Cannon Mountain and Hazen Drive) in FY2017 with another project recently completing the investment-grade audit phase in FY2017.

One of the most recent beneficiaries of this strategy for energy savings is Cannon Mountain. As a state-owned ski area, Cannon must balance its operating costs and revenues. One significant cost of operating a

1Executive Order 2016-03, An order for state government to continue to lead-by-example in energy efficiency, conservation, and renewable energy.

2SGEC (2017). FY17 Work Plan..

Executive Order 2016-03

The State’s energy management efforts are guided

by Executive Order 2016-031, which established a 3-tier goal requiring the State to reduce fossil-fuel-energy use per square foot by 30 percent by 2020, 40 percent by 2025, and 50 percent by 2030 compared to the original FY2005 baseline. The Order also estab-lished a greenhouse gas emissions target for the state passenger fleet, requiring a 30 percent reduction on a metric ton basis by 2030 compared to a 2010 baseline. Beyond the high level goals, the order also identified a number of specific actions for the State to under-take in order to achieve those targets. These have been included in a work plan that was adopted by the State Government Energy Committee in FY17 and

which state staff are currently implementing2.

 

6

ski area is the expense of energy. Snowmaking dominates this energy use by far, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars annually.

As part of the ESPC, the Cannon Mountain project included replacement of Cannon’s main-trunk power-line and transformer upgrade; construction of a mid-mountain snowmaking booster pump house; installa-tion of 388 high efficiency tower snowmaking guns; and lighting and weatherization upgrades. The pump house moves 50 percent more water to reach snowmaking trails on the upper mountain, increasing snow-making capabilities on the upper slopes. The snowmaking tower guns replaced older, less efficient equip-ment, which provide the greatest energy savings and improve operational efficiency on the mountain.

During the 2016/2017 season, Cannon was able to double its snowmaking while still reducing their electric use by almost half! This equates to hundreds of thousands of dollars saved that will be used to pay for the improvements. This project has attracted local and national interest; what could be cooler than an energy efficient, state-owned ski area! The result of the Cannon Mountain ESPC project is illustrated in Figure 5, below.

Figure 5 – Cannon Mountain ESPC

Looking Toward the Future

T he State must develop and embrace a multi-pronged strategy to achieve the fossil fuel reduction tar-gets outlined in Executive Order 2016-03. Achieving these energy reduction goals generates a multi-

tude of additional benefits for the State. Energy costs for State government will be reduced and a divesti-ture in fossil fuels will provide insulation against the uncertainty of fossil fuel pricing fluctuations. More investment in in-state energy sources will support local jobs and bolster the local economy by returning tax payer money back into local markets.

Strategies that the State can utilize to meet reduction goals include the purchase of renewable energy through statewide contracts, converting to non-fossil heating sources such as biodiesel and biomass, and completing energy conservation projects by means of capital investments and energy saving performance contracts. No single strategy will be able to attain the goal by itself.

2005 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Total Energy (kBTU) 22,896,0 27,580,8 27,277,1 29,578,4 30,540,8 35,340,9 34,108,6 35,807,9 35,492,5 22,845,8

Total Energy Costs $710,457 $1,068,1 $957,073 $960,207 $920,196 $1,114,2 $1,054,0 $1,487,8 $1,326,4 $902,270

% Change from Baseline (kBTU) 20.5% 19.1% 29.2% 33.4% 54.4% 49.0% 56.4% 55.0% ‐0.2%

$710,457

$1,068,120

$957,073

$960,207

$920,196

$1,114,258

$1,054,077

$1,487,891

$1,326,408

$902,270

20.5% 19.1%

29.2%

33.4%

54.4%

49.0%

56.4% 55.0%

‐0.2%

‐10.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

 ‐

 5,000,000

 10,000,000

 15,000,000

 20,000,000

 25,000,000

 30,000,000

 35,000,000

 40,000,000

% Chan

ge fro

m Base

line

Total Energy (kBTU

)

Fiscal Year

Cannon Mountain ESPC

 

7

It is projected that the State will need to invest a minimum of $40 million over the next 12 years to achieve the 50 percent reduction target indicated for the year 2030.

DAS SEM Office intends to continue implementing ESPCs which serve as effective tools in pursing state-wide energy reduction goals. At current staffing levels, the department is able to issue one request for proposals (RFP) per year on average. The third ESPC currently in contract negotiations, for 28 facilities in Concord, will likely begin construction in 2018.

The 28 facilities are located in downtown Concord and on the State Office Park South. With the poten-tial for significant energy and dollar savings, it may make sense for the State to dedicate more resources to the ESPC effort.

In department-level energy conservation plans, state agencies identified over $21 million in potential ener-gy-saving projects. If agencies had expanded access to energy audits, retro-commissioning, energy saving performance contracts, and other tools to gather information about their buildings, significantly more cost-saving measures would be uncovered. At the current rate of addressing these energy inefficiencies, the State is leaving valuable savings on the table. The State is in need of more resources including staff, fund-ing, and education to ensure that cost-effective energy efficiency measures are implemented in a timely manner.

Fleet Report

A s of FY2017, agencies benchmark their data against FY2010 data; previously used FY2009 data. Since FY2010, the state passenger automobile fleet was responsible for a reduction of 2.25 million vehicle

miles travelled (VMT), which translates to a 15 percent decrease in that fleet category. The fuel economy of the passenger vehicle fleet, also referred to as miles per gallon (MPG), has remained relatively steady from FY2010 to FY2017, dropping slightly from 18.61 MPG to 18.39 MPG. Table 2 below shows all vehicle type categories as compared to their 2010 baseline. While MPGs have remained relatively steady, the sig-nificant decrease in passenger automobile VMT has reduced the fuel usage in that category by almost 15 percent. This reduction in fuel usage has allowed the state to reduce its passenger automobile fleet-produced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by approximately 15 percent since 2010.

Table 2 - Fleet Annual Energy Report by vehicle type

The largest fleet sectors (passenger automobiles and light duty trucks) have been able to reduce the GHG emissions by approximately 7% percent combined, or 1,009 metric tons of CO2, since FY2010 (see Figure 4). As can be seen in Figure 4 below, the state as a whole is right in line with the forecasted targets in order to meet the requirement for a 30 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.

The SGEC continues to ramp up minimum fuel economy requirements for new fleet purchases, while re-maining cognizant of vehicle availability and cost. It is anticipated that the increasing federal fuel econo-my standards will improve availability of highly efficient vehicles that are cost-effective in the coming years.

Vehicle Type 

Counts  Miles  Gallons  MPG  MT CO2 

2010  2017  2010  2017  2010  2017  2010  2017  2010  2017 

Passenger Automobiles  1,082  1,002  14,336,129  12,078,521  770,310  656,676  18.61  18.39  6,178  5,267 

Light Duty Trucks 1  570  738  7,456,171  7,422,264  466,570  438,913  15.98  16.91  3,742  3,520 

Light Duty Trucks 2  383  487  6,252,793  7,366,795  511,539  527,104  12.22  13.98  4,103  4,227 

Medium Duty Trucks  66  73  516,520  531,750  46,186  51,929  11.18  10.24  469  527 

Trucks Greater than 14,000 lbs  511  585  1,142,129  1,327,459  877,347  1,017,398  1.30  1.30  8,905  10,327 

State Totals  2,612  2,885  29,703,740  28,726,789  2,671,952  2,692,019  11.12  10.67  23,396  23,868 

 

8

Figure 4 - SoNH Emissions Reduction Results FY2017

As with prior years, the State is encouraging the use of conference calls and online meetings to replace face-to-face meetings when possible. We are also implementing emissions calculation templates for agen-cies to use to estimate the emissions impact when comparing multiple vehicle procurement options. In addition to these efforts, the Fleet Information Management System is being updated to include an emis-sions reduction status report. Agencies will be able to run this report at any time for current reduction sta-tus updates to assist them in their fleet management decision making. Use of these technical resources, when appropriate, can save vehicle fuel energy by reducing VMT, improving efficiency and streamlining operations.

 

9

Tab

le 3

- S

tate

An

nu

al E

ner

gy R

epor

t F

Y20

17

 

1 ‐ W

astewater Treatmen

t Operations are listed as part of the Dep

artm

ent of En

vironmen

tal Services, but its en

ergy is not measured on a per‐square‐foot basis due to the uniqueness of the usage profile.  

Does not include Propan

e an

d Fuel O

il cost and consumption. 

2 ‐ Can

non M

ountain is listed

 as part of the Dep

artm

ent of Resources and Economic Development, but its en

ergy is not measured on a per‐square‐foot basis due to the uniquen

ess of the usage profile. 

Dep

artm

ent

FISC

AL

YEA

R

2005

06/3

0/20

17FI

SCA

L YE

AR

20

0506

/30/

2017

%

Cha

nge

FISC

AL

YEA

R

2005

06/3

0/20

17%

C

hang

eFI

SCA

L YE

AR

20

0506

/30/

2017

%

Cha

nge

FISC

AL

YEA

R

2005

06/3

0/20

17%

C

hang

eA

DJU

TAN

T G

ENER

AL'

S D

EPT

77

2,58

096

9,93

347

,508

,099

42,4

40,8

09-1

1%61

44-2

9%$6

70,9

46$1

,111

,785

66%

$0.8

7$1

.15

32%

AD

MIN

ISTR

ATI

VE S

ERVI

CES

DEP

T

2,58

4,97

13,

142,

945

265,

878,

418

292,

798,

259

10%

103

93-9

%$5

,580

,568

$8,6

28,3

9655

%$2

.16

$2.7

527

%

AG

RIC

ULT

, M

AR

KETS

& F

OO

D D

EPT

31

,717

31,7

1760

,323

72,3

4720

%2

220

%$9

99$3

,597

260%

$0.0

3$0

.11

260%

BUS

& E

CO

N A

FFA

IRS

DEP

T

31,6

324,

495,

248

142

$119

,115

$3.7

7

CO

RR

ECTI

ON

S D

EPT

959,

275

663,

999

221,

827,

306

167,

056,

222

-25%

231

252

9%$2

,542

,059

$2,5

38,7

980%

$2.6

5$3

.82

44%

EMPL

OYM

ENT

SEC

UR

ITY

DEP

T

150,

448

170,

260

16,6

47,3

8317

,546

,986

5%11

110

3-7

%$3

68,2

40$3

39,2

58-8

%$2

.45

$1.9

9-1

9%

ENVI

RO

NM

ENTA

L SE

RVI

CES

DEP

T15

,419

15,7

591,

277,

019

1,09

1,80

5-1

5%83

69-1

6%$3

1,70

2$3

6,32

615

%$2

.06

$2.3

112

%

WA

STEW

ATE

R T

REA

TMEN

T O

PER

ATI

ON

13,5

66,4

9412

,550

,292

-7%

$433

,321

$470

,256

9%

FISH

AN

D G

AM

E D

EPT

18

9,28

115

5,01

014

,560

,401

12,4

71,3

62-1

4%77

805%

$294

,030

$316

,948

8%$1

.55

$2.0

432

%

HH

S: B

EHA

VIO

RA

L H

EALT

H D

IV4,

305

476,

306

-100

%11

1-1

00%

$9,8

76-1

00%

$2.2

9-1

00%

HH

S: G

LEN

CLI

FF H

OM

E16

2,03

517

2,02

926

,832

,476

42,4

66,1

2858

%16

624

749

%$2

02,9

79$3

30,1

3563

%$1

.25

$1.9

253

%

HH

S: J

uven

ile J

ustic

e Se

rv

10

2,54

218

2,66

935

,676

,835

40,9

40,3

3015

%34

822

4-3

6%$3

11,7

96$6

11,4

2296

%$3

.04

$3.3

510

%

HH

S: N

H H

OSP

ITA

L

314,

471

201,

269

64,5

02,7

1447

,867

,354

-26%

205

238

16%

$1,0

52,8

75$7

91,7

36-2

5%$3

.35

$3.9

317

%

LIQ

UO

R C

OM

MIS

SIO

N

181,

559

177,

432

14,2

17,7

7810

,378

,304

-27%

7858

-25%

$293

,732

$292

,908

0%$1

.62

$1.6

52%

NA

TUR

AL

& C

ULT

RES

OU

RC

ES D

EPT

26

9,28

133

6,69

122

,551

,981

15,7

35,7

69-3

0%84

47-4

4%$3

58,8

94$4

42,6

7323

%$1

.33

$1.3

1-1

%

CA

NN

ON

MO

UN

TAIN

22,8

96,0

9722

,845

,814

0%$7

12,7

33$9

02,2

7027

%

POLI

CE

STD

S &

TR

AIN

ING

CO

UN

CIL

57

,100

57,1

004,

548,

100

5,14

8,22

313

%80

9013

%$5

4,57

8$6

4,77

719

%$0

.96

$1.1

319

%

SAFE

TY D

EPT

24

5,61

126

5,06

518

,705

,833

16,9

95,1

23-9

%76

64-1

6%$3

81,3

87$4

34,2

4914

%$1

.55

$1.6

46%

TRA

NSP

OR

TATI

ON

DEP

T

68

3,25

272

6,40

383

,005

,231

54,3

33,8

54-3

5%12

175

-38%

$1,3

93,2

87$1

,172

,890

-16%

$2.0

4$1

.61

-21%

VETE

RA

NS

HO

ME

172,

600

196,

565

21,0

70,4

4527

,892

,418

32%

122

142

16%

$400

,689

$505

,250

26%

$2.3

2$2

.57

11%

To

tal:

6,8

96

,44

77

,49

6,4

78

89

5,8

09

,23

98

35

,12

6,6

47

-7%

12

51

07

-14

%$

15

,09

4,6

92

$1

9,1

12

,79

12

7%

$2

.02

$2

.37

17

%

Tota

l kBt

uEU

I (E

nerg

y Pe

r Sq

uare

Foo

t)To

tal C

ost

CU

I (C

ost

Per

Squa

re F

oot)

Qua

rter

ly E

nerg

y R

epor

tBa

selin

e FI

SCA

L Y

EAR

200

5 V

ersu

s La

st-4

-Qua

rter

s en

ding

06/

30/2

017

Ener

gy U

se, I

nten

sity

, and

Cos

ts S

umm

ary

Are

a (S

quar

e Fo

otag

e)

 

10

 

Table 4 – Fleet Annual Energy Report

Passenger Automobiles

Agency 

Name

2010 2017 2010 2017 2010 2017 2010 2017 2010 2017

DOT 126 164 2,087,315 1,879,542 78,563 48,905 26.57 38.43 630 392DRED 22 20 223,728 191,019 8,096 6,530 27.63 29.25 65 52Fish & Game 8 4 62,755 8,445 2,237 264 28.06 32.03 18 2Safety 609 471 8,155,725 6,726,657 533,242 472,537 15.29 14.24 4,277 3,790Other 317 343 3,806,606 3,272,858 148,172 128,440 25.69 25.48 1,188 1,030

State Total 1,082 1,002 14,336,129 12,078,521 770,310 656,676 18.61 18.39 6,178 5,267

Light Duty Trucks 1 (pickup trucks, vans, minivans and SUVs up to 8,500 lbs)

Agency 

Name2010 2017 2010 2017 2010 2017 2010 2017 2010 2017

DOT 101 165 1,736,381 1,875,389 111,629 100,998 15.55 18.57 895 810DRED 82 103 753,571 755,150 47,707 45,491 15.80 16.60 383 365Fish & Game 92 93 1,428,479 816,809 86,562 57,282 16.50 14.26 694 459Safety 102 164 1,273,971 2,080,480 81,692 138,206 15.59 15.05 655 1,108Other 193 213 2,263,769 1,894,436 138,980 96,935 16.29 19.54 1,115 777

State Total 570 738 7,456,171 7,422,264 466,570 438,913 15.98 16.91 3,742 3,520

Light Duty Trucks 2 (pickup trucks, vans, minivans and SUVs from 8,501 lbs to 10,000 lbs)

Agency 

Name2010 2017 2010 2017 2010 2017 2010 2017 2010 2017

DOT 220 286 4,788,073 5,401,917 393,870 365,914 12.16 14.76 3,159 2,935DRED 49 54 394,854 425,123 33,234 35,656 11.88 11.92 267 286Fish & Game 15 45 108,351 701,131 8,589 55,312 12.62 12.68 69 444Safety 24 26 264,480 284,961 20,135 24,985 13.14 11.41 161 200Other 75 76 697,035 553,663 55,711 45,237 12.51 12.24 447 363

State Total 383 487 6,252,793 7,366,795 511,539 527,104 12.22 13.98 4,103 4,227

Medium Duty Trucks (pickup trucks, vans, minivans and SUVs from 10,001 lbs to 14,000 lbs) [fuel assumed to be diesel]

Agency 

Name2010 2017 2010 2017 2010 2017 2010 2017 2010 2017

DOT 17 22 257,242 329,288 18,115 23,947 14.20 13.75 184 243DRED 12 17 67,673 93,596 6,683 11,043 10.13 8.48 68 112Fish & Game 2 1 6,764 1,031 947 244 7.15 4.23 10 2Safety 5 6 26,830 25,304 2,436 2,393 11.01 10.57 25 24Other 30 27 158,011 82,531 18,005 14,303 8.78 5.77 183 145

State Total 66 73 516,520 531,750 46,186 51,929 11.18 10.24 469 527

Trucks Greater than 14,000 lbs  [fuel assumed to be diesel]

Agency 

Name2010 2017 2010 2017 2010 2017 2010 2017 2010 2017

DOT 437 505 847,720 948,709 836,506 980,169 1.01 0.97 8,604 9,629DRED 11 12 38,123 45,592 5,422 6,354 7.03 7.18 387 463Fish & Game 19 19 89,458 67,582 9,260 7,471 9.66 9.05 908 686Safety 15 15 27,772 38,469 4,231 5,010 6.56 7.68 282 390Other 29 34 139,056 227,107 21,929 18,393 6.34 12.35 1,411 2,305

0 0State Total 511 585 1,142,129 1,327,459 877,347 1,017,398 1.30 1.30 11,593 13,474

CO2 (Metric Tons)

Number of Vehicles Annual Miles Annual Fuel (gal) Annual MPG CO2 (Metric Tons)

Number of Vehicles Annual Miles Annual Fuel (gal) Annual MPG

CO2 (Metric Tons)

Number of Vehicles Annual Miles Annual Fuel (gal) Annual MPG

CO2 (Metric Tons)

**Fleet data was compiled by the Fleet Management Administrator at the Department of Administrative Services from reports provided by each agency 

or department owning one or more vehicles (excluding Component Units). 

Number of Vehicles Annual Miles Annual Fuel (gal) Annual MPG

CO2 (Metric Tons)

Number of Vehicles Annual Miles Annual Fuel (gal) Annual MPG