Assessment of the FY Natural Gas Fuel Fleet Vehicle Rebate Program

Similar documents
NATURAL GAS FUEL FLEET VEHICLE REBATE ANNUAL ASSESSMENT

Ohio Ethanol Producers Association

$1,516 $925 $19 $2,460 $422 $1,270 $261 $413 $94 = $715 = $274 = $62 = $13 = $555 = $19 = $148 & HWY

Contract Award Notification Update

A Project for The Good Roads Foundation. Arkansas Statewide Likely Voter Survey December 12-13,

Macroeconomic Impact Analysis of Proposed Greenhouse Gas and Fuel Economy Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles

The May Revision estimates that major General Fund revenues will be higher than

SECTION 1614 DATABASE Q & A

Economic Impact of Tennessee HOUSE Grants

Major Events Reimbursement Program

Economic and fiscal impacts of the Michigan film tax credit

CHAPTER Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for House Bill No. 579

Primary Sources of County Road Funding

The Economic Contribution of the Navajo Generating Station (NGS) on the City of Page

The Economic Impact. Rainy River Community College. February 15, Research Report. of the. on Koochiching County

2016 HERNANDO COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY

Fiscal Impact Analysis of the North Carolina Rural Job Creation Fund

THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE OIL AND NATURAL GAS INDUSTRY ON THE U.S. ECONOMY: EMPLOYMENT, LABOR INCOME AND VALUE ADDED

2017 Rate Supported Budgets - Solid Waste Management Services and Recommended 2017 Waste Rates

As Engrossed: H2/10/03. For An Act To Be Entitled

Overview of State Highway Fund 0006 Revenues and Allocations, the Texas Mobility Fund, and the Texas Rail Relocation and Improvement Fund

Table 1 Economic Impact of the Local Healthcare System on Green County. Multiplier Type Direct Impact Multiplier Total Impact

Table 1 Economic Impact of the Local Healthcare System on Morgan County. Multiplier Type Direct Impact Multiplier Total Impact

Table 1 Economic Impact of the Local Healthcare System on Lawrence County. Multiplier Type Direct Impact Multiplier Total Impact

Table 1 Economic Impact of the Local Healthcare System on Daviess County. Multiplier Type Direct Impact Multiplier Total Impact

Table 1 Economic Impact of the Local Healthcare System on Jefferson County. Multiplier Type Direct Impact Multiplier Total Impact

Table 1 Economic Impact of the Local Healthcare System on Lyon County. Multiplier Type Direct Impact Multiplier Total Impact

Table 1 Economic Impact of the Local Healthcare System on Boone County. Multiplier Type Direct Impact Multiplier Total Impact

Table 1 Economic Impact of the Local Healthcare System on Hancock County. Multiplier Type Direct Impact Multiplier Total Impact

Table 1 Economic Impact of the Local Healthcare System on Woodford County. Multiplier Type Direct Impact Multiplier Total Impact

Table 1 Economic Impact of the Local Healthcare System on Caldwell County. Multiplier Type Direct Impact Multiplier Total Impact

Table 1 Economic Impact of the Local Healthcare System on Hardin County. Multiplier Type Direct Impact Multiplier Total Impact

Table 1 Economic Impact of the Local Healthcare System on Estill County. Multiplier Type Direct Impact Multiplier Total Impact

As Introduced. 131st General Assembly Regular Session S. B. No

MPOAC REVENUE STUDY. MPOAC Revenue Study Governing Board and Staff Directors Joint WORKSHOP January 26, 2012 Tallahassee, FL

Economic and Fiscal Impacts of St. Elizabeth Healthcare System (Hospitals and Physician Offices)

The Oregon Department of Transportation Budget

Understanding H.B. 170: The Transportation Funding Act of 2015

TQWNSHIP OF BYRAM W RSY. TO: All Residents and Taxpayers of Byram Township. DATE: March 8, RE: 2011 Municipal Budget Message INTRODUCTION

MEMORANDUM. Approve the attached revised Vehicle Policy for referral to County Board for approval.

State Highway Fund Annual Continuing Disclosure Report. For the Fiscal Year Ended August 31, 2015

Economic Impact of Projects Leveraged by the Minnesota Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit in Fiscal Year 2013

Material Comparison ( ) County Engineer s Cost Saving Methods/ Grants How would increased revenues be used?

Appendix E UPDATE OF THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE DISTRICT S WATERWAYS IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY

THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE OIL AND NATURAL GAS INDUSTRY ON THE U.S. ECONOMY IN 2009: EMPLOYMENT, LABOR INCOME, AND VALUE ADDED

RULE MOBILE SOURCE EMISSION REDUCTION CREDITS/BANKING (Adopted ) INDEX

Economic Impact of Projects Leveraged by the Minnesota Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit in Fiscal Year 2014

Focus on Energy Economic Impacts

5/3/2016. May 4, Item #1 CITIZENS PARTICIPATION

Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Appendix G Economic Analysis Report

Assessment of the Economic Impacts of Recreational Boating in Virginia

BUREAU OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH

AUTOMOTIVE EQUIPMENT FUND Department of Environmental Services

Economic Impact of a Wind Generation Project in Somerset County Maryland

Bringing Virginia s Transportation Funding Up to Speed. August 25, 2014 John W. Lawson Chief Financial Officer

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STAFF ANALYSIS

DOMINGUEZ OIL FIELD REDEVELOPMENT: EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS. Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation

FISCAL MEMORANDUM HB 534 SB 1221 HB 534 SB April 4, 2017

CHAPTER 7: Financial Plan

Appendix L UPDATE OF THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE DISTRICT S WATERWAYS IN PALM BEACH COUNTY

Economic and Fiscal Impact of the Arizona Public University Enterprise

THE MISSISSIPPI ALTERNATIVE FUEL SCHOOL BUS AND MUNICIPAL MOTOR VEHICLE REVOLVING LOAN FUND LOAN APPLICATION

August 31, 2016 Financial Report

Fastenal Company Reports 2011 Second Quarter Earnings

Economic Impacts of Wind Energy Development in Iowa: Four Scenarios

This annual continuing disclosure report contains or references the following information:

THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF DOMINION ENERGY S CURRENT PROPOSAL TO COMBINE WITH SCANA

Florida: An Economic Overview

Clean Energy Reports 75.2 Million Gallons Delivered and Revenue of $85.8 Million for First Quarter of 2015

The Effects of the Sales and Use Tax Exemption For Repairs to Railroad Rolling Stock

September The Economic Impact of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline in West Virginia, Virginia, and North Carolina. Prepared for. Dominion Resources

Economic Impact of THE PLAYERS Championship Golf Tournament at Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida, March Tom Stevens, Alan Hodges and David Mulkey

State of Oklahoma Incentive Evaluation Commission Capital Gains Deduction

State Taxes Only See Separate Analysis for Property Taxes and Local Aids

Massachusetts Program Administrators and Energy Efficiency Advisory Council

Arizona Low Income Housing Tax Credit and Housing Trust Fund Economic and Fiscal Impact Report

HB 2313 Conference Report. February 21, 2013

May 31, 2016 Financial Report

The Economic Impact of Tourism in New York Calendar Year Thousand Islands Focus

Executive Order Greening the Government Through Federal Fleet and Transportation Efficiency

The Effects of the Sales and Use Tax Exemption For Repairs to Railroad Rolling Stock

Full Year Results Presentation For the year ended 31 March May 2017

Comparing the Regional Economic Impact of Two Labor Force Losses

I-75 at Overpass Road Interchange

The Economic Impact of the Environmental Protection Agency on Minnesota s Arrowhead region and Douglas County, Wisconsin

Final Report. Economic Contributions of the Florida Housing Finance Corporation in Florida in Contributors:

The Economic Impact of Rail Improvements to the Port of Corpus Christi, Texas

Appendix G UPDATE OF THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE DISTRICT S WATERWAYS IN VOLUSIA COUNTY

The Economic Impact of Flagstaff Unified

NHS Fleet Travel & Expenses Policy

MPOAC REVENUE STUDY. Study Update Northwest Florida Regional TPO January 18, 2012

The Economic Impact of Tourism in New York

Impact of the Living Wage on Paratransit Services

Proposed Budget. Fiscal Year Revenue Overview

Economic Impacts of the First 5 Placer Children & Families Commission s Funded Programs

Oklahoma Business Incentives & Tax Guide

The Economic. Impact of Veteran-Owned. Franchise. August 30, 2011

RECREATIONAL BOATING IN MARYLAND

REVOLVING FUNDS G-1. Notes - - (a) Fiscal data adjusted to reflect accounting adjustments. PERSONNEL DATA Position Data AllOther...

Analysis of Enterprise Zone Program Options

Transcription:

Assessment of the FY 2014-2015 Natural Gas Fuel Fleet Vehicle Rebate Program Highlights of the FY 2014-2015 Natural Gas Vehicle Rebate Program A total of $5.2 million in rebates were disbursed statewide to support the purchase, lease or conversion of 518 vehicles. The program incentivized investment from private and public sector entities in the amount of $72.3 million. Use of the 518 vehicles will result in $15.3 million in annual fuel savings. A total of 627 jobs paying an average $50,826 were created or retained as a result of the program. The program s contribution to Florida s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is estimated at $147.4 million. Section One: Introduction The Natural Gas Fuel Fleet Vehicle Rebate was established by the Florida Legislature in 2013 through HB 579 as a program administered by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (department). The legislation provides $6 million per year in recurring funds from FY2013-14 through FY2017-18, to provide rebates for the purchase, conversion or lease of natural gas fuel fleet vehicles. The department is required by Section 377.810(7), Florida Statutes, to produce an annual assessment of the use of the rebate program during the previous fiscal year. HB 579 took effect on July 1, 2013, and the department began rule development for the Natural Gas Fuel Fleet Vehicle Rebate program on July 2, 2013. Three public workshops were held during the rule development; two in Tallahassee and one in Orlando. The first proposed rule was released on October 21, 2013. On January 7, 2014, Rule 5O-4.001, Florida Administrative Code, implementing the Natural Gas Fuel Fleet Vehicle Rebate Program became effective and the department began accepting applications. Because HB 579 took effect on July 1, 2013, and program rules had to be developed and enacted before the first rebate applications could be accepted, the program did not begin until January 7, 2014. Thus, the first year of the program ran on a six month timeframe from January 7, 2014 through June 30, 2014. The second year of the program ran in concurrence with the 2014-2015 state fiscal year (July 1 through June 30), and all subsequent years of the program will run in similar concurrence with the state fiscal year. The program goals, as laid out in the legislation, are to help reduce transportation costs and encourage freight mobility investments that contribute to the economic growth of the state. The program accomplishes these goals by providing rebates of up to $25,000 per vehicle and $250,000 per applicant per fiscal year for up to 50 percent of the costs associated with the conversion, purchase or lease of natural gas fleet vehicles registered in the state of Florida. During the first year of the program, the department received 572 applications; 272 were approved, and the remaining 300 were deemed incomplete. Applications were deemed incomplete for reasons such as 1

insufficient payment documentation or a lack of Environmental Protection Agency documentation. During the second year of the program, the department received 899 applications; 518 were approved, and the remaining 381 were deemed incomplete. By providing monetary incentives for the adoption of natural gas as a fuel for private and public fleet vehicles, the program can be expected to foster public and private sector spending in the automotive and natural gas distribution sectors, reduce fuel costs for private and public sector entities, and increase the financial feasibility of investments in new or retrofitted vehicles, all of which have a positive impact on Florida s economy. The purpose of this report is to document the expenditures fostered by the program, estimate the economic contributions of the program to the state s economy and determine the program s return on investment. Section Two: Data Source Rule 5O-4.001, Florida Administrative Code, requires applicants to complete a Natural Gas Fuel Fleet Vehicle Rebate Application, FDACS-01976, Rev 10/13, for each vehicle purchase, lease or conversion. Besides determining the eligibility of the applicant and associated investment, the application is designed to collect relevant information, including whether the investment is a conversion, purchase or lease, the total eligible incremental costs, the rebate requested, the total value of the investment in alternative fuels, and the projected fuel savings. In addition, the type of natural gas technology the vehicle will utilize the type of entity that is applying for the rebate and the county, in which the vehicle is licensed and fueled, are also recorded in the application. All relevant information was entered into an electronic database, and the data was aggregated to the applicant level for this analysis. Summary statistics for the relevant information are compared between the first and second years of the program in Table 1. Section Three: Expenses and Savings Supported by the Program Aggregation of the data to the applicant level gives a clear picture of the type of entities that received rebates, the types of investments supported by the program and the fuel savings supported by the program. For example, 43.5 percent of applicants to the program in FY 2014-2015 were public sector entities, while 56.5 percent were private sector entities, representing a slight increase in the proportion of private sector applicants relative to FY 2013-14. Similarly, Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) seems to be preferred over other types of natural gas technology available in the marketplace, as 58.1 percent of applicants reported investments in CNG, while only 16.1 percent invested in propane gas, and 4.8 percent invested in Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). In addition, 17.7 percent of applicants reported investments in bi-fuel CNG, while 3.2 percent reported investments in bi-fuel propane. The program supports three types of investments, including purchase of new vehicles, lease of new vehicles and conversion or retrofit of existing vehicles. New vehicle purchases are the most common type of investment, and 54.8 percent of applicants used the rebates to support new vehicle purchases. Furthermore, 9.7 percent of applicants leased new vehicles, while 35.5 percent invested in the 2

conversion or retrofit of an existing vehicle. In comparison to FY 2013-14, the proportion of applicants who are using the rebate for existing vehicle retrofits more than doubled in FY 2014-15. Table 1. Percent applicant breakdown by type of entity and natural gas technology adopted Description 2013-14 2014-15 Applicant is a Public Sector Entity 44.7% 43.5% Applicant is a Private Sector Entity 55.3% 56.5% Investment is in CNG Technology 65.8% 58.1% Investment is in Bi-Fuel CNG Technology 16.0% 17.7% Investment is in LNG Technology 5.3% 4.8% Investment is in Propane Technology 10.5% 16.1% Investment is in Bi-Fuel Propane Technology 2.6% 3.2% New Vehicle was Purchased 76.0% 54.8% New Vehicle was Leased 7.9% 9.7% Existing Vehicle was Converted 16.0% 35.5% In terms of the value of investments supported by the program, the average rebate recipient made a total eligible investment of $180,767 in approximately eight vehicles, and received $84,373 in rebates. For the average recipient, the rebate program covered 47 percent of the total incremental cost of the investment. In addition, the average recipient will conserve 233,549 gallons of gasoline or diesel every year, for a total estimated annual fuel savings of $246,869. On average, recipients invested a total of $1,167,501 in alternative fuels, including the new or converted vehicles as well as any additional support infrastructure. On a per vehicle basis, the average incremental cost eligible for a rebate was $26,221, and the average vehicle received a rebate of $11,654. Each vehicle receiving a rebate in the program was responsible for an average total investment of $161,538. Besides the eligible incremental cost, the average rebate fostered an investment of $135,317 in either the vehicle itself or in infrastructure needed to support the vehicle. The average vehicle will save 21,993 gallons of conventional fuel each year, for an average annual fuel savings of $25,178. As seen in the last column of Table 2, the 518 Natural Gas Fuel Fleet Vehicle rebates approved in FY14-15 accounted for a total of $11,207,572 in eligible incremental costs, of which $5,230,652 was reimbursed to applicants. The total direct investment supported by the program was $72,385,063. In addition, 14,480,059 gallons of gasoline or diesel fuel will be saved every year, resulting in estimated fuel cost savings of $15,305,890 per year. Analysis of the statistics by type of applicant reveals interesting patterns (Table 2). For instance, while the total number of applicants is nearly evenly distributed between public sector entities (43.5%) and private sector entities (56.5%), it is the private sector that has been able to benefit most from the program. For example, private sector entities received a total of $3,242,016 in rebates, while public sector entities received $1,988,636. However, the public sector s total reported investment in 3

alternative energy ($50,448,656) is more than twice the reported investment by the private sector ($21,936,407). In addition, the number of vehicles purchased, leased or retrofitted is very similar across sectors, with 289 vehicles in the public sector and 229 vehicles in the private sector entering service. Table 2. Program benefits accruing to public and private sector entities. Public Sector Private Sector Total Incremental Costs $4,178,223 $7,029,349 $11,207,572 Rebates Awarded $1,988,636 $3,242,016 $5,230,652 Total Investment $50,448,656 $21,936,407 $72,385,063 Fuel Savings (Gallons) 1,011,314 13,468,745 14,480,059 Fuel Savings ($) $2,437,125 $12,868,765 $15,305,890 Number of Vehicles 289 229 518 Separation of program statistics by the type of natural gas technology yields insights on the types of technology preferred by Florida s public or private entities (Table 3). Compressed Natural Gas was the most utilized technology in FY 2014-2015, with pure CNG and bi-fuel CNG accounting for 54 percent (282) of vehicles in the program and 92 percent ($66,766,527) of the total investment in natural gas technology facilitated by the program. These two technologies together comprised 74 percent ($3,883,245) of the rebates awarded statewide. Table 3. Program statistics by type of natural gas technology. CNG Bi-Fuel CNG LNG Bi-Fuel Propane Propane Incremental Costs $7,771,688 $600,727 $1,190,341 $291,500 $1,353,315 Rebates Awarded $3,582,882 $300,363 $525,000 $145,750 $676,658 Total Investment $59,498,766 $7,267,761 $3,350,031 $417,500 $1,851,005 Fuel Savings (Gallons) 7,717,520 78,132 4,249,236 1,809,200 625,971 Fuel Savings ($) $5,557,747 $472,106 $5,704,918 $2,143,338 $1,427,781 Number of Vehicles 242 40 21 52 163 Sixty-five percent of the vehicles sponsored by the program were new purchases that supported 89 percent of the total investment in natural gas technology and infrastructure by private and public sector entities in the state (Table 4). One item to note is the large increase in the number of existing vehicle conversions supported by the program. In FY 2013-2014, only 43 vehicle retrofits were supported by the program. In FY 2014-2015, a total of 136 vehicles were retrofitted with the program s support, marking an almost three-fold increase in the growth of this category. 4

Table 4. Program statistics by type of investment. Purchases Leases Conversions Incremental Costs $8,208,446 $1,734,763 $1,264,363 Rebates Awarded $3,815,041 $782,267 $633,344 Total Investment $64,892,566 $6,218,836 $1,273,662 Fuel Savings (Gallons) 9,425,529 3,104,756 1,949,775 Fuel Savings ($) $10,046,796 $2,560,462 $2,698,632 Number of Vehicles 341 41 136 The benefits of the program are reasonably distributed throughout the state (Figure 1). There is, however, a strong concentration of both rebates awarded and total investment in the Tampa Bay and South Florida regions. North Central Florida is perhaps the region that benefited from the FY 2014-2015 program most, as a large number of counties in this area received rebates. The three westernmost counties in the Panhandle received a significant amount of rebates, and Escambia County, in particular, received a large amount of investment in alternative fuels as a result of the program. Figure 1. Geographic distribution of rebates and total investment Section Four: Contribution to Florida s Economy The data collected through the application process and summarized in Section 3 can be used to create a regional economic model that tracks the flow of expenditures and savings that result from the program through Florida s economy. The model was created using the Impact Analysis for Planning (IMPLAN) software v3.1 with statewide Florida data for 2011. IMPLAN is an input/output tool that characterizes spending patterns and relationships between households and industries, and is one of the most widely used and well known platforms for modeling economic impacts and contributions. 5

Several indicators are used in regional economic models to characterize the impact or contribution of an activity or a set of activities on the economy. Employment refers to full- and part-time employment for one year. Labor income is an employee s total payroll cost as paid by the employer, including wages and salary, all benefits, and payroll taxes, as well as income earned by proprietors and self-employed professionals. Total value added includes all profits, indirect business taxes and payments to households (such as investment income). Finally, output is the total value of industry production. Regional economic models generally report three types of impacts or effects. Direct effects refer to total spending in the program or activity of interest. Indirect effects result from changes in the demand of factor inputs caused by the program or activity under study. Induced effects result from households and workers spending the money earned as a result of the program or activity of interest. Table 5. Total investment expenditures driving the regional economic model. Sector Description Amount Automotive Repair and Maintenance, Except Car Washes (414) Conversions are performed by trained auto and truck maintenance specialists. Expenses in this category include the incremental costs of conversions. $1,264,363 Light Truck and Utility Vehicle Manufacturing (277) Heavy Duty Truck Manufacturing (278) Natural Gas Distribution (32) One third of the total investment from new vehicle $23,703,800.67 purchases and leases is assumed to be expenses in this sector. One third of the total investment from new vehicle $23,703,800.67 purchases and leases is assumed to be expenses in this sector. One third of the total investment from new vehicle $23,713,099.67 purchases and leases is assumed to be expenses in this sector. In addition, this sector includes the excess investment from conversions not included as automotive repairs. TOTAL $72,385,064.00 To determine the economic contribution of the program, the total investment reported by program applicants was used as the change in final demand as a consequence of the program. This change in final demand is assumed to take place in four sectors (Table 5). Similarly, the fuel savings reported by program applicants are also modeled as drivers of final demand in the sectors that benefit from these savings (Table 6). That is, savings by a particular sector are assumed to be used to generate an equivalent value in services by the same sector. 6

Table 6. Total fuel savings driving the regional economic model. Sector Description Amount Waste Management and 20% of fuel savings are assumed to benefit waste $3,061,178 Remediation Services (390) management companies. Transport by Truck (335) 30% of fuel savings are assumed to benefit freight transport companies. $4,591,767 State and Local Government Passenger Transit (430) Other State and Local Government Enterprises (432) 30% of fuel savings are assumed to benefit local government entities engaged in public or school related ground transportation. 20% of fuel savings are assumed to benefit local governments whose employees will be using more efficient fleets for local government business related transportation. $4,591,767 $3,061,178 TOTAL $15,305,890 Regional economic model results are summarized in Table 7. The program fostered an estimated $87.6 million in direct expenditures, which includes $72.3 million of total investment in alternative energy related to the program and $15.3 million in fuel savings statewide. An estimated 627 jobs were created or retained as a result of the program, and the total economic contribution of the program to Florida s economy in FY 2014-2015 was estimated at $147.4 million. Table 7. Direct, indirect and induced effects from the program in FY 2014-2015. Impact Type Employment Labor Income Value Added Output Direct Effect 245.4 $14,011,736 $4,005,107 $87,690,956 Indirect Effect 203.9 $10,140,161 $16,231,333 $36,004,776 Induced Effect 178.3 $7,742,368 $13,973,150 $23,713,996 Total Effect 627.5 $31,894,266 $34,209,590 $147,409,728 Table 8 shows the ten sectors that saw the largest gains or retention in employment as a result of the program. State and local passenger transit is one of the largest beneficiaries of the program with 110 jobs created or retained. The natural gas industry, including distribution and extraction, is also a major beneficiary of the policy, and 47 jobs were created or retained in these two sectors. A number of jobs were also created in the manufacturing of heavy duty trucks and the transportation and wholesale trade sectors. Due to the new infrastructure being built to support natural gas fuel vehicles in the state, the construction industry was also among the major beneficiaries, with 17 jobs created or retained. 7

Table 8. Top ten job producing sectors as a result of the program in FY 2014-2015. Description Employment Labor Income Value Added Output State and local government passenger transit 110.9 $6,891,288 ($8,598,015) $4,627,947 Transport by truck 43.3 $1,812,949 $2,205,806 $5,569,182 Wholesale trade businesses 23.7 $1,839,293 $3,218,270 $4,275,572 Natural gas distribution 23.6 $2,316,269 $5,645,800 $23,882,747 Extraction of oil and natural gas 23.3 $49,584 $171,402 $6,275,072 Food services and drinking places 23.2 $581,267 $831,533 $1,502,483 Automotive repair and maintenance, except car washes 22.7 $703,325 $816,616 $1,531,536 Heavy duty truck manufacturing 20.2 $522,656 $662,418 $23,718,415 Maintenance and repair construction of nonresidential structures 17.4 $869,992 $924,630 $1,672,359 Real estate establishments 17.1 $236,114 $1,827,300 $2,622,962 Section Five: Returns on Investment The program statistics summarized in Section Three, coupled with the economic contributions documented in Section Four, can be used to calculate the returns on the state of Florida s investment in the program in FY 2014-2015. Every $1 million that the state invests in awarding rebates for natural gas vehicle purchases, leases and conversions, fosters an incremental investment of $2.14 million, and a total investment in alternative fuels of over $13.8 million. Similarly, every $1 million invested in rebates promotes the creation or retention of 120 jobs paying a total of $6 million in labor income, or an average income of $50,826. In addition, every $1 million invested in the program spurs total contributions to Florida s gross domestic product (GDP) of $28.1 million. Table 9. Returns on Investment, per $1 million awarded in rebates Type of ROI FY2013-2014 FY2014-2015 Incremental Investment $2,237,492.80 $2,142,487.76 Total Investment $20,375,897.88 $13,837,440.75 Fuel Savings $1,007,761.63 $2,925,939.89 Employment 98.25 119.96 Labor Income $4,874,680.67 $6,097,045.33 Total Output $32,860,007.60 $28,179,478.82 8

Section Six: Conclusion The program made a substantial contribution to Florida s economy in FY 2014-2015. A total of $5.2 million was disbursed as rebates in all regions of the state for the purchase, lease or conversion of 518 vehicles, fostering a total investment of $72.3 million. This investment, coupled with $15.3 million in annual fuel savings, resulted in the creation or retention of 627 jobs paying an average yearly wage of $50,826. The total contribution to Florida s GDP as a result of this program is estimated at $147.4 million. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Office of Energy The Holland Building 600 S. Calhoun St., Ste. B04 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 (850) 617-7470 (850) 617-7471 Fax Energy@FreshFromFlorida.com 9