Hill Air Force Base hoped to reduce fuel costs and help the environment when it spent $535,300 to modify 144 vehicles so they could also run on compressed natural gas.

The only trouble was, drivers continued to use traditional unleaded gasoline in the cars three-fourths of the time.Not only did that prevent the hoped-for fuel cost savings and largely waste the money spent on conversion, it may cost the base another $340,000 unnecessarily because it may not be able to use all the compressed natural gas it already contracted to buy.

That's according to reports by the Air Force Audit Agency obtained by the Deseret News through a Freedom of Information Act request.

The financial problems result from orders intended to help the environment by forcing more use of alternative fuels.

Hill proceeded with conversion to compressed natural gas to comply with a 1991 executive order requiring federal agencies with more than 300 vehicles to develop a plan to reduce gasoline and diesel consumption by 10 percent by 1995.

So, in 1994 it spent $535,300 to convert 144 vehicles - or about $3,700 each - so they could run both on compressed natural gas (CNG) and gasoline. CNG tanks only allow a range of about 75 miles before refueling or switching to regular gasoline.

Auditors noted that the fuel "has historically been 20 to 30 cents less per gallon than unleaded gasoline" - which could bring fuel savings of about $62,000 over six years for the converted cars - and its use "reduces engine wear, lowering vehicle maintenance costs."

Auditors said the fuel also "reduces carbon monoxide emissions up to 93 percent and reactive hydrocarbons up to 51 percent."

But auditors said, "Vehicle operators were not educated on the economic and environmental benefits of CNG and tended to use the fuel they were most familiar with (unleaded gasoline)."

Auditors also said that officers who were aware of the benefits also were not given fuel usage data that could have prompted them that they needed to better promote use of CNG.

So, not surprisingly, auditors found that for 142 cars they looked at, unleaded gasoline was used 72 percent of the time - using 45,068 gallons of gasoline in 1994 compared to only 17,586 gallons of CNG.

Complicating matters is that Hill contracted with a supplier to provide the base a CNG filling station, and agreed to buy at least 657,000 gallons of it over five years.

That's an average of 131,239 gallons a year. But the base bought only 19,000 gallons in 1994. So, "Hill AFB could have a significant liability at the end of the five-year contractual agreement," auditors said.

"Assuming the 1994 consumption rates were representative, we estimate the liability could be $340,000," they said.

Hill officials have agreed to take several steps to increase CNG use, including telling drivers about its benefits, monitoring use better and setting goals of having a 90-10 or so ratio of CNG to gasoline in converted cars.

View Comments

Hill officials also said the 1994 usage may not be typical because some converted cars had trouble with CNG, which may be why some used so much more gasoline.

They also noted the mission of some cars did not allow them to use a high percentage of CNG. For example, some cars were used to make a 250-mile round trip to the Utah Test and Training Range, but with "CNG averaging only 75 miles per tank, we show CNG being utilized to the maximum extent possible."

Auditors also complained that individual squadrons at Hill had not been given copies of fuel charges so they could review them for accuracy, and to ensure charges for other units were not assigned to them.

Auditors said they found instances of fuel being charged to the wrong unit and vehicle because of errors in coding on fuel keys that allow personnel to "self-serve" vehicles and have fuel charged automatically.

Join the Conversation
Looking for comments?
Find comments in their new home! Click the buttons at the top or within the article to view them — or use the button below for quick access.