From the Cangzhou Case Study: Fuel-Powered vs. Pure Electric 3308 Yellow-Plate Sewage Treatment Vehicles — How Should Government Procurement Decide? At the end of 2025, a municipal sanitation department in Cangzhou issued a procurement notice to upgrade its sewage treatment equipment, seeking one 3308 yellow-plate sewage treatment vehicle. Such vehicles play a critical role in municipal pipeline maintenance, emergency sewage discharge, and river basin remediation. Facing soaring fuel costs and mounting environmental pressures, the procuring entity hesitated between conventional fuel-powered and emerging pure electric variants. This article uses the Cangzhou case as an entry point to compare the two powertrain options in terms of total cost of ownership, operational application scenarios, and infrastructure requirements, while also introducing Chengli Special Purpose Automobile’s electrification solutions to support government procurement decisions. I. Background of the Cangzhou Case: From Requirements to Tender The department routinely handles urban sewage pipeline cleaning and emergency response, requiring a 3308 yellow-plate chassis-based sewage treatment vehicle. According to publicly available tender information, the procurement budget was capped at approximately RMB 572,000, with mandatory requirements including sewage suction, solid-liquid separation, and emergency discharge capabilities, as well as compliance with either China VI emission standards or new-energy vehicle standards. Ultimately, Chengli Special Purpose Automobile delivered the vehicle, and the customer reported stable performance during operation. II. Cost Comparison: Fuel-Powered vs. Pure Electric — Which Is More Economical Over a 5-Year Lifecycle? Using Chengli’s 3308 yellow-plate sewage treatment vehicle (chassis options include Dongfeng and Sinotruk) as an example, we compare the total lifecycle cost of the fuel-powered and pure electric versions. Data are drawn from Chengli’s product database (e.g., model CLW5070GSSD6 technical specifications per official announcements) and industry benchmarks. Comparison Item Fuel-Powered Version (3308 Yellow-Plate) Pure Electric Version (3308 Yellow-Plate) Initial Purchase Price (based on public tender data) Approx. RMB 350,000–450,000 Approx. RMB 550,000–650,000 Annual Fuel/Energy Cost (15,000 km/year) Approx. RMB 25,000 (diesel @ RMB 6/L; consumption 30 L/100 km) Approx. RMB 6,000 (electricity @ RMB 0.6/kWh; consumption 40 kWh/100 km) Annual Maintenance & Service Cost Approx. RMB 8,000 (engine oil, filters, engine servicing) Approx. RMB 3,000 (motor & controller inspection; no engine maintenance required) Total 5-Year Cost (excluding subsidies) Approx. RMB 615,000 (vehicle + energy + maintenance) Approx. RMB 625,000 (vehicle + energy + maintenance) Total 5-Year Cost (including ~RMB 100,000 new-energy subsidy) Not applicable Approx. RMB 525,000 (subsidy-inclusive, more competitive) Emission Standard China VI; subject to annual inspection Zero emissions; compliant with green procurement policies Conclusion: Over a 5-year usage cycle, the pure electric version entails higher initial investment but significantly lower energy and maintenance costs. With the new-energy vehicle subsidy applied, the pure electric variant demonstrates superior economic viability—especially suitable for government procurement prioritizing environmental sustainability. III. Operational Scenario Differences: Fuel-Powered vs. Pure Electric Fuel-Powered Advantages: No range anxiety; ideal for long-distance operations or remote areas; widespread refueling infrastructure; mature service network (e.g., Dongfeng chassis covered by nationwide warranty). Pure Electric Advantages: Silent operation—ideal for nighttime or residential-area work; zero tailpipe emissions—aligned with carbon neutrality goals; high motor torque—well-suited for frequent start-stop cycles typical in sewage treatment operations. In the Cangzhou case, the department’